The Murder of Trayvon Martin

[TonyB06]

Originally Posted by Kevin

The burden will be on the state to prove that Martin was not the aggressor. Not the other way around. Innocent 'til proven guilty. If Zimmerman was just following and was in a place he had a legal right to be, there's no duty to retreat. If that was the case and Martin attacked and caused the injuries described, I'd say lethal force was privileged at that point.

A broken nose is pretty hard to make up. Zimmerman's legal team is playing this exactly right. They're holding everything back until and if they have to deal with it in court. They don't have to convince the public that they're innocent. Just the Judge at the preliminary hearing or the Jury at trial.



Well, assuming Zimmerman's story is true (and I don't know what evidence there is to contradict it), vigilante justice isn't the story. We may just be talking about a cautionary tale for neighborhood watchers where if they scare the folks they are watching, they may end up being jumped.

Starting with the audio tape evidence that Zimmerman was following Martin, and, obviously continued to do so after being told not to by a police dispatcher, that would make Zimmerman the agressor in the minds of most reasonable people. Add to that the fact that Martin was unarmed and according to reports no more than 500 feet from his destination, Martin suddenly turning to attack his pursurer is not as reasonably plausible as other scenarios.


If Zimmerman had a legal right to not retreat, so to did Martin. If you cannot prove Zimmerman attacked, how can you prove Martin attacked? Yet Martin is dead. Other audio evidence regarding timeline and the confrontation, calls into question motives that night.

You mentioned Martin's past juvenile record, so I assume you think Zimmerman's 2005 attack on a police officer will be fair game as well?

Even if Zimmerman's nose is broken (we'll see) that's not proof that he still was not the agressor. Broken noses usually result in lots of lost blood. Yet Zimmerman's shirt appeared to be virtually free of blood (from video), and his face was bandage-free, 35 minutes after the confrontation. Add to that the EMT, heard on audio cancelling the second ambulance (meant for Zimmerman). There are plenty of reasons for reasonable minds to question the severity of the alleged injuries and whether deadly force was necesary.

There indeed are plenty of questions to be answered in the case.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by TonyB06

If Zimmerman had a legal right to not retreat, so to did Martin. If you cannot prove Zimmerman attacked, how can you prove Martin attacked? Yet Martin is dead. Other audio evidence regarding timeline and the confrontation, calls into question motives that night.

The state will have to prove that Zimmerman attacked. Not that it was likely or plausible that he attacked.

You mentioned Martin's past juvenile record, so I assume you think Zimmerman's 2005 attack on a police officer will be fair game as well?

If Zimmerman takes the stand, it could be introduced that he plead to resisting an officer without violence.

Even if Zimmerman's nose is broken (we'll see) that's not proof that he still was not the agressor. Broken noses usually result in lots of lost blood. Yet Zimmerman's shirt appeared to be virtually free of blood (from video), and his face was bandage-free, 35 minutes after the confrontation. Add to that the EMT, heard on audio cancelling the second ambulance (meant for Zimmerman). There are plenty of reasons for reasonable minds to question the severity of the alleged injuries and whether deadly force was necesary.

You don't have to wait until you've suffered severe injuries to defend yourself. Don't be so obtuse.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by Kevin

You don't have to wait until you've suffered severe injuries to defend yourself. Don't be so obtuse.

But to defend yourself with lethal force against someone half your age and half your size? That's a bit much.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

But to defend yourself with lethal force against someone half your age and half your size? That's a bit much.

Size isn't everything.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Size isn't everything.

True, but if a lanky 13 year old walked past me, my first instinct would not be "kill it with fire"

But, as you and others have stated, hopefully all of this will get sorted out with the investigation(s).

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

True, but if a lanky 13 year old walked past me, my first instinct would not be "kill it with fire"

But, as you and others have stated, hopefully all of this will get sorted out with the investigation(s).

Martin was 17.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

Martin was 17.

I thought Zimmerman was older, so I was referring to the "half my age" thing I said earlier. I didn't realize he was only 28.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

True, but if a lanky 13 year old walked past me, my first instinct would not be "kill it with fire"

He was a 17-year-old football player with a juvenile drug conviction in a neighborhood with a crime problem.

But, as you and others have stated, hopefully all of this will get sorted out with the investigation(s).

That's all I'm saying. Calling this thread, for example, "The Murder of Trayvon Martin" presumes an awful lot. There has been information released to the public which doesn't fit with that narrative and there seems to be information which corroborates Zimmerman's account of things.

[ZTAOnlytheBest]

Originally Posted by Kevin

He was a 17-year-old football player with a juvenile drug conviction in a neighborhood with a crime problem.

Everything I've read says he was not in any legal trouble, but was just suspended from school. And it was for having marijuana. I'm sorry but I just don't really see that as a big deal.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I never said that. I said that Zimmerman's neighborhood, though gated, had recently had some crime.

OK, I see.

I read this...

Originally Posted by Kevin

He was a 17-year-old football player with a juvenile drug conviction in a neighborhood with a crime problem.

.. as "Trayvon had a drug conviction in his own high-crime neighborhood"

As for the marijuana conviction, I do think that's relevant. I'm not suggesting reefer madness, but I am suggesting that someone who partakes in illegal narcotics is by definition someone who doesn't mind breaking the law when it suits them to.

I can't seem to find it now, but I remember reading about Zimmerman's (violent) priors somewhere. If I wasn't imagining that, then that would be relevant as well.

[TonyB06]

Originally Posted by Kevin

You don't have to wait until you've suffered severe injuries to defend yourself. Don't be so obtuse.

Save the ad hominem. Zimmerman's surrogates claim he was beaten severely, and his fear led him to shoot Martin. Hopefully, a jury will get to decide whether they saw sufficient "injury" to fuel the fear his surrogates say led to his actions.