<p>I don’t know, I think back to how everyone jumped at the Duke lacrosse case and turned out to be wrong. I think it’s best to let the wheels of justice, as imperfect as they may be, turn and get all the facts on the table.</p>
<p>Though owning a gun for protection strikes me as bubba-ish. But I freely admit that’s my northern liberal sensibilities driving that.</p>
<p>The self-defense defense depends on who threw the first punch. And since Martin is dead, no doubt Zimmerman will say that Martin threw the first punch, knocked him to the ground, and was beating on him so that he had no choice but to draw his gun and fire. </p>
<p>I don’t think that getting out of a car and walking up to a person constitutes an aggressive act. Foolish maybe, but Zimmerman was within his rights to do that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are completely correct. However, we do not know if that is what happened, or even remotely close to what happened.</p>
<p>[George</a> Zimmerman’s injuries Pictures - CBS News](<a href=“http://www.cbsnews.com/2300-201_162-10012334.html?tag=page]George”>http://www.cbsnews.com/2300-201_162-10012334.html?tag=page) </p>
<p>For someone who was beaten to a pulp - Z looks pretty good to me. I’ve looked worse after weeding and yard work. I mean photo #6 looks like he’s about to go out for lunch. This is the guy that had TM on top of him and was defending himself. Shirt nicely tucked in. Wouldn’t have TM slumped right on top of him after being shot? But there is no visible blood or powder stains. </p>
<p>It’s just my opinion, but was his only alternative was to shoot this kid? </p>
<p>I will let the trial unfold. But to me it’s very hard when one party is not able to defend himself.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>What would a police officer do in a similar situation? Someone hitting you in the those areas can kill you or cause brain damage.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>As far as I can tell, forensic evidence has backed up what Zimmerman has said to date.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Assuming Zimmerman’s account is true, a 6’ young man was straddling him while he lay on his back on the ground, punching him in the face (his doctor’s report says Z’s nose was fractured and he had 2 black eyes the next day), slamming his head into the ground, and Zimmerman was screaming for help. What other alternatives can you think of?</p>
<p>Bay, the perfect response for the perfect reason to never own a gun.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I was under the impression that, historically, self defense cases have not gone well in situations where deadly force was not being used against deadly force… ie, you don’t have the right to kill someone in self defense unless you have “reasonable” fear that they are actually going to KILL you. Is that not true? That’s certainly what I’ve been seeing quite a lot of when I’ve studied court decisions, but my focus has more been in domestic violence situations.</p>
<p>If that were the case, even if Trayvon were beating Zimmerman I’d be surprised if he could justify that he needed to use his gun to defend himself… he was a kid. It’s possible that he would have but I at least have doubt.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>This “kid” weighed 150 pounds. There are 120 and 130 pound female tennis players than can hit serves in the 120 MPH range. Imagine something weighing a pound hitting the bridge of your nose at that speed.</p>
<p>I can agree with that. My line of thought is coming from the case law I have studied where women were convicted of murder after killing their husbands who were in the process of beating them, that’s where my very limited legal background is coming from-- in those cases they were convicted because, by the judge’s estimation, deadly force was not used against deadly force (paraphrasing, of course). So, I am surprised if the law will be that cut and dry in this case. It seems it rarely is. In the cases I studied there are obviously a lot of variables, particularly prejudices of the time period, so maybe it will work out differently. I thought that it had to be very, very obvious, from a legal standpoint and not a common sense standpoint, that the persons life is in grave danger, and historically I didn’t think being beaten up was enough to justify that even if common sense would dictate otherwise.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t follow you, parent1986. If Z had not been carrying a gun, it is possible that he would have been the one who ended up dead or brain damaged. Would that not be a perfect reason to own a gun?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree. I do not see the facts in this case as “cut and dried” in either direction.</p>
<p>Bay, the police told him not to get out of the car. If he didn’t own a gun he wouldn’t have gotten out of the car. He called 911 and his involvement should have ended there. The gun made him falsely brave.</p>
<p>Do we know anything at all about this confrontation besides what we can glean from Zimmerman’s injuries?</p>
<p>I know even less about guns than I do about the law, but I am wondering how he could have gotten the gun out of wherever he was keeping it and gotten it in his hand properly to fire, if he was pinned to the ground getting the living daylights beaten out of him by someone who was apparently physically superior to him (if he had no other choice but to use deadly force to stop the boy, that would appear to be the case.) </p>
<p>What I am getting at is, I wonder if he already had the gun drawn when he got out of the car. Whichcase, Trayvon would have had a damn good reason to feel at risk of having deadly force used against him.</p>
<p>But if there’s no way to know what really happened, I don’t know what the court will do…</p>
<p>I am trying not to be prejudiced in favor of the boy, because I probably know even less about this case than the rest of the world, but as Zimmerman was pursuing Martin I am having trouble processing the idea that Zimmerman’s feeling threatened enough to use the gun trumps Martin’s feeling threatened by being stalked by a man with a gun.</p>
<p>A scenario I can easily see is that Zimmerman got out of the car to pursue Martin, and may or may not have had a gun visible. I think we established that Trayvon knew he was being followed-- didn’t he text a friend? I could see him turning to confront someone he thought was following him and throwing the first punch… that seems like the sort of bullheaded thing a young man would do, and explains how he ended up on top of Zimmerman. I sincerely do not know how to evaluate that kind of a scenario legally… I can see it too many different ways.</p>
<p>I knew the facts would be murky in this case, and they’ll stay murky. Whatever the final resolution is, people who have formed opinions based on partial facts will think that a grave injustice has been done.</p>
<p>
It’s possible to agree with this and still think that the vigilante may not be not guilty of a crime. The solution would be to ban (or regulate) vigilantes, not necessarily to punish individuals who haven’t violated a law.</p>
<p>Of course, I don’t even know the background of why this neighborhood had a watch program. Does anybody?</p>
<p>Florida law allows much more latitude in self-defense claims than some other states.</p>
<p>Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah
Dispatcher: Ok, we don’t need you to do that.
Zimmerman: Ok
Dispatcher: Alright sir what is your name?
Zimmerman: George…He ran.
Dispatcher: Alright George what’s your last name?
Zimmerman: Zimmerman
Dispatcher: And George what’s the phone number you’re calling from?</p>
<p>It looks like he complied with the dispatcher.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, I think the 911 dispatcher (not a police officer) told Z “he didn’t have to do that,” when Z indicated he was following Martin.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps, but these are your assumptions based on what evidence? It is possible that Z would have followed Martin whether he possessed or gun or not, particularly if Z had no intention of actually confronting Martin, but rather to keep an eye on his whereabouts until the police arrived. There is no way to know this for sure.</p>
<p>I also recall the facts being in dispute about who actually confronted whom in the end. Didn’t Z say he was returning to his car when Martin showed up and asked “Why are you following me?” thus initiating the confrontation.</p>
<p>There are too many unknowns at this point to jump to the conclusion.</p>
<p>BC - how can you tell he complied. So he can’t answer basic questions and continue to follow?</p>
<p>Bay - "There are too many unknowns at this point to jump to the conclusion. " Unfortunately we are only getting one side of the story.</p>