<p>I took martial arts training about 30 years ago. Early in the training, you learn what areas can incapacitate and which areas can kill. I guess the idea is that you have a choice depending on the circumstances. It’s also probably so that you avoid injuring or killing someone while learning self-defense.</p>
<p>I had a read on pitching speeds of little-league players. Kids 11-12 can throw fastballs on average of 50-60 MPH with some getting up to 70 MPH. This is why little-league players (and pro players) wear helmets.</p>
<p>“Trayvon was shot in the heart, from 1-18” distance. Was there truly no other alternative?"</p>
<p>BCEagle91: “What would you suggest?”</p>
<p>How about shooting him in the knee? Or foot? Or shin? Or thigh? That would have disabled him enough to allow Z time to step away to safety, if he felt his life was in danger, and would have allowed time for the police to arrive.</p>
<p>He told me the guy was getting real close to him. And the next I hear is [Trayvon saying], ‘Why are you following me for?’ … I heard this man… say, ‘What are you doing around here?’ </p>
<p>So this stranger who suppossedly was going back to the mailboxes or truck is “getting real close to” TM. Why didn’t Z say “My name is George Zimmerman and I am part of the community watch for the development -do you live here or are you visiting someone?” It possibly would have had a different ending.</p>
<p>I think that everyone agrees that that is what he should have done.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>The implication in your first sentence is that Trayvon was hiding. Zimmerman didn’t necessarily find him, T could have come out from hiding to ask that question.</p>
<p>^ exactly kleibo, this is what I was saying. this is where I think Z’s claim that he had gone back to his car, doesn’t make sense.</p>
<p>BC-- I would suggest threatening to use the gun before shooting, or as Eastcoastcrazy said, shoot to harm, not KILL. </p>
<p>Bay–I don’t believe Z was stalking with the intent to murder, but I do believe he profiled Trayvon, (and before you tell me that Z has a black friend, this would not mean he could not still profile someone) and went after him on foot to protect the community. however his own angry, suspicious mind interfered in the process, imho. He assumed Trayvon was a criminal and acted as if he was.</p>
<p>Someone is sitting on top of your chest. You pull out a gun and aim it at the person. The other person can swat the gun away in a sweeping motion with either arm in a fraction of a second. Or they could grab your wrist and rotate the gun 90 degrees to point at your body. Go to YouTube and look up defense against a gun. If the person with the gun is some distance away, self-defense isn’t going to help you - you need the person with the gun to be pretty close to employ self-defense.</p>
<p>Clearly. His previous experience was that robbers hung out in the area that Trayvon was at when it was raining and there were a few other things that fit the profile. Police do this too - they look for a pattern of crime.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>He has a black friend and I think that his grandmother was black. If you want to bring race into it, be my guest. If you want to talk about profiling - that can be the same thing or a different thing. But if you see a pattern, then you look for the pattern to intercept it.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Yes. He verbally confronted him based on his assumptions though he didn’t start the verbal confrontation.</p>
<p>And I don’t believe that Z meant to kill TM either. But he did so many things wrong to get him into that position. Sit in the car and wait for police. Don’t walk after him - don’t run after him. Listen to 911 operator. At confrontation - identify yourself.</p>
<p>He was already out of the car and chasing him when the 911 operator told him that they didn’t need him to chase. T lost Z. Z says that he was headed back to his car/truck. Some assume that he was chasing T but that seems unlikely given the evidence in the phone calls. Some think that he was looking for T. There’s no concrete evidence showing that. It’s possible that Z came near T’s hiding place and he stood up with a verbal confrontation.</p>
<p>The operator said: we don’t need you to do that.</p>
<p>That’s all that they said.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>The operator didn’t say this.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I think that horse has been beaten to death.</p>
<p>So a person who is being followed and run after doesn’t have the right to ask - why are you following me. You call that a verbal confrontation. I call that a damn good question in which Z should have answered by identifying himself. He made it into a real confrontation by not identifying himself and inappropriately questioning TM. At that point TM had every right to be where he was. He was doing no wrong.</p>
<p>From a link I posted previously, residents had done this many times. Residents had spotted suspicious activity, seen the perpetrators, but did nothing while they waited for the police. The police almost never got there before the criminals escaped.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>He should have identified himself at least, but then, TM should have as well. As for listening to the 911 operator, maybe he should have done that, I just want to know if there is a law requiring him to listen to them. Are they an authority like the police?</p>
<p>Also, not related to this case, my mom read that his dad didn’t know where TM was that night, just assumed that he was at his cousin’s house. She couldn’t understand why he was unaccounted for before his dad went to sleep.</p>
<p>“According to the state’s “stand your ground” statute, a defendant doesn’t need to be at risk of death, but rather at risk of “death or great bodily harm.””</p>
<p>One “legal expert” I heard said Stand Your Ground doesn’t apply because Z confronted M, that M would have been justified in shooting Z by that statute.</p>
<p>The 911 operator didn’t say that he should identify himself. Those are two separate thoughts. The 911 operator didn’t tell him to go to his truck and didn’t give him any command at all. After he stopped chasing, they were working on the logistics of Z meeting up with the police officers.</p>
<p>“A defendant, under Florida law, loses his “stand your ground” defense if he provoked the encounter — but he retains traditional self-defense if he reasonably believed his life was in danger and his only recourse was to employ deadly force.”</p>
<p>“Thus, if Zimmerman verbally provoked Martin, but Martin then got on top of Zimmerman and banged his head into the ground, broke his nose, bloodied his eyes and persisted in attacking Zimmerman — and if Zimmerman couldn’t protect himself from further attack except by shooting Martin — he would have the right to do that.”</p>
<p>"… Martin then got on top of Zimmerman and banged his head into the ground, broke his nose, bloodied his eyes and persisted in attacking Zimmerman …"</p>
<p>But the police video of Z proves this didn’t happen, right?</p>