Trayvon Martin. Why are we not talking about this?

[AGBF]

Hi, Gypsy-

I want to address something that I don't really feel has been addressed sufficiently in this thread.

You are a lawyer and you think like a lawyer. For you the tragedy is a legal case about individuals, about whether one individual could be fairly and successfully prosecuted or not. President Obama (also a lawyer) prudently waited until the Justice Department had made a decision about whether to prosecute this case before he commented on it for similar reasons (not wanting to influence the outcome of the trial for an individual who might be tried).

In my opinion there are other issues besides the possible legal punishment of a guilty party for murder of an unarmed youth. There is the larger need of society to raise awareness about the perils of a diabolic law that affects everyone and its egregious abuses and the racism of our society.

I do not see people who want to change the Stand Your Ground Law as wanting revenge! I see them as reformers.

Deb/AGBF

Just a quick point of clarification. I am a practicing attorney (who has actually been involved in a many many criminal cases as a judicial clerk and my pro-bono work in private practice) and I do not agree with Gypsy either in tone or content. I can further assure you that not all lawyers feel the way Gypsy does on this matter. Indeed, the vast majority of my friends are attorneys and they similarly outraged at what occurred and the slow response and investigation. One does not lose one's sense of compassion and justice when one becomes a member of the bar. Indeed, it should be quite the opposite.

Further, not all lawyers try to make their point by belittling those that have expressed an opinion and calling them ignorant.

And we wonder why people dislike lawyers.

Hi, littlelysser-

I am glad that you are outraged about what happened to Trayvon Martin, because I think that what happened to him occurred because of racism and a bad law that need light shed on them.

I want to be clear that it was not my intent to post that I felt critical of Gypsy's content or tone, however. I merely said that her viewpoint was different from mine in that she placed her emphasis on the individual whereas I felt it needed to be placed on reforming the law and society and that I believed she placed her emphasis where she did because she was a lawyer.

Deb/AGBF

 

[iheartscience]

Well, I signed the parents' petition online. But now I've read this story. If this is the way it went down I couldn't support a prosecution.


http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-26/news/os-trayvon-martin-zimmerman-account-20120326_1_marijuana-report-press-conference-gated-community

I find it EXTREMELY hard to believe that a kid could knock down and beat up a man who weighed 100 more pounds than him. EXTREMELY hard to believe. My husband only weighs about 40 pounds more than me and I can't keep him pinned down while trying to tickle him, let alone bash his head in the ground repeatedly. If you're pinning someone down and bashing their head in, you either have to weigh enough to keep them pinned down with your body weight, or you have to have an extra arm.

And even if Trayvon Martin actually had managed to pin down and bash George Zimmerman's head against the ground, Trayvon Martin should have been shielded from prosecution by the Stand Your Ground law, since George Zimmerman was the one who follwed him against the advice of a police dispatcher.

 

[MissStepcut]

Well, I signed the parents' petition online. But now I've read this story. If this is the way it went down I couldn't support a prosecution.


http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-26/news/os-trayvon-martin-zimmerman-account-20120326_1_marijuana-report-press-conference-gated-community

Based on his account and injuries, it certainly is easier to understand why, in light of the Stand Your Ground law's arrest requirements, the police haven't made an arrest.

 

[TravelingGal]

I'm still waiting to see more information come out...I don't think this case is black or white (no pun intended).

As for public outcry, it can be a good thing, but sometimes I think we need to be careful so it's not this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQI8pZJiMe0

(plus the video is classic and amusing.)

 

[Imdanny]

Well, I signed the parents' petition online. But now I've read this story. If this is the way it went down I couldn't support a prosecution.


http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-26/news/os-trayvon-martin-zimmerman-account-20120326_1_marijuana-report-press-conference-gated-community

I will not believe one word these so called authorities say until I see it with my own eyes.

Trayvon Martin's mother is on camera (and his father) telling us this is her son's voice on the tape pleading for help.

I do not believe Zimmerman. I have no confidence in the Sandford police department.

Trayvon Martin was on the phone with a friend when he was killed. She can speak to whether Trayvon Martin was being stalked.

Again, please give me a link to a witness proving Trayvon Martin turned around and attacked Zimmerman while Zimmerman was trying to reach the safety of his vehicle.

I don't believe any such link exists.

 

[MissStepcut]

Well, I signed the parents' petition online. But now I've read this story. If this is the way it went down I couldn't support a prosecution.


http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-26/news/os-trayvon-martin-zimmerman-account-20120326_1_marijuana-report-press-conference-gated-community

I will not believe one word these so called authorities say until I see it with my own eyes.

Trayvon Martin's mother is on camera (and his father) telling us this is her son's voice on the tape pleading for help.

I do not believe Zimmerman. I have no confidence in the Sandford police department.

Trayvon Martin was on the phone with a friend when he was killed. She can speak to whether Trayvon Martin was being stalked.

Again, please give me a link to a witness proving Trayvon Martin turned around and attacked Zimmerman while Zimmerman was trying to reach the safety of his vehicle.

I don't believe any such link exists.

So you think the authorities are lying when they say multiple witnesses are claiming to have seen that? Perhaps they are, but I find it strange that you immediately jump to the conclusion that it's a lie.

 

[PetitiePoire]

Well, I signed the parents' petition online. But now I've read this story. If this is the way it went down I couldn't support a prosecution.


http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-26/news/os-trayvon-martin-zimmerman-account-20120326_1_marijuana-report-press-conference-gated-community

I will not believe one word these so called authorities say until I see it with my own eyes.

Trayvon Martin's mother is on camera (and his father) telling us this is her son's voice on the tape pleading for help.

I do not believe Zimmerman. I have no confidence in the Sandford police department.

Trayvon Martin was on the phone with a friend when he was killed. She can speak to whether Trayvon Martin was being stalked.

Again, please give me a link to a witness proving Trayvon Martin turned around and attacked Zimmerman while Zimmerman was trying to reach the safety of his vehicle.

I don't believe any such link exists.

Through the link above I found this: http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin-shooter-teenager-gun/story?id=16000239#.T3DYEdVVXF8

I only read the article, didn't watch the video, but it provides the latest updates including a (albeit young) 13 year old eyewitness. Just thought I'd share.

 

[lulu]

My only point is that none of us knows what really happened. Zimmerman had injuries-the police observed them. I've spent enough time trying cases in my life (albeit primarily civil) to know that getting to the truth of something like this is complicated. And I'm willing to let a grand jury sort it out.

 

[Imdanny]

It appears this law does not apply to the person [Zimmerman] who killed Martin after all:

http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2010/776.041

Someone posted the statute earlier, and I don't think anyone is saying it definitely applies to him based on the facts the media is putting out there. The question still remains though: what facts to the police have to prove to arrest him, in light of this law, and in light of Zimmerman claiming to be protected under it? By all accounts, it's a higher bar than arrests usually are, and I still am not sure why everyone else is so convinced that the authorities are wrong.

Please cite a statute showing invocation of a claim of self-defense sets a 'bar'. I can't find one. If you find one, please tell me why the exemptions in the statute I cited do not apply.

 

[MissStepcut]

It appears this law does not apply to the person [Zimmerman] who killed Martin after all:

http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2010/776.041

Someone posted the statute earlier, and I don't think anyone is saying it definitely applies to him based on the facts the media is putting out there. The question still remains though: what facts to the police have to prove to arrest him, in light of this law, and in light of Zimmerman claiming to be protected under it? By all accounts, it's a higher bar than arrests usually are, and I still am not sure why everyone else is so convinced that the authorities are wrong.

Please cite a statute showing invocation of a claim of self-defense sets a 'bar'. I can't find one. If you find one, please tell me why the exemptions in the statute I cited do not apply.

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

The exemptions you cite may very well apply, but that's a factual determination that needs to be made, and there seems to be a dispute as to the facts, with witnesses providing testimony tending to support both sides.

 

[TravelingGal]

Well, I signed the parents' petition online. But now I've read this story. If this is the way it went down I couldn't support a prosecution.


http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-26/news/os-trayvon-martin-zimmerman-account-20120326_1_marijuana-report-press-conference-gated-community

I find it EXTREMELY hard to believe that a kid could knock down and beat up a man who weighed 100 more pounds than him. EXTREMELY hard to believe. My husband only weighs about 40 pounds more than me and I can't keep him pinned down while trying to tickle him, let alone bash his head in the ground repeatedly. If you're pinning someone down and bashing their head in, you either have to weigh enough to keep them pinned down with your body weight, or you have to have an extra arm.

And even if Trayvon Martin actually had managed to pin down and bash George Zimmerman's head against the ground, Trayvon Martin should have been shielded from prosecution by the Stand Your Ground law, since George Zimmerman was the one who follwed him against the advice of a police dispatcher.

T2, I don't have a solid opinion on the story yet, but you are assuming they started on equal footing (again, I don't know what happened, but I'm just hypothesizing here). If there was any element of surprise, someone who is lighter could certainly knock someone down. If there was any running start, you could knock someone down who was heavier than you. If you got one good head bash in, the person would be shocked enough not to be able to fight back right away.

I only say this because my 35 lb daughter has gotten a running start and taken me down when I wasn't expecting it. I weigh...well, a LOT more than her.

 

[Imdanny]

Well, I signed the parents' petition online. But now I've read this story. If this is the way it went down I couldn't support a prosecution.


http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-26/news/os-trayvon-martin-zimmerman-account-20120326_1_marijuana-report-press-conference-gated-community

http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2010/776.041

I will not believe one word these so called authorities say until I see it with my own eyes.

Trayvon Martin's mother is on camera (and his father) telling us this is her son's voice on the tape pleading for help.

I do not believe Zimmerman. I have no confidence in the Sandford police department.

Trayvon Martin was on the phone with a friend when he was killed. She can speak to whether Trayvon Martin was being stalked.

Again, please give me a link to a witness proving Trayvon Martin turned around and attacked Zimmerman while Zimmerman was trying to reach the safety of his vehicle.

I don't believe any such link exists.

Through the link above I found this: http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin-shooter-teenager-gun/story?id=16000239#.T3DYEdVVXF8
I only read the article, didn't watch the video, but it provides the latest updates including a (albeit young) 13 year old eyewitness. Just thought I'd share.

Thank you for the link but please read my question again.

 

[Gypsy]

The reason I'm not upset about this is because I think the public is hindering, not helping in this case. Too many people do not understand our justice system. All they want is revenge. They don't understand that our legal system isn't about revenge. It's about justice and there are laws in place to see that it is served.

Hi, Gypsy-

I want to address something that I don't really feel has been addressed sufficiently in this thread.

You are a lawyer and you think like a lawyer. For you the tragedy is a legal case about individuals, about whether one individual could be fairly and successfully prosecuted or not. President Obama (also a lawyer) prudently waited until the Justice Department had made a decision about whether to prosecute this case before he commented on it for similar reasons (not wanting to influence the outcome of the trial for an individual who might be tried).

In my opinion there are other issues besides the possible legal punishment of a guilty party for murder of an unarmed youth. There is the larger need of society to raise awareness about the perils of a diabolic law that affects everyone and its egregious abuses and the racism of our society.

I do not see people who want to change the Stand Your Ground Law as wanting revenge! I see them as reformers.

Deb/AGBF

AGBF. Thank you for your consideration. Yes, you have captured part of it for me. And if you look at my past posts in this thread, I think the stand your ground laws need reform as well. I also said that public outcry is helpful-- I just qualified it and said that it is only good to a point. When it spurs investigation and alerts the public to something suspicious it's good. But there is a point at which it becomes a hindrance. Especially when it reaches a crescendo that calls for blood and ignores the actual facts of what occurred. People want this man arrested. They don't care that it's illegal to arrest a man without cause. They fabricate cause and they want an arrest based on that fabrication. They feel that their rights outweigh an individual's fundamental right to liberty. And that is both wrong and unconstitutional. And they just do not care. And for me, that's a huge issue that "affects everyone" and is an "egregious abuse". It's frightening for me that people allow anger and fear to override individual liberties.

The other part of it is: If the facts of the case were really what the media story says then sure... the public should be outraged. But they aren't... as is coming out now. I guess I just don't understand the public getting upset over a fabricated fictional account that is based only the the thinnest of misinterpreted facts.

Danny, thank you and I agree.

As for my tone. Yes, it was harsh in this thread. But no harsher than demanding that a human being MUST lose his fundamental right to liberty and be put in jail based only on fabricated thin 'facts' while willfully ignoring reality. And yes, I have no problem believing that 75% of the public is ignorant of the challenges of criminal prosecution. You can dislike that I say it, and that's your right. *I* dislike it when people who have no clue about how our justice system works disparage it when I know our justice system works and that it is the best system out there. So we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Imdanny]

It appears this law does not apply to the person [Zimmerman] who killed Martin after all:

http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2010/776.041

Someone posted the statute earlier, and I don't think anyone is saying it definitely applies to him based on the facts the media is putting out there. The question still remains though: what facts to the police have to prove to arrest him, in light of this law, and in light of Zimmerman claiming to be protected under it? By all accounts, it's a higher bar than arrests usually are, and I still am not sure why everyone else is so convinced that the authorities are wrong.

Please cite a statute showing invocation of a claim of self-defense sets a 'bar'. I can't find one. If you find one, please tell me why the exemptions in the statute I cited do not apply.

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

The exemptions you cite may very well apply, but that's a factual determination that needs to be made, and there seems to be a dispute as to the facts, with witnesses providing testimony tending to support both sides.

Thank you for your reply. However, what I asked you is to cite a statue showing that the mere fact that e.g. Zimmerman invokes a claim of self-defense prohibits action on the part of police. This is what the Sanford police chief claimed on camera and various commentators on the Internet have said. I have yet to see a cite of a statute showing this.

 

[amc80]

Well, I signed the parents' petition online. But now I've read this story. If this is the way it went down I couldn't support a prosecution.


http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-26/news/os-trayvon-martin-zimmerman-account-20120326_1_marijuana-report-press-conference-gated-community

I find it EXTREMELY hard to believe that a kid could knock down and beat up a man who weighed 100 more pounds than him. EXTREMELY hard to believe. My husband only weighs about 40 pounds more than me and I can't keep him pinned down while trying to tickle him, let alone bash his head in the ground repeatedly. If you're pinning someone down and bashing their head in, you either have to weigh enough to keep them pinned down with your body weight, or you have to have an extra arm.

According to ABC News-

"While in life Trayvon Martin was barely 17, when it comes to justifiable homicide his size -- about 6-foot-3 and 150 pounds -- makes him an adult in death. Zimmerman, 28, is 5-foot-9 and weighs well over 200 pounds."

Weight isn't everything, and it definitely doesn't always have a correlation to strength. My DH has the same build as Martin and has no problem taking down guys who are much, much heavier (he's a cop).

 

[Karl_K]

I am not going to comment of what charges if any should be brought because I am not familiar with Florida law in that area and the true facts are being distorted by the press.
However I am very familiar with IL law in this area from working private security for many years and when you chase someone you become the aggressor and he would be charged with the IL equivalent of manslaughter.
Even the police are not allowed to chase other than under limited circumstances.

I am familiar with the Florida stand your ground law and in general it is a good law.
Why should someone who acts in legitimate self defense have to spend thousands of dollars in legal bills and the stress of a trial and civil suit?
It shifts the burden of proof to the DA/Police to prove it was not self defense before they press charges.
It also prevents civil suits from harming the victim who defended himself/herself.
That is a good thing, it protects innocent people who were forced to defend themselves from being made a further victim by the criminal system and law enforcement and civil lawyers.

However I am not sure it even applies, or should apply to this case.
It all comes down to Florida law as written then interpreted by the courts and the true facts of the case.

 

[Gypsy]

Well, I signed the parents' petition online. But now I've read this story. If this is the way it went down I couldn't support a prosecution.


http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-26/news/os-trayvon-martin-zimmerman-account-20120326_1_marijuana-report-press-conference-gated-community

I find it EXTREMELY hard to believe that a kid could knock down and beat up a man who weighed 100 more pounds than him. EXTREMELY hard to believe. My husband only weighs about 40 pounds more than me and I can't keep him pinned down while trying to tickle him, let alone bash his head in the ground repeatedly. If you're pinning someone down and bashing their head in, you either have to weigh enough to keep them pinned down with your body weight, or you have to have an extra arm.

According to ABC News-

"While in life Trayvon Martin was barely 17, when it comes to justifiable homicide his size -- about 6-foot-3 and 150 pounds -- makes him an adult in death. Zimmerman, 28, is 5-foot-9 and weighs well over 200 pounds."

Weight isn't everything, and it definitely doesn't always have a correlation to strength. My DH has the same build as Martin and has no problem taking down guys who are much, much heavier (he's a cop).

ame, we can't let a pesky thing like reality ruin a perfectly good public outrage.

 

[Maria D]

According to ABC News-

"While in life Trayvon Martin was barely 17, when it comes to justifiable homicide his size -- about 6-foot-3 and 150 pounds -- makes him an adult in death. Zimmerman, 28, is 5-foot-9 and weighs well over 200 pounds."

Weight isn't everything, and it definitely doesn't always have a correlation to strength. My DH has the same build as Martin and has no problem taking down guys who are much, much heavier (he's a cop).

The irony is of course that while Martin may have been "standing his ground" against a self-appointed watchman who was chasing him with a gun, he's too dead to enjoy his immunity from prosecution.

edited to add a comment to Gypsy's remark: why should this snippet change the public's outrage? Tall lanky kid may have attacked shorter stocky guy that was following him around with a gun. Very complicated, grand jury should investigate, oops can't do that because of police organization's interpretation of ridiculous law.

 

[iheartscience]

Well, I signed the parents' petition online. But now I've read this story. If this is the way it went down I couldn't support a prosecution.


http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-26/news/os-trayvon-martin-zimmerman-account-20120326_1_marijuana-report-press-conference-gated-community

I find it EXTREMELY hard to believe that a kid could knock down and beat up a man who weighed 100 more pounds than him. EXTREMELY hard to believe. My husband only weighs about 40 pounds more than me and I can't keep him pinned down while trying to tickle him, let alone bash his head in the ground repeatedly. If you're pinning someone down and bashing their head in, you either have to weigh enough to keep them pinned down with your body weight, or you have to have an extra arm.

According to ABC News-

"While in life Trayvon Martin was barely 17, when it comes to justifiable homicide his size -- about 6-foot-3 and 150 pounds -- makes him an adult in death. Zimmerman, 28, is 5-foot-9 and weighs well over 200 pounds."

Weight isn't everything, and it definitely doesn't always have a correlation to strength. My DH has the same build as Martin and has no problem taking down guys who are much, much heavier (he's a cop).

Right, but assuming that Trayvon Martin actually did turn and attack the man who was following him for no reason, I find it hard to believe that he was able to knock him down AND then hold him down while he bashed his head into the ground. I actually find that IMPOSSIBLE to believe.

I've wrestled my siblings growing up, I was on the school wrestling team in middle school, and me and my husband like to wrestle (in a non-sexual manner ) on occasion, and it is very hard to pin someone down, especially someone who is bigger than you, let alone pin someone down and then somehow bash their head into the ground several times. Just think of the logistics. You have to hold their arms down while using your own arms to grab their head and bash it into the ground. It doesn't add up for an incredibly skinny teenager (Trayvon Martin was 7 inches taller than me and only 20 pounds heavier than me, and most people think I'm pretty thin) to be able to do that to a grown man.

 

[MissStepcut]

It appears this law does not apply to the person [Zimmerman] who killed Martin after all:

http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2010/776.041

Someone posted the statute earlier, and I don't think anyone is saying it definitely applies to him based on the facts the media is putting out there. The question still remains though: what facts to the police have to prove to arrest him, in light of this law, and in light of Zimmerman claiming to be protected under it? By all accounts, it's a higher bar than arrests usually are, and I still am not sure why everyone else is so convinced that the authorities are wrong.

Please cite a statute showing invocation of a claim of self-defense sets a 'bar'. I can't find one. If you find one, please tell me why the exemptions in the statute I cited do not apply.

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

The exemptions you cite may very well apply, but that's a factual determination that needs to be made, and there seems to be a dispute as to the facts, with witnesses providing testimony tending to support both sides.

Thank you for your reply. However, what I asked you is to cite a statue showing that the mere fact that e.g. Zimmerman invokes a claim of self-defense prohibits action on the part of police. This is what the Sanford police chief claimed on camera and various commentators on the Internet have said. I have yet to see a cite of a statute showing this.

Well that isn't what you asked at all: "Please cite a statute showing invocation of a claim of self-defense sets a 'bar'."

It doesn't necessarily prohibit arrest, and I never said it did. It requires certain factual findings be done before they can arrest someone claiming this defense. A "higher bar," as I said.

As someone else in this thread already pointed out, one does wonder if the law is constitutional at all, since it sure does seem to require the police to play the role of a jury with regards to fact-finding. But operating under this law paradoxical, I really marvel at everyone's willingness to throw the police under the bus, especially the state lawmakers and governor.

 

[MissStepcut]

Right, but assuming that Trayvon Martin actually did turn and attack the man who was following him for no reason, I find it hard to believe that he was able to knock him down AND then hold him down while he bashed his head into the ground. I actually find that IMPOSSIBLE to believe.

I've wrestled my siblings growing up, I was on the school wrestling team in middle school, and me and my husband like to wrestle (in a non-sexual manner ) on occasion, and it is very hard to pin someone down, especially someone who is bigger than you, let alone pin someone down and then somehow bash their head into the ground several times. Just think of the logistics. You have to hold their arms down while using your own arms to grab their head and bash it into the ground. It doesn't add up for an incredibly skinny teenager (Trayvon Martin was 7 inches taller than me and only 20 pounds heavier than me, and most people think I'm pretty thin) to be able to do that to a grown man.

Zimmerman did have injuries. Hopefully there's a medical record to confirm or deny if they're consistent with the force Zimmerman claims Martin used.

 

[Imdanny]

According to ABC News-

"While in life Trayvon Martin was barely 17, when it comes to justifiable homicide his size -- about 6-foot-3 and 150 pounds -- makes him an adult in death. Zimmerman, 28, is 5-foot-9 and weighs well over 200 pounds."

Weight isn't everything, and it definitely doesn't always have a correlation to strength. My DH has the same build as Martin and has no problem taking down guys who are much, much heavier (he's a cop).

The irony is of course that while Martin may have been "standing his ground" against a self-appointed watchman who was chasing him with a gun, he's too dead to enjoy his immunity from prosecution.

Yeah, really.

This reminds me of a comment I read yesterday at another site: "I don't care if George Zimmerman can't stop crying. Trayvon Martin can't stop being dead. "

 

[littlelysser]

I think at the very least, everyone can agree that given the level of debate here, what happened that evening needed to be more fully investigated.

We do not have all the facts - I've said that from the beginning.

What we do have is a very disturbing set of facts and a dead young man. Martin was unarmed and killed by the man who pursued him, despite being advised that he did not need to follow Martin. I don't know what transpired that evening. There are two people that did. Martin and Zimmerman. Perhaps Martin attacked Zimmerman after Zimmerman, armed with a gun, followed him- Martin was fighting for his life. A fight he lost. And then the entire incident was essentially not investigated based upon the word of the shooter? That is ludicrous. Perhaps every thing will end up being completely on the up and up - and Zimmerman will be entirely vindicated as will the Sanford Police.

But there are a lot of decisions that need to be accounted for and a lot of questions that need to be answered.

 

[GlamMosher]

I find it amazing that there is a law that says you can be followed by some zealot, intimidated and try to run away, still be followed, finally turn and confront the vigilante, maybe get into a punch up and the VIGILANTE IS ALLOWED TO SHOOT YOU DEAD!!!!!

How is that even possible?

Even if Martin did punch Zimmerman (with provocation), should that be considered enough to allow him to shoot him?

And that you do not need to proof of this, just your word? Yes he had some injuries, but there are some males that will turn and confront someone following them, is that then wrong? My son is 16, and thinks he is a bit of a tough guy - I am sure he would turn and confront someone following him. Should he be shot dead?

I don't even care that there is talk that Martin had been suspended from school for having an empty bag of marijuana - so what? Does that mean he is allowed to be killed? because he tried/used drugs?

 

[Gypsy]

I don't even care that there is talk that Martin had been suspended from school for having an empty bag of marijuana - so what? Does that mean he is allowed to be killed? because he tried/used drugs?

This I agree is ridiculous and irrelevant. Unless he was shot because he got the munchies and held up a donut shop, I have no idea what his possible pot use has to do with anything.

If he was high on pot he wouldn't have been walking around at night. He would have been zoning out somewhere with a bag of Doritos stuffing his face. Pot doesn't exactly put people into rages or give them super human strength. The only thing that has to quiver in fear of a kid on pot is the contents of the refrigerator.

The only thing this might explain is the skittles. Maybe they were Georges skittles and the kid attacked him for them.

 

[MissStepcut]

I find it amazing that there is a law that says you can be followed by some zealot, intimidated and try to run away, still be followed, finally turn and confront the vigilante, maybe get into a punch up and the VIGILANTE IS ALLOWED TO SHOOT YOU DEAD!!!!!

How is that even possible?

Even if Martin did punch Zimmerman (with provocation), should that be considered enough to allow him to shoot him?

And that you do not need to proof of this, just your word? Yes he had some injuries, but there are some males that will turn and confront someone following them, is that then wrong? My son is 16, and thinks he is a bit of a tough guy - I am sure he would turn and confront someone following him. Should he be shot dead?

I don't even care that there is talk that Martin had been suspended from school for having an empty bag of marijuana - so what? Does that mean he is allowed to be killed? because he tried/used drugs?

I just want to clarify that I am not saying that I believe this law has the bolded effect. I am saying that the law puts some limits on police and arrest when someone claims that they acted in self-defense. The police say there are witnesses who corroborate at least some elements of Zimmerman's story, and he did have injuries... just knowing that, I can understand why the police think this law applies and that they need to evaluate more facts than they usually would to have probable cause for arrest.

 

[packrat]

Not impossible for a lighter weight person to get someone down to the ground if you know where the points are on a person's body. I play punched my husband, who is 100# and a foot taller than me, knocked him to the ground, and he lay on the kitchen floor drooling and making a weird keening sound-granted, he was leaning down to grab me and walked into my fist, it wasn't just my amazing fists of fury alone. He knows all the spots that anyone can drop anyone and I just hit one by stroke of luck. Is it likely that a 17 year old carrying a bag of skittles knew the pressure points? No. But it's not impossible that *if* there were an altercation, some randomly placed punch or grabbing someone a certain way and applying pressure, could down someone shorter and heavier. Improbable but not impossible. *IF* there were an altercation.

 

[Gypsy]

I find it amazing that there is a law that says you can be followed by some zealot, intimidated and try to run away, still be followed, finally turn and confront the vigilante, maybe get into a punch up and the VIGILANTE IS ALLOWED TO SHOOT YOU DEAD!!!!!

How is that even possible?

Even if Martin did punch Zimmerman (with provocation), should that be considered enough to allow him to shoot him?

And that you do not need to proof of this, just your word? Yes he had some injuries, but there are some males that will turn and confront someone following them, is that then wrong? My son is 16, and thinks he is a bit of a tough guy - I am sure he would turn and confront someone following him. Should he be shot dead?

I just want to clarify that I am not saying that I believe this law has the bolded effect. I am saying that the law puts some limits on police and arrest when someone claims that they acted in self-defense. The police say there are witnesses who corroborate at least some elements of Zimmerman's story, and he did have injuries... just knowing that, I can understand why the police think this law applies and that they need to evaluate more facts than they usually would to have probable cause for arrest.

Exactly.

And Glam, your son should be aware that while someone might be acting as a tough guy, someone else might honestly believe that it's sincere and be afraid. Kids don't think of these things when they do things like act tough. But it could be genuinely frightening to someone who doesn't know it is an act.

 

[GlamMosher]

I find it amazing that there is a law that says you can be followed by some zealot, intimidated and try to run away, still be followed, finally turn and confront the vigilante, maybe get into a punch up and the VIGILANTE IS ALLOWED TO SHOOT YOU DEAD!!!!!

How is that even possible?

I just want to clarify that I am not saying that I believe this law has the bolded effect. I am saying that the law puts some limits on police and arrest when someone claims that they acted in self-defense. The police say there are witnesses who corroborate at least some elements of Zimmerman's story, and he did have injuries... just knowing that, I can understand why the police think this law applies and that they need to evaluate more facts than they usually would to have probable cause for arrest.

I can understand this law if someone comes into your house, onto your property etc and starts beating you up, although surely there must be a standard to how bad it must be before the threat is so great you must shoot. In this case, Zimmerman is the aggressor, just was losing the fight. He had a blood nose, cut lip and back of his head, that did not require hospital treatment. Martin did not have a knife to his throat or anything, to my mind there is no way he could have felt so threatened he needed to shoot him in the chest.

 

[Gypsy]

Not impossible for a lighter weight person to get someone down to the ground if you know where the points are on a person's body. I play punched my husband, who is 100# and a foot taller than me, knocked him to the ground, and he lay on the kitchen floor drooling and making a weird keening sound-granted, he was leaning down to grab me and walked into my fist, it wasn't just my amazing fists of fury alone. He knows all the spots that anyone can drop anyone and I just hit one by stroke of luck. Is it likely that a 17 year old carrying a bag of skittles knew the pressure points? No. But it's not impossible that *if* there were an altercation, some randomly placed punch or grabbing someone a certain way and applying pressure, could down someone shorter and heavier. Improbable but not impossible. *IF* there were an altercation.

If you get a lucky first shot in and the person's head is knocked against something, or they trip and hit their head, or fall down and hit their head it could disorient them enough that even a much lighter opponent could hurt them. Even light head injuries can incapacitate and make a person dizzy enough or woozy enough that they could be overpowered right after they initially happen.

And George did have a head injury.