George Zimmerman makes initial court appearance in Trayvon Martin shooting, will plead not guilty

  • Thread starter Thread starter SwizzleStick
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
pnewton said:
Even if he did punch Zimmerman, he did not initiate the altercation.
Click to expand...
Are you kidding me?

If Martin threw the first punch then yes, Martin initiated the physical altercation. Whoever put his hands on the other man first, he was the one who initiated the fight.

Moreover, IF Zimmerman’s account is true, it was Martin who initiated the non-physical part of the confrontation as well. IF Zimmerman is telling the truth on the recorded 911 tape, it is Martin who’s walking up to Zimmerman’s truck first, to check out Zimmerman. And that’s the start of the confrontation, right there, started by Martin. Please listen to the 911 tape where Zimmerman is telling to the police, “He is coming to check me out.”
 
jen_fla said:
how do you know he did not initiate the altercation?
Click to expand...
I don’t. That is why I used the word “if”.

I do not think it was walking up and asking a question that would have caused anyone to react the way Martin may have reacted. I think it was being chased after that cause tensions to rise.
 
L_piperatus said:
Are you kidding me?

If Martin threw the first punch then yes, Martin initiated the physical altercation. Whoever put his hands on the other man first, he was the one who initiated the fight.
Click to expand...
No, I am not “kidding” you, but your addition of the word “physical” is not in my statement. There is a difference between an assault and a fight even though there is always someone who lands the first punch. If one man approaches another and provokes him verbal, that does not excuse the second if he swings first. However, it does mean that the one who provoked the fight verbal can’t just draw down and kill the other man, just because he swung first. We are not in a bar in some old western where we can call someone “yeller” then shoot them because they go for their gun.

Read the PC again. It was Zimmerman’s precipitating actions that may preclude the self-defense initiative in court and which the prosecutors states in the PC as a reason for the charge being filed.
 
St_Francis said:
This is simply a statement by the prosecutor regarding why they are asking that they be allowed to try Zimmerman. The use of the word profiled, for example, is ambiguous and related in the public mind with something bad–racial profiling. And we do not know that Zimmerman disregarded the police dispatcher’s telling him that he “did not need to” follow Martin.

Most affidavits of this type are more detailed, like this one. The one drawn up for Zimmerman is just a mass of conclusions, with no detail of the evidence they used to arrive at those conclusions.

PS: I saw the copy of the affidavit you linked and saw where they said Zimmerman thought Martin was a criminal. I’m sorry I missed that before.
Click to expand...
Yet within this very brief affidavit, it’s said:

It states that Zimmerman profiled Martin.
It states that Zimmerman confronted Martin.
It states that Zimmerman while talking about Martin stated “these a------s, they
always get away” and also "these f------ punks.

It states that Zimmerman disregarded the police dispatcher
and continued to follow Martin who was trying to return to his home.
Code: 
I do find that to be staggering - esp since the prosecution
states that many more details remain to be publicized.
I think it's clear (though only implied) that Zimmerman "profiled"
Martin as "criminal" and that Z was clearly mistaken in that.
BTW, again, you’re welcome since I located the document (again) just for you.
 
pnewton said:
I have just the opposite perspective. I can’t imagine getting out of the car with** a gun. That’s what the bad guys do. I have gone back and forth on this ovet the years and have arrived at the personal decision not to carry a gun to prevent the very type of thing that happened here. When I carried a gun, I never felt comfortable being out with it and would avoid as much public contact as I could. Without a gun, I am much more comfortable dealing with problematic people, even in confrontational situations.

**There is a good reason why neighborhood watch should never try and approach a suspect. ** This goes a million times more for an armed neighborhood watch person.
Click to expand...
That’s why OFFICIAL neighborhood watch groups say: “Observe, do not follow.”

Even without a gun, if you follow, then you might invite tragedy. It seems that George did.
 
Seerkerz, I can’t find any response to my earlier question.

If Trayvon were white, would you be defending him so vehemently?

Would you even care?
 
pnewton said:
I don’t. That is why I used the word “if”.

I do not think it was walking up and asking a question that would have caused anyone to react the way Martin may have reacted. I think it was being chased after that cause tensions to rise.
Click to expand...
pnewton said:
Except that Martin was not a rapist or robber. That is a significant difference in this analogy. He was walking to the store with no known criminal intent. **Even if he did punch Zimmerman, he did not initiate the altercation. **
edited better analogy out so not to offend women here.
Click to expand...
bold part:
correct me if i’m wrong, but the if part applies only to the punching part, not the initiating. i don’t mean this to sound sarcastic, but i guess i don’t understand grammar as well as i think i do.

even* if* he did punch zimmerman we still don’t know who did the initiating.

and for what it’s worth, tm could have started beating him when gz went for his phone. maybe trayvon was scared and thought he was reaching for a gun.
 
SwizzleStick said:
Thank you for that. In listening to the 911 tape, I didn’t get any impression that Zimmerman was macho or anything like that. He seemed calm and matter-of-fact, maybe even soft-spoken and gentle.

When you carry, do you feel safer, more confident or just very aware that you have a huge responsibility in carrying a weapon?
Click to expand...
Safer, but also very aware of the responsibility. But not more confident. (I have been told that I couldn’t walk around any more confident than I already do. 😊 )

I would follow, from a distance, someone that I thought was up to no good. I would not approach, armed or not. Of course if I was told not to follow, I would stop. But if it was worded "we don’t need you to do that, " I would have asked what they meant. But I am a questioning person.
 
jen_fla said:
bold part:
correct me if i’m wrong, but the if part applies only to the punching part, not the initiating. i don’t mean this to sound sarcastic, but i guess i don’t understand grammar as well as i think i do.
Click to expand...
Or perhaps in my effort to be cautious I am inventing new modes of grammer, call it the past potential subjunctive. It could be worse. I could also do it in a passive voice. The thing is, the issue we are discussing here will be the crux of the self-defense argument. It is not cut and dry for either side.
 
pnewton said:
Or perhaps in my effort to be cautious I am inventing new modes of grammer, call it the past potential subjunctive. It could be worse. I could also do it in a passive voice. The thing is, the issue we are discussing here will be the crux of the self-defense argument. It is not cut and dry for either side.
Click to expand...
ha, ok.
 
pnewton said:
No, I am not “kidding” you, but your addition of the word “physical” is not in my statement. There is a difference between an assault and a fight even though there is always someone who lands the first punch. If one man approaches another and provokes him verbal, that does not excuse the second if he swings first. However, it does mean that the one who provoked the fight verbal can’t just draw down and kill the other man, just because he swung first. We are not in a bar in some old western where we can call someone “yeller” then shoot them because they go for their gun.

Read the PC again. It was Zimmerman’s precipitating actions that may preclude the self-defense initiative in court and which the prosecutors states in the PC as a reason for the charge being filed.
Click to expand...
OK, let’s look at Zimmerman’s 911 call transcript - emphases mine - quote from documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html :

Dispatcher: Sanford Police Department. … Zimmerman: Hey we’ve had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there’s a real suspicious guy, uh, [near] Retreat View Circle, um, the best address I can give you is 111 Retreat View Circle. This guy looks like he’s up to no good, or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about. Dispatcher: OK, and this guy is he white, black, or Hispanic? Zimmerman: He looks black. Dispatcher: Did you see what he was wearing? Zimmerman: Yeah. A dark hoodie, like a grey hoodie, and either jeans or sweatpants and white tennis shoes. He’s [unintelligible], he was just staring… Dispatcher: OK, he’s just walking around the area… Zimmerman: …looking at all the houses. Dispatcher: OK… Zimmerman: Now he’s just staring at me. Dispatcher: OK–you said it’s 1111 Retreat View? Or 111? Zimmerman: That’s the clubhouse… Dispatcher: That’s the clubhouse, do you know what the–he’s near the clubhouse right now? Zimmerman:** Yeah, now he’s coming towards me.** Dispatcher: OK. Zimmerman: He’s got his hand in his waistband. And he’s a black male.
Dispatcher: How old would you say he looks? Zimmerman: He’s got button on his shirt, late teens. Dispatcher: Late teens ok.Zimmerman: Somethings wrong with him. Yup, he’s coming to check me out, he’s got something in his hands, I don’t know what his deal is. Dispatcher: Just let me know if he does anything ok

So, even if you want to play this game of - I’m quoting your previous post - “Even if he did punch Zimmerman, he did not initiate the altercation.” - it was still Martin who started a non-physical confrontation with Zimmerman.

As for the rest of your argument, I’m totally unable to follow it. In my mind, whoever threw the first punch, is guilty of starting a physical fight. Call it a fight, a physical fight, an altercation, or a physical altercation, it makes no difference. If Martin threw the first punch, he started the fight, and Zimmerman was justified to shoot Martin in self-defense. If, however, Zimmerman threw the first punch, then Zimmerman is guilty.

I totally don’t buy your argument that “Even if he did punch Zimmerman, he did not initiate the altercation.”

Somebody needs to teach teenagers that IF they walk up to someone and punch someone in the nose, there will be consequences. Somebody needs to tell teenagers that if they physically hit people, people might fight back and even shoot back in self-defense and might even KILL those teenagers who hit them. If you are a teenager and you don’t want to die, you better don’t hit people and don’t punch them in the nose. Because if you swing your fist on someone, you might end up in the morgue, with a bullet in your torso. And this is, btw, true for everyone, whether they are teenagers or not. But teenagers are at a greater risk of doing stupid things. Thus, it can’t hurt to remind them: if you don’t want to get killed, you better don’t swing your fist at other people who did not hit you.
 
catharina said:
No kidding.
Charges are not the same as convictions.

Convictions - who knows?
Tons of misinformation out there.

It’s public knowledge that he lost a job due to his violence.
Might have been a game of balances: lose the job or go to court.
There were so MANY witnesses to that violence, how could Z agree to court?
Now, in this case: VOILA! dark, rainy night, teen alone, No witnesses. Perfect.
Click to expand...
Sure. He had a quite a plan…first, call 911… :rolleyes:
 
L_piperatus said:
As for the rest of your argument, I’m totally unable to follow it. In my mind, whoever threw the first punch, is guilty of starting a physical fight. Call it a fight, a physical fight, an altercation, or a physical altercation, it makes no difference. If Martin threw the first punch, he started the fight, and Zimmerman was justified to shoot Martin in self-defense. If, however, Zimmerman threw the first punch, then Zimmerman is guilty.
Click to expand...
Well, I don’t know about teaching teenagers a lesson, especially if one wants to use a gun to teach it. Then consider this; if throwing the first punch constitutes an assault, shouldn’t throwing the first bullet constitute a murder? No, you may say, because the bullet was in self-defense. In that case, I would point out that the level of provocation needed for less than lethal force is much less than that which is needed for lethal force.

Perhaps Zimmerman’s attorney will be able to make the case that there is a separation of events from what transpired prior to the first punch, whoever threw it and for whatever reason, and the events after that first punch. This case is not ideally what the self-defense statute was written to cover, but I am sure that the defense will try and use it. Perhaps they will successful and perhaps not.

On the other hand, I am slow to believe Zimmerman’s side of the story without physical evidence. I heard the tape.
 
bekalc said:
I find the idea that people think this kids race played absolutely NO rule in him being ruled as suspicious is hilarious, to say the least… The kid was clearly doing nothing wrong, and so what else could be suspicious than the fact that he was black, with a hoodie and maybe urban clothing. If people think its easy being a young black man walking down the streets, you aren’t a young black man. Then again given the violence going on in the African community couldn’t there be SOME discussion of people’s fears being a bit warranted.
Click to expand...
That’s an odd statement. Do you think everyone finds black teenagers with hoodies and urban clothing suspicious? There are a lot of things in the manner Martin was “looking around” that could appear suspicious, even if he wasn’t doing anything wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top