Trayvon Martin discussion

[user43770]

The real problem with the Trayvon case is Florida's law. The right of self-defense dates back to merry old England. But the rule has always been that you're only allowed to respond with equal or lesser force. When a guy raised his fist to throw a punch, you couldn't blow him away with a gun. Florida's law basically says that you get to shoot anyone who yells at you. It's a dramatic change from the past 500 years of self-defense law.

You're exaggerating. Here's the actual statute:

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

Link: Here

 

[user43770]

The state of Florida has issued more than 800,000 concealed weapons permits. One guy makes a bad decision and ends up killing someone and all of a sudden we get national media attention and Florida is the wild west. The anti-gun lobby is ridiculous.

This post is not directed at you, Bible.

 

[Quiksilver]

How much defense against a firearm have you trained? You really have no business carrying a lethal weapon around if it's just going to get taken away from you and used against the people you're trying to protect. It makes everyone less safe because you have a gun, not more safe.

What does defense against a firearm have to do with anything?

Thats quite an assumption to believe that because I'm carrying a firearm that its suddenly going to end up in the hands of the aggressor.

It certainly makes it less safe for the aggressor, that is for sure. If I draw a firearm its bc my life or the life of someone near me (possibly dependent) is threatened. At that point, how could it possibly be "less safe" for me?

I think you've watched too many jackie chan movies.

Go to your local range and talk to a firearms instructor. It takes practice in order to use it effectively in the heat of the moment, but pointing and shooting isn't exactly theoretical astrophysics.

Frankly I don't know why I typed the above, your thesis makes no sense:

"If your life is in danger and you deploy your firearm to defend yourself, you are less safe now than if your life was in danger without a firearm."

Tight logic there.

--

What sickens me the most is that I've heard that theory so often, and the people saying it have not a shred of evidence pointing to it being the case, that my life is in more danger if i have a firearm to defend myself.

It just illustrates the immense power that corporate television media has over peoples minds.

--

If you (Bible_Belt) want to challenge what I am saying, then post a shred (just a shred) of evidence pointing to your theory of "You are in more danger if you have a firearm to defend yourself with than if you have nothing" being legitimate.

--

Lets find some common ground here...

Would you (or would you not) agree that the most dangerous thing when attacked with serious/lethal force is to NOT defend yourself with whatever tools/capabilities/knowledge you possess?

 

[Bible_Belt]

If you (Bible_Belt) want to challenge what I am saying, then post a shred (just a shred) of evidence pointing to your theory of "You are in more danger if you have a firearm to defend yourself with than if you have nothing" being legitimate.

Why do you think prison guards who work in close contact with inmates don't have guns? Budget cuts?

What you don't realize is that it's not 'guns vs martial arts.' The use of any weapon is a martial art. You start with a little stick, and if the place you train is any good, there will be a little old man sensai who will show you how he can use that little stick defensively to make a giant brute of a man fall to his knees and cry like a little girl. I would not believe it if I had not seen it and had it done to me. After the little stick comes bigger sticks, small knives, swords, and eventually guns, but that's after years of training, and you start in open-hand training long before you even get to the little stick. Is that all a big waste of time? Maybe it depends upon whether or not you ever find yourself staring down the barrel of a gun.

The FBI and gov't have done a lot of studies about what they consider to be the minimum "effective" range of a firearm. They define "effective" not as killing the bad guy, but as being able to shoot him without getting injured themselves. Their typical worse-case scenario is a guy running at them with a knife. The exact number of feet that the study concludes comes out a little differently depending upon the assumptions, but it is always within a range of 12-20 feet. I did see it as low as 9 ft. That's the distance at which you have to begin shooting in order to keep the guy off of you.

I don't mean this at anyone here personally, but I cannot stress enough how false the sense of security is that most people get from the firearm they carry. The old man with the little stick isn't that worried about someone taking it away from him. They won't know how to use it, and even if they do, he was trained in defense before offense, in line with thousands of years of martial arts tradition - similar to the tradition of only using lethal force as an absolute last result.

The law also respects tradition. When our accepted idea of a legal concept has been the same for five or six hundred years, a judge would hardly ever change it. But a referendum put to voters certainly will change laws rapidly. And then we end up with it being legal - at least in theory - to blow away someone who is yelling at you...if you have a "reasonable belief." They are borrowing the widely-used civil law standard, which says if most people would have felt that way, then it's ok. Under that standard, if you live in a rich white neighborhood where there are few blacks, then it's ok to see dark skin as suspicious.

However, and this is my prediction for what will happen to Zimmerman, under Federal Civil Rights law, it's very much not ok to justify equating suspiciousness with blackness. The investigators are scouring the records right now to try to find evidence of that happening. The Feds are going to come in, piss on the state law, and give Zimmerman 5-10 at Club Fed.

 

[Quiksilver]

If you (Bible_Belt) want to challenge what I am saying, then post a shred (just a shred) of evidence pointing to your theory of "You are in more danger if you have a firearm to defend yourself with than if you have nothing" being legitimate.

Why do you think prison guards who work in close contact with inmates don't have guns? Budget cuts?

What you don't realize is that it's not 'guns vs martial arts.' The use of any weapon is a martial art. You start with a little stick, and if the place you train is any good, there will be a little old man sensai who will show you how he can use that little stick defensively to make a giant brute of a man fall to his knees and cry like a little girl. I would not believe it if I had not seen it and had it done to me. After the little stick comes bigger sticks, small knives, swords, and eventually guns, but that's after years of training, and you start in open-hand training long before you even get to the little stick. Is that all a big waste of time? Maybe it depends upon whether or not you ever find yourself staring down the barrel of a gun.

The FBI and gov't have done a lot of studies about what they consider to be the minimum "effective" range of a firearm. They define "effective" not as killing the bad guy, but as being able to shoot him without getting injured themselves. Their typical worse-case scenario is a guy running at them with a knife. The exact number of feet that the study concludes comes out a little differently depending upon the assumptions, but it is always within a range of 12-20 feet. I did see it as low as 9 ft. That's the distance at which you have to begin shooting in order to keep the guy off of you.

I don't mean this at anyone here personally, but I cannot stress enough how false the sense of security is that most people get from the firearm they carry. The old man with the little stick isn't that worried about someone taking it away from him. They won't know how to use it, and even if they do, he was trained in defense before offense, in line with thousands of years of martial arts tradition - similar to the tradition of only using lethal force as an absolute last result.

The law also respects tradition. When our accepted idea of a legal concept has been the same for five or six hundred years, a judge would hardly ever change it. But a referendum put to voters certainly will change laws rapidly. And then we end up with it being legal - at least in theory - to blow away someone who is yelling at you...if you have a "reasonable belief." They are borrowing the widely-used civil law standard, which says if most people would have felt that way, then it's ok. Under that standard, if you live in a rich white neighborhood where there are few blacks, then it's ok to see dark skin as suspicious.

However, and this is my prediction for what will happen to Zimmerman, under Federal Civil Rights law, it's very much not ok to justify equating suspiciousness with blackness. The investigators are scouring the records right now to try to find evidence of that happening. The Feds are going to come in, piss on the state law, and give Zimmerman 5-10 at Club Fed.

All that typing and not a shred of evidence provided regarding your theory that when my life is in danger that I'm in more danger if I have a firearm to defend myself than if I just have my body.

--

Yes I'm aware of standoff distance and the time it takes a charging knife-wielding zombie to get within striking range vs. the time taken to draw and fire a firearm.

I don't have time to become a little old man sensai, and frankly if I'm being charged by a knife-wielding baddie I'd rather have 8 rounds of hollow-point .45acp than a stick or my fists.

No extensive training or masterful heat-of-the-moment coordination required. Just draw, point and squeeze until the attack stops.

There's nothing honorable about it, as you seem to think there should be with "able bodied man has no business using anything but his hand to hand", but I implore you that in my reality there is a world of difference betwee duelling and survival.

 

[Quiksilver]

I think BB does have a legit point about training though.

If you aren't 100% prepared to draw a gun, and take another human beings life (and all the legal and psychological consequences that go with that decision) then you have no business carrying a firearm, as that split second hesitation will get you killed/disarmed.

Like the people who draw their firearm and say "don't come any closer or ill shoot" but never really pull the trigger as the guy comes closer, and get disarmed and have warm urine trickling down their leg. Probably a bad idea for someone like this to possess a firearm for self-defense.

 

[Bible_Belt]

BB, Your original argument stated that only frail old ladies should have a gun in the street....yet also by your logic, wouldn't they also be more in danger by having said gun? And if they would be in more danger, why would you suggest they carry one?

I'm not picking on you, but I think your logic has some large holes in it.

The little old lady starts with nothing in regard to self-defense potential. If her gun got taken away from her, she wouldn't be much worse off than if no one had a gun in the first place. She has zero chance either way.

Most people think of training with a gun as going to the range and learning to be a good shot. That's great, and it's time well spent. But in everything, there is defense, too. You need to know what to do to give yourself the best chance when it's the other guy who has the gun.

No extensive training or masterful heat-of-the-moment coordination required. Just draw, point and squeeze until the attack stops.

Sure. But that's the best case scenario. The point of training in anything is always to prepare for the worst case scenario, not the best.

 

[speed dawg]

Bible Belt, I agree with most of your stuff, but dude, you do realize we have the right to bear arms in this country?

Getting rid of that would just encourage criminals to take over civilization. Criminals/enemies of the state/etc. will have guns regardless, since they don't follow rules anyway.

Civilians MUST be allowed to protect themselves. As of matter of fact, the Second Amendment was actually enacted for the civilians to also protect themselves from the government becoming too big and powerful and infringing on their rights. Remember the militia? Their primary objective today is NOT the exact same as it was in 1776.

I carry guns and will continue to do so.

 

[d!ckmojo]

But Bible_Belt is right, you might be in a situation where you're attacker has a gun and you don't. You need to have trained in Martial Arts to have the best chance of survival.

Now, its very very hard. If the attacker is in that sweet spot of about 10 feet away, you don't have any option. If he's further away, he might not be a good shot, he might miss, you have to think carefully about taking that risk.

But if he's right in front of you, or right behind you pointing that thing at your back, you have options. No, you can't move faster than a bullet, that's impossible. But you can move faster than the attacker's reaction time it takes to perceive something you do, process that information in his brain, send the neural signal all the way down to his finger to squeeze the trigger... you can move faster than that.

If you've been trained to do so.

 

[Jaylan]

Lets be serious here.

The only person who can vouch for Zimmerman being attacked first is Zimmerman. The other witness is dead...so take what Zimmerman says with a grain of salt.

And Im sorry...but believe what cops on the scene said?

Excuse me, but the lead investigator wanted to press charges and higher ups told him not to....what does that say about the system? Also, let me remind you that the Sanford PD has bad complaints made against it for not handling cases properly in the past, especially ones involving minorities.

And the Sanford PD is the same PD that let a Lieutenants son off the hook after the guy sucker punched a homeless man and put him in the hospital.

So some of you really need to get a clue and not buy into all the bs Zimmerman and the PD are selling. Police corruption and the blue wall of silence exists. Like I said, simply look up facts of the Kenneth Chamberlain case of the LAPD corruption scandal if you wanna be naive. Cops were planting evidence and lying hardcore in the LAPD.

How about this recent case. http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2012/04/judge_imposes_sentences_on_5_n.html The guys in that case made up outright lies about what the victims did....and you should have seen the people only trying to blame the victim just like you guys are doing here. Now none of those people are saying sh!t now that the truth is out. Wise up people, wise the hell up. Not everything the "powers that be" tell you is true.

So the next time you want to believe every damn thing the cops, DA, or politicians say, realize some bad apples exist. The system is just like average citizens. Good people and bad people exist in all walks of life.

PS - Zimmerman says his head was pounded on the pavement, but an eyewitness said they say the scuffle take place on the grass, with little movement, and Zimmerman on top. Another eyewitness claims to have seen Martin on top. So whos right here. Lets wait and see. But you guys shouldnt be so quick to drink the "self defense" Zimmerman koolaid. Because Martin had a right to defend himself as well, from a strange man who was stalking him in the dark.

 

[Jaylan]

Apparently you arent using critical thinking at all. But lets break down your misguided post.

One needs to use some critical thinking here.....

If Zimmerman had a gun, why would he physically assault Trayvon? Especially if he had the intent to kill him?

I never said Zimmerman had an intent to kill the kid. Im saying that he used poor judgement and racially profiled an innocent kid walking home from the store. Im saying that he stalked and caused an unnecessary confrontation that led to an innocent boys death.

Im saying that he didnt intend to use his gun that night, but tends to have it with him just in case he gets into a pickle. The dude screwed up royally that night. Lets be serious here.

It makes little sense if that were the case.

What makes little sense is how youre ignoring all the missteps Zimmerman took in this entire situation yet are so ready to believe what hes saying to stay out of prison. Never mind that fact that the only other eyewitness to the initial contact is dead. The only other witness to the initial contact is Martins girlfriend, but she isnt an eyewitness.

And yes, Trayvon would have the right to self-defense, IF he were the one physically assaulted.....which I find doubtful considering he was 6' 3" while Zimmerman was only 5' 9" and out of shape.

Again, critical thinking.

Again, you arent using critical thinking. Height isnt a big advantage in a fight. WEIGHT is....why do you think boxing, kickboxing, and MMA are split by weight classes? I could destroy a 6'2 guy whos only 130 pounds, even though I myself am 5'9. Why is that? Because I weigh 185 lbs. Zimmerman was NOT out of shape like his initial media mug shot led us to believe. Look at the police surveillance tape. The dude is in fine shape and easily outweighs the 17 year old boy. Hell I have 45 pounds on Martin myself.

Having wrestled with friends who weighed as little as Martin did, I can tell you 140 lbs is easy to deal with if one has 45 lbs on someone.

Where is your critical thinking?

I don't believe everything I read, but you don't think it a tad suspicious that we keep getting shown a FOUR YEAR OLD photo of Trayvon?

Actually there are updated photos of both individuals. The media simply were showing us the first few images they had of both people. Now we have updated ones. Theres been a recent photo of Martin with his father floating around online. The kid isnt the damn hulk. Hes tall, but lanky and Id body him easily in a fight.

Plus, you really wanna tell me that was a grown mans howls for help on the 911 tape? Sounded like a teenage boy to me. And why would the howls stop right at the gun shot if it was in fact Zimmerman? An eyewitness said they saw him on top and that there wasnt much scuffle. Another witness said he barely said anything afterwords and didnt look shook up. And another witness said they saw him on top of the boy with his hand in his back after shooting him.

If its all self defense...why does he need to hold down a defenseless and dying person, basically ensuring their death?

And again, where is the arrest for the New Black Panther party putting out a murder contract on someone?

Where is the arrest for the KKK when they make publicly racist and idiotic statements? Please dont sway the issue. This is about Martin and Zimmerman. Not some misguided and racist black nationalist group.

And I'm more than aware of police corruption and there is plenty of it....but do not cite other cases as evidence when there is plenty of the "false racist" claims constantly roaming the Country, with this latest one only just happening.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012...om2012-celebrityjustice-idUS59773884520120406

My point with citing other cases was to show people they shouldnt drink the koolaid the system tries to feed us. Just because some racism claims are unfounded does NOT mean there arent plenty of well founded and credible claims. Racism, Sexism, Homophobia, Religious intolerance, etc...all still exist in our country. Hell, a Muslim woman was killed in what appears to be a hate crime in California. So people need to see reality and not dismiss the Martin case as a possible profiling bias crime. Many people are trying to do just that.

Again, for the record, I am all for Trayvon getting justice. But looking at the facts as they appear, and applying critical thinking, it appears that Zimmerman was the one using self-defense.

What critical thinking? The only one who can back up Zimmermans self defense claim is Zimmerman. Plenty of other things point against him and you seem to just ignore those things. If anything Martin had a right to stand his ground...then where does Zimmermans self defense claim go when the DA brings that up? What about when audio engineers study whos actually crying for help, and what about when they finally put to rest what Zimmerman said on the 911 tapes? Because many of us heard him use a racial slur.

Seems you are ignoring many important parts of this case. And thats a shame.

If it turns out wrong and Zimmerman is guilty of assault, then Zimmerman absolutely should be sent to prison for life. But if Trayvon was the first to physically assault, then he deserves what he got. Shot by someone fearing for their life.

Zimmerman cannot prove Trayvon assaulted him first, and none of the available evidence suggest Martin did. And a first strike defense is a poor defense. If that was a good defense, then anyone could go into a bar with a loaded gun, bait someone into an altercation, kill someone, and then try to get off scott free with a self defense claim. Responsiblity has to be taken here, so if anything theres a clear manslaughter charge. The lead detective thought there was one, but someone from higher up told him not to arrest Zimmerman. Im not surprised that this would happen in the state that let a small child get murdered without justice and let her mother off scott free when she had something to do with it (Casey Anthony)

I doubt he gets life. Theyd need a murder 2 charge, and given the evidence, its certainly possible they charge him for that, but thats a tougher conviction to make.

Id say he can more easily be convicted with a manslaughter 1 charge. He wouldnt be in jail for life, but I doubt he makes it out alive because he will be eaten alive in prison by people who dont take too kindly to being profiled. And a good amount of people in prison have been profiled before.

 

[d!ckmojo]

Zimmerman cannot prove Trayvon assaulted him first

He doesn't have to. Innocent until proven guilty. If Zimmerman claims self-defence, then the only way he's getting sent to prison is if there's ROCK SOLID PROOF that he's lying.

 

[Jaylan]

He doesn't have to. Innocent until proven guilty. If Zimmerman claims self-defence, then the only way he's getting sent to prison is if there's ROCK SOLID PROOF that he's lying.

What you are forgetting is that when it comes to criminal cases, the defense does have to prove something to the jury. The jurors are the ones who decide what happens to a defendant...and if they dont by his claims, hes toast. The jury is human after all.

Theres plenty of proof to bring a solid case against him, and youre kidding yourself if you dont think a jury could convict him of manslaughter in this case.

Youre simply parroting a line that would make it ok for people to kill others without penalty. This case is exactly why the stand your ground law will be modified or repealed.

 

[Deep Dish]

ElChoclo:
Florida is a place where, in gated communities, even white people are told that they should stay in their cars when they visit to have a look around. There is a siege mentality in Florida, and it isn't helped by poverty, ethnic division and a prison system which seems to mainly teach black people to be violent. If anyone disputes that you can watch the Louis Theroux documentary where he visits the main jail in Miami. In that jail they fight the way normal people would shake hands and introduce themselves. They will fight you to steal your shoes if they like them. So, after their release, good things are supposed to happen?

Blacks in Florida should stick to wearing Hawaian shirts, not hoodies, and then they would be less provocative to white men without felony convictions, who might have concealed carry permits.

Pardon me, but I reside in the county where Trayvon Martin was shot. Sanford, the city where he was shot, is only about a 20 minute drive on the interstate for me. I’m white, too, and live in a gated community, and it’s ridiculous to hear “white people are told that they should stay in their cars when they visit to have a look around.” I have traveled all across Florida, having lived here for 20 years, and nowhere is really violent or dangerous except for Miami. Miami is like a nation upon itself, and it’s important to note Trayvon was shot nowhere near Miami. That’s not to say Florida doesn’t have its share of problems, of course, but you’re painting Florida as some ultra violent state, where in fact, by and large, more or less, it’s tranquil.

Espi:
The "stand your ground" law, in my opinion, is a stupid back-azzed piece of legislation. This law was enacted just a few years ago yet reminds me of what the wild west must have been like. the law needs to be repealed. A nation this out of control with fear doesn't need the law justifying folks. Killing each other. You murder somebody? You go to jail and await a trial by jury. Fvucking crazy to me that people seem to think it's OK to kill somebody and then claim delf defense yet never be arrested for it. LOL.

The “stand your ground” law was enacted to protect women from domestic violence. I’m not justifying it but that was the intent, if I’m not mistaken. For all the discussions on gender relations, the law is another example of the intersection between law and sex.

 

[Quiksilver]

What you are forgetting is that when it comes to criminal cases, the defense does have to prove something to the jury. The jurors are the ones who decide what happens to a defendant...and if they dont by his claims, hes toast. The jury is human after all.

Theres plenty of proof to bring a solid case against him, and youre kidding yourself if you dont think a jury could convict him of manslaughter in this case.

Youre simply parroting a line that would make it ok for people to kill others without penalty. This case is exactly why the stand your ground law will be modified or repealed.

Nice understanding of legal procedure.

The defense doesn't have to prove their innocence.

The defense only has to demonstrate flaws in the prosecutors case.

The prosecutor has to make a case to reasonably prove the guilt of the defense, and the defense has to point out why the prosecutors case is faulty/flawed/false.

A jury can convict anyone of anything. A jury can convict a ham sandwich of perjury, contempt of court and felony embezzelment.

The question is whether the prosecutor can make a case which proves the guilt of Zimmerman beyond reasonable doubt.

Why is the "Stand Your Ground" clause even being challenged?

If those supporting Martin are challenging the Stand Your Ground law, that is admitting defeat before trial.

"A stand-your-ground law states that a person may use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of a threat, without an obligation to retreat first."

Are those of you who support Martin and object the Stand Your Ground clause, saying that Zimmerman had a valid reason to use self-defense when he felt threatened?

If it was repealed, the only difference is that he would first have a duty to retreat if he felt threatened.

By repealing the Stand Your Ground clause, that does not mean Zimmerman was illegally following/keeping an eye on Martin.

Stalking is impermissable as AFAIK Zimmerman and Martin had no prior interaction. Criminal Stalking in case law requires the victim and suspect to have interacted with eachother more than once.

I agree that Zimmerman used poor judgement to follow the kid (in hindsight), and I'm sure he himself would agree.

Poor judgement =/= illegal

A 120lb 10/10 babe could walk through a bad neighborhood by herself one night, maybe even following the path of a group of shady-looking thugs.

That is an exercise in poor judgement.

When she gets attacked though, and she pulls a Kahr PM9 from her purse and kills three of her attackers... That is not illegal.

Poor judgement put her in that position, but nothing she did was illegal.

Zimmerman (in hindsight) could have behaved differently and nothing would have occurred probably. But in hindsight, he exercised poor judgement regardless of what actually transpired.

Again, poor judgement =/= illegal.

Im saying that he stalked and caused an unnecessary confrontation that led to an innocent boys death.

That is a politically motivated statement if I've ever seen one.

So many dynamics:

1. Stalking: Was it following or criminal stalking?

Answer: Case law will tell you that unless this becomes precedent, that it was not criminal stalking.

2. Unnecessary confrontation: We are trying to determine the potential illegality of certain actions. Where the hell does "unnecessary confrontation" ever appear in criminal law???

Did Zimmerman attack Martin or did Zimmerman put himself in a position which caused Martin to attack him?

That is all that matters.

3. Innocent boys death.

You have jumped to conclusion and pre-convicted Zimmerman in the little fantasy-trial that is occuring in your mind.

Refer to #2.

A. If Zimmerman attacked Martin, then yes the death of an innocent boy victim occured.

B. If Martin attacked Zimmerman (regardless of Zs poor judgement), then the death of a guilty boy victim occured.

If you are still arguing the Stand your Ground clause, then you have actually selected B because Stand Your Ground clause is only active in self-defense.

If A, then Stand Your Ground does not apply. If B, it does.

If you are saying it does apply to the case but should be repealed, then you are indirectly saying that Martin attacked Zimmerman and that Zimmerman should have had the duty to retreat.

Are you mad that A occurred, or are you mad that when B occured, Zimmerman did not run away?

Can you prove that A occurred?

Are you angry that in Florida someone doesn't have to run away when they fear for their life in public?

Running away = turning your back to danger. Turning your back to a threat can be very dangerous in and of itself.

I'd be very interested to hear this "rock solid case" that proves Zimmerman attacked Martin, which is the only thing that a prosecutor will be trying to determine.

Everything else is circumstantial and relevance to the case will be dismantled by the defense.

 

[Machina29]

This is for the people who are making this a racial issue.

http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/new...-victim-was-holding-leash-not-weapon-4-4-2012

Black guy shoots unarmed white guy, claims self defense, and is not arrested. You aren't going to see white people protesting because an idiot shot a white person. Not everything is about race.

 

[Quiksilver]

The little old lady starts with nothing in regard to self-defense potential. If her gun got taken away from her, she wouldn't be much worse off than if no one had a gun in the first place. She has zero chance either way.

Most people think of training with a gun as going to the range and learning to be a good shot. That's great, and it's time well spent. But in everything, there is defense, too. You need to know what to do to give yourself the best chance when it's the other guy who has the gun.



Sure. But that's the best case scenario. The point of training in anything is always to prepare for the worst case scenario, not the best.

I'm not exactly sure at all how to defend myself from a firearm. I dont wear ballistic vest around town.

I suppose the only tactic I really have it just to close the distance and tie up the gun hand, and at some point in the scuffle draw my knife and target the throat/eyes. Grisly work for sure, not something I really want to think about.

What sort of training would be effective to learn counter-firearm techniques?

(short of becoming a little old man sensai)

 

[Jaylan]

Poor decisions are not against the law. Physical assault IS against the law, and is the prerequisite for the self-defense use of a gun.

PLUS, where is the proof of racial profiling?

Tell me, what was so suspicious about a kid in a hoodie and shorts when its raining out? Why couldnt Zimmerman have simply asked the kid if he lived in the area. Its not like he was visiting his dad for the first time there.

Again, Trayvon had the right to defend himself from Zimmerman...and Zimmerman has no proof that he was physically assaulted first, nor that he was physically assaulted at all. Where are the hospital records? Broken nose right?

Again, mistakes are not against the law. Physically assaulting a man IS against the law.

Which is what Zimmerman did to Martin...that and manslaughter.

From what I have read, there is another un-named eyewitness who desires anonymity. We will see how true that is as events unfold.

Theres much conflicting eyewitness reports, so I doubt they will be helpful in court. Itll come down to forensic audio experts and the medical examiner.

I used to wrestle and I used to box. Height is absolutely an advantage, as is weight. But weight loses usefulness if it is dead/fat weight. It is only advantageous to a point, and then it becomes a huge disadvantage.

Again, Zimmerman is not fat. Hes in much better shape int he surveillance video than the mug shots of him floating around. Weight is definitely an advantage in a scuffle. Height isnt close to the advantage weight gives you in an all out ground and pound.

Still all I see are photos of him at 13 years old with a red t-shirt. Where are photos of the gold grill? Where is the redacted information from the media that he was suspended for ten days for being late when it was actually for graffiti?

What does that have to do with this case? The kid was on his way home, not breaking the law at all. Stick to the facts of the case.

A 17 year old like Trayvon has already gone through puberty......so it is just as likely to be Zimmerman as Trayvon.

Um 17 is not finished puberty. Plus if you knew anything about the body, youd know that the voice ages just like everything else. A males voice is not fully matured until he is mid 20s, and as we go through each decade, our voice deepens even more. Thats why old people sound the way they do...aging vocal chords.

A teenager will not sound the same as someone in their late 20s. Hell I wasnt growing a legit beard until I was 21. And I didnt settle into my adult voice until I was 20.

And wtf, earlier above you said there were no eye-witnesses and yet NOW you are saying there were two? You can't even get the story straight and you are talking to me about critical thinking?XZi

Learn to read, I said there was one eyewitness (Zimmerman) to the INITIAL CONTACT. Theres only one person who can tell us how the fight STARTED.

I didn't see anything about him holding Trayvon down, must be another one of those witnesses that wasn't a witness.

Apparently you arent following the case enough. http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...-zimmerman-never-tried-to-help-trayvon-martin

And wait a minute, everyone says this is about Zimmerman not even being arrested (which he was and then released). So I can make a similar point about the Black Panthers not being arrested for putting out a murder contract on someone. Same concept and it applies equally to everyone, not just for the benefit of blacks.

This case is not about the black panthers. You people really need to stop trying to deflect attention elsewhere. The FBI has decided not to bother with the KKK or the Black Panthers...so stick to the facts of this case. This isnt about what benefits blacks or not, this is about someone being killed and justice not being served. Dont compare this tragedy to the misguided racists that are the New Black Panthers. Dont compare this story to that of some stupid bounty.

I agree on the kool-aid. My links were for the same point, especially the NBC doctored audio where Zimmerman suggested Trayvon was suspicious because he looked black. Now that we know it is false and NBC is doing an internal investigation, do you feel manipulated?

NBC are douche bags for that, but its not like Ive never seen Fox News pull the same crap. The media tries to sway people all the time. Its an expected reality.

Of course there are plenty of well founded and credible claims. But when you get things like the Duke Rape case, or Tawana Bradley, and the likes of Sharpton and Jackson come out of the woodwork for such things, only to disappear when the truth comes out.....it doesn't help the cause. Neither do things like this.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012...om2012-celebrityjustice-idUS59773884520120406

Remember, false claims of racism are as bad as false claims of rape. The trouble is, these situations abound in our country today.

Again, just because non credible claims exist, does not mean there arent many credible claims. Sean Bell, Amadou Diallo, DJ Henry, Johnny Gammage etc. And no one ever served time in those cases. All dead black men who were profiled and killed. When that stops happening, than Al and Jesse will shut up.

Again, where is the evidence of profiling by Zimmerman?

The racial slur, his 911 reporting records, and his blatant disregard for the boys life seems like enough.

Everything I have read that points against him seems to have been debunked as far as I can tell. Including the alleged racial slur with a link here.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/cnn...ain-and-reporter-now-doubts-racial-slur-used/

Debunked? Really? Because plenty of people seem to still feel they heard him use a racial slur. Just because a few folks dont agree with some of the evidence against Zimmerman, does not mean it doesnt exist. Hell, the lead investigator didnt buy his story and wanted to press charges originally, so what does that tell you. Hes not stupid...its his job to do these things.

And of course Martin has a right to stand his ground, but not to assault. Standing your ground does not mean physically attacking. It means defense.

Again, Zimmerman, the man whos looking at jail time, is the only one who can vouch for his claims. If he gets off scott free, it makes it possible for anyone to just carry a gun, incite a confrontation, kill a person, and then claim self defense due to a lack of credible witness. I dont think law makers are trying to set that precedent.

Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty. First strike is a poor defense, but lying on your back getting pummeled is not a poor defense.

But there is a witness who claims they saw him on top of Martin....so we shall see what happens when this goes to trial. Indictment hearing is in a few days though. Cant wait.

I agree completely on the Casey Anthony point, and it may be that Zimmerman is guilty. But he doesn't deserve a witch-hunt and it's a mistake to assume he is guilty until the system gathers all of the facts and decides what to do about it.

He chose his actions. He made his bed. Sucks for him. I dont have sympathy for someone who recklessly takes a life when he could have avoided all this by listening to the 911 dispatcher and simply leaving an innocent kid alone.

No, he had to be Quick Draw Mcgraw and do things his own way instead of waiting for police to arrive.

Again, you assume profiling, listen to the enhanced audio by CNN and it sounds a lot more like "fvcking cold".w

Thats the first time I heard anyone say "cold". Again, many, if not most people, feel he used a racial slur. But hear what youd like.

 

[Jaylan]

Nice understanding of legal procedure.

The defense doesn't have to prove their innocence.

The defense only has to demonstrate flaws in the prosecutors case.

The prosecutor has to make a case to reasonably prove the guilt of the defense, and the defense has to point out why the prosecutors case is faulty/flawed/false.

A jury can convict anyone of anything. A jury can convict a ham sandwich of perjury, contempt of court and felony embezzelment.

The question is whether the prosecutor can make a case which proves the guilt of Zimmerman beyond reasonable doubt.

Actually I have a great understanding of the legal system. My father is a defense attorney and has talked to me about his work ever since I was a young buck. I also minored in Political Science, and took various law classes for fun in undergrad. I may even possible go to law school one day, but Im not sure yet.

One thing my dad knows, is that the human element is a huge deal in a court case. Jurors are not completely by the book when it comes to deciding a case. Emotions and doubts come into all this. If it were a judge deciding the guilt of a defendant, then obviously the judge would decide the case based on the prosecutions case.

Jurors on the other hand, especially in a case like this, and with all the stupid decisions Zimmerman made, some of these jurors will want him to prove his innocence. You may not like this, but you have to accept thats how people work, even if the law says the defense has nothing to prove.

I lol'd at ham sandwich though.

Why is the "Stand Your Ground" clause even being challenged?

If those supporting Martin are challenging the Stand Your Ground law, that is admitting defeat before trial.

"A stand-your-ground law states that a person may use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of a threat, without an obligation to retreat first."

Are those of you who support Martin and object the Stand Your Ground clause, saying that Zimmerman had a valid reason to use self-defense when he felt threatened?

If it was repealed, the only difference is that he would first have a duty to retreat if he felt threatened.

By repealing the Stand Your Ground clause, that does not mean Zimmerman was illegally following/keeping an eye on Martin.

Have you been following this case at all? How can you even ask this question? Pundits, politicians, lawmakers, and everyday citizens are discussing the SYG law because many feel this law has set a stage for cases such as the Martin one. Its created a slippery slope with people who carry weapons and dont make the best decisions. Im sure you can find many discussions about it.

Stalking is impermissable as AFAIK Zimmerman and Martin had no prior interaction. Criminal Stalking in case law requires the victim and suspect to have interacted with eachother more than once.

Please read the definition of stalking.

"Stalking is a term commonly used to refer to unwanted and obsessive attention by an individual or group to another person."

Prior contact is not needed. Its like when a lion stalks a gazelle. Its never seen that particular gazelle before, but its creeps silently at a distance and waits to pounce on its prey.

No ones talking about criminal stalking. We are talking about general usage of the term in the English language. The word applies in this case.

I agree that Zimmerman used poor judgement to follow the kid (in hindsight), and I'm sure he himself would agree.

Poor judgement =/= illegal

He used a lot of poor judgment that night. And manslaughter is illegal.

A 120lb 10/10 babe could walk through a bad neighborhood by herself one night, maybe even following the path of a group of shady-looking thugs.

That is an exercise in poor judgement.

When she gets attacked though, and she pulls a Kahr PM9 from her purse and kills three of her attackers... That is not illegal.

Poor judgement put her in that position, but nothing she did was illegal.

This example isnt even similar to our case. Zimmerman followed Martin. Martin did not seek to engage Zimmerman. He was on his way home minding his own business. If anything Martin is the "babe" who should of had the gun.

Zimmerman (in hindsight) could have behaved differently and nothing would have occurred probably. But in hindsight, he exercised poor judgement regardless of what actually transpired.

Again, poor judgement =/= illega

Again, manslaughter is illegal. And I believe the DA has a great case for it. The lead detective sure thought so from night one and even filed an affidavit saying so.

He felt it was Negligent Manslaughter. I believe thats Man 2...Doesnt carry a stiff (super long) sentence, but its still jail time.

That is a politically motivated statement if I've ever seen one.

So many dynamics:

1. Stalking: Was it following or criminal stalking?

Answer: Case law will tell you that unless this becomes precedent, that it was not criminal stalking.

Whats political about it? Its true. Zimmerman stalked...as in he followed and crept behind a stranger...and then caused an unnecessary confrontation by chasing the kid, and confronting the kid when he was told not to do so and to wait for the police....these actions led to the kids death...and the boy committed no crimes...thus he was an innocent minor for christ sake.

Again, Im NOT talking about criminal stalking. Im using the word "stalk" according to its English dictionary definition. The world is accurately applied to Zimmermans actions.

2. Unnecessary confrontation: We are trying to determine the potential illegality of certain actions. Where the hell does "unnecessary confrontation" ever appear in criminal law???

Did Zimmerman attack Martin or did Zimmerman put himself in a position which caused Martin to attack him?

That is all that matters.

You act as if the phrase "unnecessary confrontation" would not be used in court. The DA would most certainly use this phrase when presenting the People's case.

Anyone whos followed this case knows Zimmermans actions directly lead to the scuffle with Martin and the boys death. The DA will defnitely state that had Zimmerman used better judgement, Trayvon Martin would be alive.

3. Innocent boys death.

You have jumped to conclusion and pre-convicted Zimmerman in the little fantasy-trial that is occuring in your mind.

Refer to #2.

A. If Zimmerman attacked Martin, then yes the death of an innocent boy victim occured.

B. If Martin attacked Zimmerman (regardless of Zs poor judgement), then the death of a guilty boy victim occured.

If you are still arguing the Stand your Ground clause, then you have actually selected B because Stand Your Ground clause is only active in self-defense.

If A, then Stand Your Ground does not apply. If B, it does.

If you are saying it does apply to the case but should be repealed, then you are indirectly saying that Martin attacked Zimmerman and that Zimmerman should have had the duty to retreat.

Are you mad that A occurred, or are you mad that when B occured, Zimmerman did not run away?

Can you prove that A occurred?

Are you angry that in Florida someone doesn't have to run away when they fear for their life in public?

Running away = turning your back to danger. Turning your back to a threat can be very dangerous in and of itself.

I'd be very interested to hear this "rock solid case" that proves Zimmerman attacked Martin, which is the only thing that a prosecutor will be trying to determine.

Everything else is circumstantial and relevance to the case will be dismantled by the defense.

As far as Im concerned, the boy was an innocent person walking down the damn block, going home and minding his own business. Given this FACT, theres no reason for me not to call him innocent. Especially since Zimmerman was the one who set this whole chain of events into motion.

And let me state yet again, Martin had a right to stand his ground when being followed by a strange creepy man. I imagine a 17 year old would be pretty freaked out if some car was following him in the dark and then someone got out of the car and being chasing after him. Im 25 and that would freak me the hell out and have me ready to brawl with someone.

 

[Who Dares Win]

And people get surprised when an uninformed mob of people side with a particular part during a fist fight for no apparent reason than sterotypes.

The same things is happening in this forum that should teach first of all,to think and doubt of what dogmatic said even before than getting girls.
Seriously it seems someone already decided what to vote even before the trial and the show of the evidence.