"or Zimmerman would have shot him in the back, and there would be no doubt about his guilt."
This is how I see it, too. And to prevent himself from getting shot in the back, he defended himself against the man hunting him. Unfortunately for the victim, the hunter got his prey.
"He was pinned to the ground and was having his head bashed into the pavement - that's attempted murder."
No, that's self defense against a person assaulting you, as Zimmerman was assaulting Martin.
"Even in your most anti-gun area, that's still full grounds for using deadly force to protect yourself."
Absolutely, and Martin was defending himself against his pursuer.
"Zimmerman was NOT the aggressor"
Yes he was, he assaulted Martin.
"Walking on a sidewalk and following someone is NOT an act of aggression"
Following a person (or, if you are strapped, hunting the person) can certainly be assault, and in this case it was.
"Trayvon physically assaulting Zimmernman was an act of aggression"
No it wasn't, it was reasonable self defense given a strange man hunting him through the darkness for literally no reason.
"since Trayvon initiated the fight and Zimmerman was unable to flee"
Zimmerman started the fight by assaulting Margin so it's impossible for him to have murdered Martin in self defense, because he wasn't defending himself, he was on the offense. If Zimmerman were on the defense, then he wouldn't be hunting down children in the darkness, he would be running away from those children, the way Martin was running away from him, until he decided that running away wasn't working and he had to "stand his ground", which is how the "stand your ground" law applies in this case.
I was always under the impression that you could defend yourself bodily when someone assaults you. Assault is when someone causes you reasonable fear for your safety. If a strange unknown man hunts you through the darkness and follows you then approaches you, that's assault, and I would certainly feel justified in defending myself bodily if a person did that to me.
Huh? First of all, do you mean battery? Assault is "causing reasonable fear". Battery is "criminal hitting". Yes, of course you "defend yourself by hitting".
Self defense is when you defend yourself against an assailant, like Martin tried to do, not when you hunt down an innocent unarmed child and assaulting him in the darkness, like Zimmerman did. Everybody agrees that everyone has the right to defend themselves -- no question about that. But Zimmerman was doing exactly, precisely the opposite of defense.
George started the fight by assaulting Trayvon, then he couldn't take a punch and ended the fight by killing his victim.
You don't get to claim "self defense" when you are committing a crime and Zimmerman's own story is that he assaulted Martin [by causing reasonable fear for safety].
When I got my first (only) gun, I was trained (lightly, for one day) by a police officer. He told me what I'm sure someone told Zimmerman, which is if you even draw a gun on someone, you need to kill them, so there is only one story to be told in court. That is good self-serving advice, and Zimmerman got away with murder by following it.
Ah, yes, the great hordes of white people upset at the racial injustice of the Simpson ruling, smashed and burned L.A. for many days. Lo! beware the angry white people!
I jest, and of course others have pointed out that you meant the King verdict, but I have a serious point to make which is that the King verdict was a spark, not the fuel for the fire. The fuel had been piling up for a long time.
There are to really good answers to that really good question:
1. when you think continuing to evade the person hunting you is no longer effective, such as when the hunter hunts you for a long time all across a neighborhood.
2. when the legislature of the not-so-great state of Florida says you have no duty to back down, but can stand your ground, as Martin did. While Martin was standing his ground and defending himself, his assailant, George Zimmerman, completed his hunt and murdered his victim.
Everybody knows, or should know, that a power-tripping racist, just like any other person, can't possibly "defend" themselves when they started the altercation by hunting an innocent child through the night. What Zimmerman did is the opposite of self defense: he assaulted the innocent teenager. After that, any notion of "defense" can only be applies to the victim of the assault, Trayvon Martin.
"if a dude is smashing your head into the pavement, you have no right to protect yourself"
You give up the right to self-defense when you start a fight, which Zimmerman did by committing assault [causing reasonable fear for safety] against Martin. Therefore, Zimmerman couldn't possibly act in self defense, because he was on the offense. Martin attempted to defend himself against his murderer, but was unsuccessful.
What I'm saying is, yes, Zimmerman started it so he had to sit there and take his lumps. By refusing to lose the fight he started, by ending the fight he started by killing the person he assaulted, he committed murder -- or, perhaps, some lesser criminal homicide like manslaughter.
"being followed does not create a reasonable belief of imminent threat"
I disagree. I think a reasonable person would fear for their safety when an unknown creepy-ass cracker hunted them across many streets at night for no reason. In my opinion, only an unreasonable person would deny something so obvious. Martin was defending himself against an assailant, a person who committed assault, by hunting him through the night. And the outcome of the situation supports the validity of his fear, considering the creepy-ass cracker did, in fact, murder him.
"Right up until the moment when he jumped a citizen who was absolutely not minding his own business, but who also wasn't breaking any kind of law."
George's actions [stalking through the gloomy night] would make any reasonable person feel in danger. That is assault. George admitted doing this, so he admitted assaulting Martin. Even if Martin threw the first punch, that doesn't matter, because the altercation was already started by the assailant, Zimmerman. Martin's claim of self defense is supported by Zimmerman's story. Zimmerman's story suffices only to turn murder into aggravated manslaughter or some lesser homicide charge like that.
Zimmerman's story should have been enough to convict him. He admitted hunting Trayvon through the night [which is assault]. He admitted approaching Trayvon [which seals the assault charge]. Trayvon defended himself and George killed him.
The only question should have been *when* did Margin decide to commit homicide. If it was at the moment he was losing the fight he started, then that's aggravated manslaughter or something like that. If it was at the moment he left his car, then that's second-degree murder or something like that. When the charges were filed I thought it would be hard, but not impossible, to show the second-degree murder charge, but the homicide charge should have been a matter of course, considering George admitted it.
"If it was the case of Marting being "pursued by a stranger" only, where does Zimmermans broken nose and cuts to the back of the head come from?"
It comes from Martin defending himself against his assailant.
"The fact that Martin pummeled Zimmerman means that Zimmermans claim of self defence is a plausible"
No it doesn't! Zimmerman admitted to starting the altercation [by hunting a child through the darkness, making him feel reasonably in danger of harm, which is the crime of assault, making Zimmerman an assailant]. Therefore, from George's own story, he can't possibly be defending himself because he started it. The guy defending himself got murdered by the hunter.
Of course your life is in danger! You hunted an innocent boy through the night, started a fight, and now that boy is defending himself against you, his assailant! And you are a small-dick big-ego asshole who can't take a punch, which means you are losing the fight, and you know you are too physically and mentally weak to fight back without your gun! That really, really sucks for you, but society doesn't give a legal damn because you are the criminal, the assailant, the person who hunted down the innocent boy. So when you increase your crime from assault to murder, the law should reject your nonsense "self defense" claim because you weren't defending yourself, you were starting a fight you couldn't win.
I just don't see the basis for a claim of self defense. Zimmerman started it, therefore he was on the offense, not the defense. You can't defend yourself when you initiated an altercation.
This is my moral judgement, not a legal judgement. It's possible and maybe likely that Florida law is immoral.
"I'll grant you that it is possible that Zimmerman initiated a confrontation."
Sure it's possible. It's more than possible, it's part of the admitted facts. Zimmerman started it by hunting down the innocent child -- which is the story he himself told. All actions after that are self defense only for the child, not the murderer.
If a creepy ass grown man hunts you through the darkness, at what point do you stop defending yourself against that aggression? Never. You beat the man's head against the sidewalk until his body is limp because that's when you know you are safe from the person who, again, was hunting an innocent child through the darkness. And once you are safe from your stalker, then you hope you aren't black, because if you're not black you might have access to "self defense" and "stand your ground" laws.
Zimmerman did commit a crime: assault. He made Martin feel reasonable fearful for his bodily protection, because a creepy-ass cracker [racist motherfucker with a hidden gun] was hunting him through the gloom, and if you make someone reasonably fear for their safety, that is the crime of assault. I would feel fearful if a creepy guy followed me through the night and started a fight with me. Apparently in Florida, if I'm black, I'd better not fight back against my stalker or else the stalker will "act in self defense" and murder me.
The self-defense claim is facially absurd. I completely reject it. Martin was the one defending himself. Zimmerman's ego was too bruised to let himself get his ass [deservedly] whooped by a child, so he murdered the child.
The point is Zimmerman started it by hunting an innocent child through the night, so any claim of "self defense" is nonsense because Zimmerman was on the offense, not the defense. It's 180-degrees opposite of self defense. It's exactly what self defense isn't.
"I spend 3mo/year there and have since 2000, and have yet to see it."
That sounds like willful blindness to me. "Hey, look, nobody ever treated [non-black] me poorly so I am just going to assume racism is dead in this former slave state." Mmm hmm.
I didn't follow the case closely. At what point in the clear video of the incident did we see Martin lay in wait? You wouldn't say something so preposterous if it was merely the unbelievable story of the murderer, would you? There's no way you would be so guilless.
Oh, sure, George probably reasonably felt that his life was in danger, but it's still not self defense because Zimmerman is the one who started it. Martin was defending himself against a murderer; for Zimmerman it is exactly the opposite of self defense. He started a fight, lost it, and murdered the guy who was teaching him a lesson about why it's not okay to hunt children through the darkness. Well, tried to teach him a lesson -- instead I guess George learned that it's okay to hunt children through the darkness as long as they are black. Martin is a self-glorified egotistic asshole who uses a carries because children can kick his ass in fights he starts, and then uses the gun in the way he always hoped he could.
For Martin and his survivors, it's a lesson that black people can't defend themselves: white guy hunts you down with a gun, accosts you, and starts a fight? You'd better let him beat you up and turn you over to the police even though you have done nothing wrong, because if you engage in self defense the hunter is going to murder you and then whistle Dixie all the way out of the courthouse. Martin isn't the first black guy to learn that lesson.
Slashdot Mirror
"or Zimmerman would have shot him in the back, and there would be no doubt about his guilt."
This is how I see it, too. And to prevent himself from getting shot in the back, he defended himself against the man hunting him. Unfortunately for the victim, the hunter got his prey.
"He was pinned to the ground and was having his head bashed into the pavement - that's attempted murder."
No, that's self defense against a person assaulting you, as Zimmerman was assaulting Martin.
"Even in your most anti-gun area, that's still full grounds for using deadly force to protect yourself."
Absolutely, and Martin was defending himself against his pursuer.
"Zimmerman was NOT the aggressor"
Yes he was, he assaulted Martin.
"Walking on a sidewalk and following someone is NOT an act of aggression"
Following a person (or, if you are strapped, hunting the person) can certainly be assault, and in this case it was.
"Trayvon physically assaulting Zimmernman was an act of aggression"
No it wasn't, it was reasonable self defense given a strange man hunting him through the darkness for literally no reason.
"since Trayvon initiated the fight and Zimmerman was unable to flee"
Zimmerman started the fight by assaulting Margin so it's impossible for him to have murdered Martin in self defense, because he wasn't defending himself, he was on the offense. If Zimmerman were on the defense, then he wouldn't be hunting down children in the darkness, he would be running away from those children, the way Martin was running away from him, until he decided that running away wasn't working and he had to "stand his ground", which is how the "stand your ground" law applies in this case.
I was always under the impression that you could defend yourself bodily when someone assaults you. Assault is when someone causes you reasonable fear for your safety. If a strange unknown man hunts you through the darkness and follows you then approaches you, that's assault, and I would certainly feel justified in defending myself bodily if a person did that to me.
Huh? First of all, do you mean battery? Assault is "causing reasonable fear". Battery is "criminal hitting". Yes, of course you "defend yourself by hitting".
Self defense is when you defend yourself against an assailant, like Martin tried to do, not when you hunt down an innocent unarmed child and assaulting him in the darkness, like Zimmerman did. Everybody agrees that everyone has the right to defend themselves -- no question about that. But Zimmerman was doing exactly, precisely the opposite of defense.
George started the fight by assaulting Trayvon, then he couldn't take a punch and ended the fight by killing his victim.
You don't get to claim "self defense" when you are committing a crime and Zimmerman's own story is that he assaulted Martin [by causing reasonable fear for safety].
You nailed it.
When I got my first (only) gun, I was trained (lightly, for one day) by a police officer. He told me what I'm sure someone told Zimmerman, which is if you even draw a gun on someone, you need to kill them, so there is only one story to be told in court. That is good self-serving advice, and Zimmerman got away with murder by following it.
Ah, yes, the great hordes of white people upset at the racial injustice of the Simpson ruling, smashed and burned L.A. for many days. Lo! beware the angry white people!
I jest, and of course others have pointed out that you meant the King verdict, but I have a serious point to make which is that the King verdict was a spark, not the fuel for the fire. The fuel had been piling up for a long time.
There are to really good answers to that really good question:
1. when you think continuing to evade the person hunting you is no longer effective, such as when the hunter hunts you for a long time all across a neighborhood.
2. when the legislature of the not-so-great state of Florida says you have no duty to back down, but can stand your ground, as Martin did. While Martin was standing his ground and defending himself, his assailant, George Zimmerman, completed his hunt and murdered his victim.
Everybody knows, or should know, that a power-tripping racist, just like any other person, can't possibly "defend" themselves when they started the altercation by hunting an innocent child through the night. What Zimmerman did is the opposite of self defense: he assaulted the innocent teenager. After that, any notion of "defense" can only be applies to the victim of the assault, Trayvon Martin.
"if a dude is smashing your head into the pavement, you have no right to protect yourself"
You give up the right to self-defense when you start a fight, which Zimmerman did by committing assault [causing reasonable fear for safety] against Martin. Therefore, Zimmerman couldn't possibly act in self defense, because he was on the offense. Martin attempted to defend himself against his murderer, but was unsuccessful.
What I'm saying is, yes, Zimmerman started it so he had to sit there and take his lumps. By refusing to lose the fight he started, by ending the fight he started by killing the person he assaulted, he committed murder -- or, perhaps, some lesser criminal homicide like manslaughter.
"being followed does not create a reasonable belief of imminent threat"
I disagree. I think a reasonable person would fear for their safety when an unknown creepy-ass cracker hunted them across many streets at night for no reason. In my opinion, only an unreasonable person would deny something so obvious. Martin was defending himself against an assailant, a person who committed assault, by hunting him through the night. And the outcome of the situation supports the validity of his fear, considering the creepy-ass cracker did, in fact, murder him.
"Right up until the moment when he jumped a citizen who was absolutely not minding his own business, but who also wasn't breaking any kind of law."
George's actions [stalking through the gloomy night] would make any reasonable person feel in danger. That is assault. George admitted doing this, so he admitted assaulting Martin. Even if Martin threw the first punch, that doesn't matter, because the altercation was already started by the assailant, Zimmerman. Martin's claim of self defense is supported by Zimmerman's story. Zimmerman's story suffices only to turn murder into aggravated manslaughter or some lesser homicide charge like that.
Zimmerman's story should have been enough to convict him. He admitted hunting Trayvon through the night [which is assault]. He admitted approaching Trayvon [which seals the assault charge]. Trayvon defended himself and George killed him.
The only question should have been *when* did Margin decide to commit homicide. If it was at the moment he was losing the fight he started, then that's aggravated manslaughter or something like that. If it was at the moment he left his car, then that's second-degree murder or something like that. When the charges were filed I thought it would be hard, but not impossible, to show the second-degree murder charge, but the homicide charge should have been a matter of course, considering George admitted it.
No I don't agree at all:
"If it was the case of Marting being "pursued by a stranger" only, where does Zimmermans broken nose and cuts to the back of the head come from?"
It comes from Martin defending himself against his assailant.
"The fact that Martin pummeled Zimmerman means that Zimmermans claim of self defence is a plausible"
No it doesn't! Zimmerman admitted to starting the altercation [by hunting a child through the darkness, making him feel reasonably in danger of harm, which is the crime of assault, making Zimmerman an assailant]. Therefore, from George's own story, he can't possibly be defending himself because he started it. The guy defending himself got murdered by the hunter.
Of course your life is in danger! You hunted an innocent boy through the night, started a fight, and now that boy is defending himself against you, his assailant! And you are a small-dick big-ego asshole who can't take a punch, which means you are losing the fight, and you know you are too physically and mentally weak to fight back without your gun! That really, really sucks for you, but society doesn't give a legal damn because you are the criminal, the assailant, the person who hunted down the innocent boy. So when you increase your crime from assault to murder, the law should reject your nonsense "self defense" claim because you weren't defending yourself, you were starting a fight you couldn't win.
I just don't see the basis for a claim of self defense. Zimmerman started it, therefore he was on the offense, not the defense. You can't defend yourself when you initiated an altercation.
This is my moral judgement, not a legal judgement. It's possible and maybe likely that Florida law is immoral.
"I'll grant you that it is possible that Zimmerman initiated a confrontation."
Sure it's possible. It's more than possible, it's part of the admitted facts. Zimmerman started it by hunting down the innocent child -- which is the story he himself told. All actions after that are self defense only for the child, not the murderer.
If a creepy ass grown man hunts you through the darkness, at what point do you stop defending yourself against that aggression? Never. You beat the man's head against the sidewalk until his body is limp because that's when you know you are safe from the person who, again, was hunting an innocent child through the darkness. And once you are safe from your stalker, then you hope you aren't black, because if you're not black you might have access to "self defense" and "stand your ground" laws.
Zimmerman did commit a crime: assault. He made Martin feel reasonable fearful for his bodily protection, because a creepy-ass cracker [racist motherfucker with a hidden gun] was hunting him through the gloom, and if you make someone reasonably fear for their safety, that is the crime of assault. I would feel fearful if a creepy guy followed me through the night and started a fight with me. Apparently in Florida, if I'm black, I'd better not fight back against my stalker or else the stalker will "act in self defense" and murder me.
The self-defense claim is facially absurd. I completely reject it. Martin was the one defending himself. Zimmerman's ego was too bruised to let himself get his ass [deservedly] whooped by a child, so he murdered the child.
The point is Zimmerman started it by hunting an innocent child through the night, so any claim of "self defense" is nonsense because Zimmerman was on the offense, not the defense. It's 180-degrees opposite of self defense. It's exactly what self defense isn't.
"I spend 3mo/year there and have since 2000, and have yet to see it."
That sounds like willful blindness to me. "Hey, look, nobody ever treated [non-black] me poorly so I am just going to assume racism is dead in this former slave state." Mmm hmm.
I didn't follow the case closely. At what point in the clear video of the incident did we see Martin lay in wait? You wouldn't say something so preposterous if it was merely the unbelievable story of the murderer, would you? There's no way you would be so guilless.
Oh, sure, George probably reasonably felt that his life was in danger, but it's still not self defense because Zimmerman is the one who started it. Martin was defending himself against a murderer; for Zimmerman it is exactly the opposite of self defense. He started a fight, lost it, and murdered the guy who was teaching him a lesson about why it's not okay to hunt children through the darkness. Well, tried to teach him a lesson -- instead I guess George learned that it's okay to hunt children through the darkness as long as they are black. Martin is a self-glorified egotistic asshole who uses a carries because children can kick his ass in fights he starts, and then uses the gun in the way he always hoped he could.
For Martin and his survivors, it's a lesson that black people can't defend themselves: white guy hunts you down with a gun, accosts you, and starts a fight? You'd better let him beat you up and turn you over to the police even though you have done nothing wrong, because if you engage in self defense the hunter is going to murder you and then whistle Dixie all the way out of the courthouse. Martin isn't the first black guy to learn that lesson.
It's an obvious troll, don't get too worked up about it.
you done forgot emoticons ;-)
I would like that story a lot more with a follow-up by the linguist. What did the prof think of that?