Yes, but the police told her she was a witness, not a suspect and told her how much worse for her it would be if she got an attorney, etc. I'm not a lawyer, and certainly not an italian lawyer, but I think the law in Italy requires a lawyer present for a suspect's interrogation unless the suspect explicitly waives one. She was pretty much railroaded the whole way by a group of bullies.
The point I was making is that the definition being used is fairly specialized to the context, just as the definition of "metal" differs from one context to another. Consider how context sensitive mathematical symbols can be. Is it a cross product or a cartesian product or a standard product? Is it a dot product or a logical and? Don't even get me started on the overloading of the greek alphabet. If someone is familiar with a term in one context, confusion is natural when they encounter it in another and it becomes a false cognate. In short, you can educate someone about the meanings of terms in context without needing to be arrogant jerk about it.
No, it's not really possible to make things worse than they are now (without going to something ridiculous like throwing darts at a wall). The simple plurality voting commonly used really is the worst system for greater than two candidates. For exactly two options it's the perfect method, but for more it's the worst of all the voting systems.
I weep for whoever told you a collection of photons can't have a temperature in the same way a collection of particles can. Who was it? Was it... no one?
It's pefectly reasonable to think that collections of photons don't have a temperature. It's also perfectly reasonable to think that not everything other than hydrogen and helium is a "metal". Some other posters
I do actually believe that evil can be rational and sane, although still, you know... evil! I said that it was functionally insane, meaning that it's not technically insane, but for all intents and purposes behaves the same way.
She didn't confess, and her supposed false accusation of someone else was based on deceptive leading questions from interrogators. You know the sort of thing. The police ask people something like "help us figure" it out and to "imagine" how the crime might have happened, and suggest scenarios for them to fill in the blanks. Then they turn it around and call it a confession, or an accusation. The cellphone evidence is based on analysis of only call records by a police inspector, not by any sort of telecommunications expert. The inspector concluded that the cell phones were turned off solely because they didn't receive any texts or phone calls during a block of time, surrounding the murder (well into the next day, as a matter of fact). The police also arrested and successfully prosecuted someone else for the same murder. The prosecutor in the case was also convicted of abuse of power in another case. His conviction was eventually overturned and, under italian law, no-one is considered guilty until all appeals are exhausted. By that same principle, Amanda Knox also was never considered guilty under Italian law.
I do not have a justification for the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Calling them the acts of madmen is just wrong. You can call them evil if you prefer, but you cannot call them irrational, and certainly not mad.
Evil or crazy, no difference. For the purposes of this discussion, evil is a form of functional insanity. Evil enough to kill the civilians of another country is evil enough to subject the citizens of your own country to retaliation and write it off.
You are still suffering from the mistaken belief that all nuclear wars end with everyone dead. We have had one so far, it killed somewhere in the region of 200,000 people.
I've never suffered from that belief. I'm fully aware that a nuclear war wouldn't kill everyone, but the sheer volume of death would be pretty massive. I said that both sides thought that the other would be willing to kill their entire citizenry, not that they necessarily could. Not just from the first order deaths and the fallout, but from the collapse in infrastructure that would follow. In any case, citing Hiroshima and Nagasaki as examples isn't very applicable. Those bombs were proofs of concept. They were 16 kiloton and 21 kiloton bombs respectively. Most of the nuclear weapons in the US arsenal these days have a yield more in the range of 500 kilotons.
The US went ahead with nuclear war and won it, against Japan. That was not beyond psychotic.
Considering that they were attacking civilians (although I'm sure you have a justification since there were factories in those cities, which somehow makes everyone and their mother a combatant) , it kind of was. When you consider further that it looks like the main reason the US did it was to essentially call "first dibs" on Japan and stop the Soviets from invading, it doesn't look much better.
Which side is it you're saying was reasonably believable as crazy during the Cold War?
Both of them. Clearly each side believed that the other would be willing to murder their entire citizenry. If both sides truly believe that the other will never use their nuclear weapons unless attacked with nuclear weapons first, you can't have a tense standoff.
Oh, I do apply that to Martin. If he was shot without trying to beat another person to death just because he was there I would be the first to call foul. But really, if he is stupid enough to attack someone whom he knows to have a gun he deserves to get shot.
It's not clear exactly when Martin realized that Zimmerman had a gun, but it was probably after he approached him, at which point, retreat doesn't seem like a safe option, especially if you're a teenage kid who believes that handgun accuracy is similar to what you see in movies. Turning your back on someone with a gun who you think wants to hurt you is not something you can expect people to do.
Oh, and "trying to beat another person to death just because he was there"? Yeah, poor Zimmerman, on his way back from the store and this kid comes out of nowhere and... Oh wait, that's backwards. Martin was the one minding his own business and Zimmerman was the one who just came out of nowhere.
Also, saying that Martin deserved to die? What kind of sick, twisted person are you? We're talking about a real human being here.
As for my example with a teenage girl, I didn't, in my hypothetical example, say that the girl would attack Zimmerman. The example was if he had been arrested for being a creepy stalker. In that situation, with the exact same behaviour, he wouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt that so many people seem to be frothing at the mouth to give him.
Fine then, here's another example. Zimmerman chases down a teenage girl and her father catches him doing it, asks Zimmerman what he thinks he's doing, to which Zimmerman responds the way he did to Martin. The angry, protective father attacks him, thinking he's a threat to his daughter, and Zimmerman ends up shooting the father in the heart? Whose side are you on that scenario?
Martin trying to take the gun only means he was aware aware he had a gun at some point, not prior to this becoming a physical altercation.
Given the clothing Zimmerman was wearing, it doesn't seem like it would have been that hard to spot the gun. Either way, his behaviour has to have seemed pretty bizarre and threatening to Martin. All in all, the whole thing was just a set of tragic mistakes, but the responsibility for it is clearly Zimmerman's
Zimmerman was with the neighborhood watch and was chasing Martin. According to Zimmerman's testimony, Martin confronted him about why he was chasing him and Zimmerman, instead of saying that he was with the neighborhood watch, lied, then turned his back to Martin and went for his cell phone. Since he was wearing a gun and, given his clothing, Martin must have seen it, Zimmerman's actions would have seemed pretty suspicious and threatening. Seriously, what is it with people treating this as if it were some random encounter between Zimmerman and an irrationally angry and violent Martin? Even if Zimmerman's account of the situation is exactly true, Martin had every reason in the world to think he was fighting for his life against a dangerous aggressor. The fact that Zimmerman ended up shooting him right through the heart seems to support that idea.
Zimmerman had a gun. It was legal to carry one, but gun ownership has certain responsibilities. Even more so when you're actually carrying it on you. Pro-gun advocates are always saying things like "an armed society is a polite society" insisting that the implicit threat of violence that comes with carrying a gun is a preventative. That's all well and good, but if you're going to follow that reasoning, you have to recognize that carrying a gun does in fact present the world with that implicit threat of violence. If someone is chasing you down, it's threatening enough. If they also have a gun, that threat is greatly increased.
The fact that you can write that immediately after a post from yourself claiming that the autopsy report on Martin would say anything about blood found on Zimmerman does seem to suggest that I'm not the one who's an idiot.
Also, no the "police report, EMS report, autopsy, his doctor's report, and police photos" don't corroborate his side of the story. They imply that a fight did take place. They don't say anything about Zimmerman's claims as the exact circumstances.
I'm saying that being an idiot and killing someone through your idiocy with no real justification for the situation you got yourself into is actually a crime, SYG law or no. I also haven't brought it up much, but none of the witness reports are particularly reliable, so it largely is just Zimmerman's word. There is no particular reason why a jury is going to implicitly believe hopped up bully who killed a minor.
Yeah, because the autopsy report on Martin says anything at all about evidence found on Zimmerman. You know, I'm getting pretty sick of my intelligence repeatedly being insulted by a little toad such as yourself given that you're clearly a moron.
By all reconstructions, testimony and other means available to the court, Martin was on top of Zimmerman.
Yes, it looks like he probably was at some point. The question is, was he still like that when he was shot right through the heart?
The example you gave in your last post was no different than the previous examples you gave. It involved a someone in the commission of a crime being confronted and attacking, then being killed. Martin was not committing a crime.
I thought that, since the source was from a mind exactly in line with yours and was not, by any stretch of the imagination, pro-Martin, you might respect it a bit more. In any case, the actual details of Martin's football career and its end have been repeated all over the place. The way it's reported often leaves the impression he was still a football player, but never explicitly says so. I doubt very much that you actually have any authoritative source saying that Martin was still a football player. It was probably vague, but you didn't read it that way and it stuck in your head. Your impression is, nevertheless wrong. Martin stopped playing football at age 14.
Not if it's fat. If it's muscle and increased bone mass it kind of is significant. 15 lbs of muscle contracting can move a thousand pounds or more. In any case, you're the one who was making a big deal about the fact that you could beat your dad even though he outweighed you by 15 pounds.
"If you're doing something legal, no matter what the act is, and you're attacked, it's in that moment that you have a right to stand your ground." Prosecutors, who are generally critical of the law, agree.
For starters, plain old harassment isn't legal. But the overall manslaughter issue is still more significant. If you're behaving in a criminally negligent manner that leads to someone's death, then it's manslaughter, which, since death resulted, would make Zimmerman's actions illegal. All this is only provided that his story is completely true. His story may not even be true, and the jury may not believe it. We're discussing this as if everything Zimmerman is saying really is true, and I think he should be guilty of manslaughter even in that case.
Martin was doing nothing illegal. Cops have already confirmed that 8 months ago. Quit pulling shit from your ass. It'll get red and chapped at your rate.
I know Martin was doing nothing illegal. What's your point?
Well, if Zimmerman's story is true, Martin approached and confronted him about why Zimmerman was following him after Zimmerman lost him in the car and got out to search on foot. He didn't go home, so it looks like he didn't leave the scene and return, he was just out of sight of Zimmerman. Sounds like he was hiding to me.
He was cleaned up, and stayed clean during the trip in without bleeding, but then apparently started bleeding freely again from multiple locations later on for another police picture. Maybe swelling sealed the wounds and then went down later and they opened back up? Not sure, but it seems like if they were bleeding that freely someone would have put on at least a band-aid.
As for corresponding bruising on Martin's knuckles, now that I've read the autopsy in full, that's clearly not exactly the case. There was one small abrasion found on one knuckle.
Read the SYG law, shut the fuck up, and go back to your abode under the bridge.
The SYG law may well be irrelevant due to Zimmerman's negligence creating the situation. Negligent behaviour leading to death can make all kinds of things that would otherwise be legal essentially illegal.
In this situation the SYG law will supersede the manslaughter laws because there is a lack of evidence against Zimmerman, not necessarily because he's innocent or was "right" in what he did.
That doesn't really make any sense because manslaughter laws would be covering the entire event, not just the specific parts involving the scuffle and the killing. In all your examples of the SYG law (in which I sincerely hope there were some extenuating circumstances) the person killed was still committing some sort of criminal act that initiated the situation. In this case, Zimmerman is the one who initiated the situation, not Martin. Otherwise, by the same defense you present for Zimmerman, Martin is also entitled to defense under the SYG law.
So far I've just seen summaries in news articles. Now I've read the report. Almost perfect shot through the heart from straight on. Seems even more like it should get blood on Zimmerman and that the body should have fallen on him when shot.
Still having a bit of trouble with the positioning of Martin when he was shot. If they were struggling for the gun, as Zimmerman claimed, there should probably be powder burns actually on Martin's hands and arms. Presumably such forensic details will come out during the trial if they exist.
As for whether anyone can prove Zimmerman's guilt, I would think that it's more a matter of law than a matter of fact. I think they can probably convict based only on the details Zimmerman admits to depending on the interpretation of the law. You seem pretty convinced that the stand your ground law will protect Zimmerman, but I'm not so sure about that. For one thing, as you've said, he killed a minor, and this will be decided by a jury. For another thing, I think that the stand your ground defense is torpedoed by the overall issue of Zimmerman's poor judgement leading to a death.
As for the case you mention with the drug dealer, presumably he was actually being actively threatened by someone trying to rob him. Clearly that wasn't happening in this case. Martin would never have been a threat to Zimmerman at all if Zimmerman weren't implicitly threatening him by chasing him.
And I'm not your search engine. Martin was a _former_ football player. He played up to age 14, then stopped. Still, since we could just go back and forth forever making claims without references and demanding that the other look it up, here's a reference for you: Deconstructing HuffPo's Insufferable Propaganda Reporting on Trayvon Martin. The relevant section from that article:
Yeah, they love to keep talking about this football player Trayvon, except there’s one issue. He hasn’t played for years. I’m surprised they didn’t mention his weekly choir practice, or kitten rescue efforts.
The boy was a swift athlete, according to a friend, and played a range of positions up to about age 14.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but the police told her she was a witness, not a suspect and told her how much worse for her it would be if she got an attorney, etc. I'm not a lawyer, and certainly not an italian lawyer, but I think the law in Italy requires a lawyer present for a suspect's interrogation unless the suspect explicitly waives one. She was pretty much railroaded the whole way by a group of bullies.
The point I was making is that the definition being used is fairly specialized to the context, just as the definition of "metal" differs from one context to another. Consider how context sensitive mathematical symbols can be. Is it a cross product or a cartesian product or a standard product? Is it a dot product or a logical and? Don't even get me started on the overloading of the greek alphabet. If someone is familiar with a term in one context, confusion is natural when they encounter it in another and it becomes a false cognate. In short, you can educate someone about the meanings of terms in context without needing to be arrogant jerk about it.
No, it's not really possible to make things worse than they are now (without going to something ridiculous like throwing darts at a wall). The simple plurality voting commonly used really is the worst system for greater than two candidates. For exactly two options it's the perfect method, but for more it's the worst of all the voting systems.
I weep for whoever told you a collection of photons can't have a temperature in the same way a collection of particles can. Who was it? Was it... no one?
It's pefectly reasonable to think that collections of photons don't have a temperature. It's also perfectly reasonable to think that not everything other than hydrogen and helium is a "metal". Some other posters
I do actually believe that evil can be rational and sane, although still, you know... evil! I said that it was functionally insane, meaning that it's not technically insane, but for all intents and purposes behaves the same way.
She didn't confess, and her supposed false accusation of someone else was based on deceptive leading questions from interrogators. You know the sort of thing. The police ask people something like "help us figure" it out and to "imagine" how the crime might have happened, and suggest scenarios for them to fill in the blanks. Then they turn it around and call it a confession, or an accusation. The cellphone evidence is based on analysis of only call records by a police inspector, not by any sort of telecommunications expert. The inspector concluded that the cell phones were turned off solely because they didn't receive any texts or phone calls during a block of time, surrounding the murder (well into the next day, as a matter of fact). The police also arrested and successfully prosecuted someone else for the same murder. The prosecutor in the case was also convicted of abuse of power in another case. His conviction was eventually overturned and, under italian law, no-one is considered guilty until all appeals are exhausted. By that same principle, Amanda Knox also was never considered guilty under Italian law.
I do not have a justification for the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Calling them the acts of madmen is just wrong. You can call them evil if you prefer, but you cannot call them irrational, and certainly not mad.
Evil or crazy, no difference. For the purposes of this discussion, evil is a form of functional insanity. Evil enough to kill the civilians of another country is evil enough to subject the citizens of your own country to retaliation and write it off.
You are still suffering from the mistaken belief that all nuclear wars end with everyone dead. We have had one so far, it killed somewhere in the region of 200,000 people.
I've never suffered from that belief. I'm fully aware that a nuclear war wouldn't kill everyone, but the sheer volume of death would be pretty massive. I said that both sides thought that the other would be willing to kill their entire citizenry, not that they necessarily could. Not just from the first order deaths and the fallout, but from the collapse in infrastructure that would follow. In any case, citing Hiroshima and Nagasaki as examples isn't very applicable. Those bombs were proofs of concept. They were 16 kiloton and 21 kiloton bombs respectively. Most of the nuclear weapons in the US arsenal these days have a yield more in the range of 500 kilotons.
The US went ahead with nuclear war and won it, against Japan. That was not beyond psychotic.
Considering that they were attacking civilians (although I'm sure you have a justification since there were factories in those cities, which somehow makes everyone and their mother a combatant) , it kind of was. When you consider further that it looks like the main reason the US did it was to essentially call "first dibs" on Japan and stop the Soviets from invading, it doesn't look much better.
Which side is it you're saying was reasonably believable as crazy during the Cold War?
Both of them. Clearly each side believed that the other would be willing to murder their entire citizenry. If both sides truly believe that the other will never use their nuclear weapons unless attacked with nuclear weapons first, you can't have a tense standoff.
Oh, I do apply that to Martin. If he was shot without trying to beat another person to death just because he was there I would be the first to call foul. But really, if he is stupid enough to attack someone whom he knows to have a gun he deserves to get shot.
It's not clear exactly when Martin realized that Zimmerman had a gun, but it was probably after he approached him, at which point, retreat doesn't seem like a safe option, especially if you're a teenage kid who believes that handgun accuracy is similar to what you see in movies. Turning your back on someone with a gun who you think wants to hurt you is not something you can expect people to do.
Oh, and "trying to beat another person to death just because he was there"? Yeah, poor Zimmerman, on his way back from the store and this kid comes out of nowhere and... Oh wait, that's backwards. Martin was the one minding his own business and Zimmerman was the one who just came out of nowhere.
Also, saying that Martin deserved to die? What kind of sick, twisted person are you? We're talking about a real human being here.
As for my example with a teenage girl, I didn't, in my hypothetical example, say that the girl would attack Zimmerman. The example was if he had been arrested for being a creepy stalker. In that situation, with the exact same behaviour, he wouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt that so many people seem to be frothing at the mouth to give him.
Fine then, here's another example. Zimmerman chases down a teenage girl and her father catches him doing it, asks Zimmerman what he thinks he's doing, to which Zimmerman responds the way he did to Martin. The angry, protective father attacks him, thinking he's a threat to his daughter, and Zimmerman ends up shooting the father in the heart? Whose side are you on that scenario?
Martin trying to take the gun only means he was aware aware he had a gun at some point, not prior to this becoming a physical altercation.
Given the clothing Zimmerman was wearing, it doesn't seem like it would have been that hard to spot the gun. Either way, his behaviour has to have seemed pretty bizarre and threatening to Martin. All in all, the whole thing was just a set of tragic mistakes, but the responsibility for it is clearly Zimmerman's
Zimmerman was with the neighborhood watch and was chasing Martin. According to Zimmerman's testimony, Martin confronted him about why he was chasing him and Zimmerman, instead of saying that he was with the neighborhood watch, lied, then turned his back to Martin and went for his cell phone. Since he was wearing a gun and, given his clothing, Martin must have seen it, Zimmerman's actions would have seemed pretty suspicious and threatening. Seriously, what is it with people treating this as if it were some random encounter between Zimmerman and an irrationally angry and violent Martin? Even if Zimmerman's account of the situation is exactly true, Martin had every reason in the world to think he was fighting for his life against a dangerous aggressor. The fact that Zimmerman ended up shooting him right through the heart seems to support that idea.
Zimmerman had a gun. It was legal to carry one, but gun ownership has certain responsibilities. Even more so when you're actually carrying it on you. Pro-gun advocates are always saying things like "an armed society is a polite society" insisting that the implicit threat of violence that comes with carrying a gun is a preventative. That's all well and good, but if you're going to follow that reasoning, you have to recognize that carrying a gun does in fact present the world with that implicit threat of violence. If someone is chasing you down, it's threatening enough. If they also have a gun, that threat is greatly increased.
The fact that you can write that immediately after a post from yourself claiming that the autopsy report on Martin would say anything about blood found on Zimmerman does seem to suggest that I'm not the one who's an idiot.
Don't recall seeing that in the autopsy report.
Also, no the "police report, EMS report, autopsy, his doctor's report, and police photos" don't corroborate his side of the story. They imply that a fight did take place. They don't say anything about Zimmerman's claims as the exact circumstances.
I'm saying that being an idiot and killing someone through your idiocy with no real justification for the situation you got yourself into is actually a crime, SYG law or no. I also haven't brought it up much, but none of the witness reports are particularly reliable, so it largely is just Zimmerman's word. There is no particular reason why a jury is going to implicitly believe hopped up bully who killed a minor.
Yeah, because the autopsy report on Martin says anything at all about evidence found on Zimmerman. You know, I'm getting pretty sick of my intelligence repeatedly being insulted by a little toad such as yourself given that you're clearly a moron.
By all reconstructions, testimony and other means available to the court, Martin was on top of Zimmerman.
Yes, it looks like he probably was at some point. The question is, was he still like that when he was shot right through the heart?
The example you gave in your last post was no different than the previous examples you gave. It involved a someone in the commission of a crime being confronted and attacking, then being killed. Martin was not committing a crime.
I thought that, since the source was from a mind exactly in line with yours and was not, by any stretch of the imagination, pro-Martin, you might respect it a bit more. In any case, the actual details of Martin's football career and its end have been repeated all over the place. The way it's reported often leaves the impression he was still a football player, but never explicitly says so. I doubt very much that you actually have any authoritative source saying that Martin was still a football player. It was probably vague, but you didn't read it that way and it stuck in your head. Your impression is, nevertheless wrong. Martin stopped playing football at age 14.
Not if it's fat. If it's muscle and increased bone mass it kind of is significant. 15 lbs of muscle contracting can move a thousand pounds or more. In any case, you're the one who was making a big deal about the fact that you could beat your dad even though he outweighed you by 15 pounds.
"If you're doing something legal, no matter what the act is, and you're attacked, it's in that moment that you have a right to stand your ground." Prosecutors, who are generally critical of the law, agree.
For starters, plain old harassment isn't legal. But the overall manslaughter issue is still more significant. If you're behaving in a criminally negligent manner that leads to someone's death, then it's manslaughter, which, since death resulted, would make Zimmerman's actions illegal. All this is only provided that his story is completely true. His story may not even be true, and the jury may not believe it. We're discussing this as if everything Zimmerman is saying really is true, and I think he should be guilty of manslaughter even in that case.
Martin was doing nothing illegal. Cops have already confirmed that 8 months ago. Quit pulling shit from your ass. It'll get red and chapped at your rate.
I know Martin was doing nothing illegal. What's your point?
Well, if Zimmerman's story is true, Martin approached and confronted him about why Zimmerman was following him after Zimmerman lost him in the car and got out to search on foot. He didn't go home, so it looks like he didn't leave the scene and return, he was just out of sight of Zimmerman. Sounds like he was hiding to me.
He was cleaned up, and stayed clean during the trip in without bleeding, but then apparently started bleeding freely again from multiple locations later on for another police picture. Maybe swelling sealed the wounds and then went down later and they opened back up? Not sure, but it seems like if they were bleeding that freely someone would have put on at least a band-aid.
As for corresponding bruising on Martin's knuckles, now that I've read the autopsy in full, that's clearly not exactly the case. There was one small abrasion found on one knuckle.
Read the SYG law, shut the fuck up, and go back to your abode under the bridge.
The SYG law may well be irrelevant due to Zimmerman's negligence creating the situation. Negligent behaviour leading to death can make all kinds of things that would otherwise be legal essentially illegal.
In this situation the SYG law will supersede the manslaughter laws because there is a lack of evidence against Zimmerman, not necessarily because he's innocent or was "right" in what he did.
That doesn't really make any sense because manslaughter laws would be covering the entire event, not just the specific parts involving the scuffle and the killing.
In all your examples of the SYG law (in which I sincerely hope there were some extenuating circumstances) the person killed was still committing some sort of criminal act that initiated the situation. In this case, Zimmerman is the one who initiated the situation, not Martin. Otherwise, by the same defense you present for Zimmerman, Martin is also entitled to defense under the SYG law.
So far I've just seen summaries in news articles. Now I've read the report. Almost perfect shot through the heart from straight on. Seems even more like it should get blood on Zimmerman and that the body should have fallen on him when shot.
Still having a bit of trouble with the positioning of Martin when he was shot. If they were struggling for the gun, as Zimmerman claimed, there should probably be powder burns actually on Martin's hands and arms. Presumably such forensic details will come out during the trial if they exist.
As for whether anyone can prove Zimmerman's guilt, I would think that it's more a matter of law than a matter of fact. I think they can probably convict based only on the details Zimmerman admits to depending on the interpretation of the law. You seem pretty convinced that the stand your ground law will protect Zimmerman, but I'm not so sure about that. For one thing, as you've said, he killed a minor, and this will be decided by a jury. For another thing, I think that the stand your ground defense is torpedoed by the overall issue of Zimmerman's poor judgement leading to a death.
As for the case you mention with the drug dealer, presumably he was actually being actively threatened by someone trying to rob him. Clearly that wasn't happening in this case. Martin would never have been a threat to Zimmerman at all if Zimmerman weren't implicitly threatening him by chasing him.
And I'm not your search engine. Martin was a _former_ football player. He played up to age 14, then stopped.
Still, since we could just go back and forth forever making claims without references and demanding that the other look it up, here's a reference for you: Deconstructing HuffPo's Insufferable Propaganda Reporting on Trayvon Martin. The relevant section from that article:
Yeah, they love to keep talking about this football player Trayvon, except there’s one issue. He hasn’t played for years. I’m surprised they didn’t mention his weekly choir practice, or kitten rescue efforts.
The boy was a swift athlete, according to a friend, and played a range of positions up to about age 14.