Trayvon Martin shooting: Zimmerman says Trayvon decked him, then began hammering him

[Iamtdg]

The troll symbol fits you well.

 

[peplaw06]

How was his life threatened? By all accounts, the gun was never revealed until after the physical altercation started. So if he ran, how was he going to get shot in the back? Or more to the point, how would that thought even cross his mind, causing him to weigh the odds of the two scenarios as you've layed out here, if he didn't know about a concealed gun?

Someone following you in the dark confronts you and reaches for something in their pocket, and you're going to tell me you're not going to instantly think they're reaching for a gun? Mind you, the same fact that Zimmerman knew -- that there had been a rash of burglaries in the neighborhood -- was likely known by Trayvon as well.

If you don't think that thought would cross your mind, you're lying to yourself.

Edit: There's a reason why law enforcement tells a suspect to keep their hands in the air. If a suspect, after receiving that order, reaches for something, they're usually shot on the spot.

 

[Midswat]

-- that there had been a rash of burglaries in the neighborhood -- was likely known by Trayvon as well.

Then Trayvon should've been a little more cognizant of how suspicious his activities were, as well as understanding of why he was being watched/followed.

There was, afterall, a rash of burglaries. Not a rash of stalking, kidnapping, mexican assault squads.

 

[Sheik]

You guys are fukin dumb.

 

[Iamtdg]

You guys are fukin dumb.

:towel

 

[peplaw06]

Then Trayvon should've been a little more cognizant of how suspicious his activities were, as well as understanding of why he was being watched/followed.

There was, afterall, a rash of burglaries. Not a rash of stalking, kidnapping, mexican assault squads.

aka he shouldn't have been black with a hoodie.

 

[NoDak]

Someone following you in the dark confronts you and reaches for something in their pocket, and you're going to tell me you're not going to instantly think they're reaching for a gun? Mind you, the same fact that Zimmerman knew -- that there had been a rash of burglaries in the neighborhood -- was likely known by Trayvon as well.

If you don't think that thought would cross your mind, you're lying to yourself.

Edit: There's a reason why law enforcement tells a suspect to keep their hands in the air. If a suspect, after receiving that order, reaches for something, they're usually shot on the spot.

He supposedly reached for his phone while they were face to face. That's when Martin alledgedly lashed out, fearing Zimmerman was pulling a gun, right? Reports have said Trayvon knew he was being followed before hand. And people here have speculated he then was fearing for his life. So I ask again, how would he know if the guy had a gun and had to make a decision between the two scenarios you layed out? From the way you stated it, it was then these options were presented to him.

And why would Martin 'likely' know there was a rash of burglaries in the neighborhood? He didn't live there, afterall. He was a 17 year old guy, who was there visiting. You trying to sell us that teenagers keep up on the crime rate in a neighborhood they don't even live in? Sounds to me your reaching here, trying to prove a weak point.

 

[peplaw06]

He supposedly reached for his phone while they were face to face. That's when Martin alledgedly lashed out, fearing Zimmerman was pulling a gun, right? Reports have said Trayvon knew he was being followed before hand. And people here have speculated he then was fearing for his life. So I ask again, how would he know if the guy had a gun and had to make a decision between the two scenarios you layed out? From the way you stated it, it was then these options were presented to him.

No, those options were presented to him when Zimmerman began to reach for something. It's reasonable to be fearful of someone following you at night. It's reasonable to confront the person and ask why they're following you. When that person reaches for something on him, then it's reasonable to think that he's reaching for a gun. At that point, you have two options, run or fight.

And why would Martin 'likely' know there was a rash of burglaries in the neighborhood? He didn't live there, afterall. He was a 17 year old guy, who was there visiting. You trying to sell us that teenagers keep up on the crime rate in a neighborhood they don't even live in? Sounds to me your reaching here, trying to prove a weak point.

Wasn't he there because his father lived in the neighborhood?

I notice you didn't dispute that you would have thought he was reaching for a gun.

 

[Midswat]

aka he shouldn't have been black with a hoodie.

.... standing around looking at houses..... at night..... in the rain.

 

[NoDak]

No, those options were presented to him when Zimmerman began to reach for something. It's reasonable to be fearful of someone following you at night. It's reasonable to confront the person and ask why they're following you. When that person reaches for something on him, then it's reasonable to think that he's reaching for a gun. At that point, you have two options, run or fight.

Wasn't he there because his father lived in the neighborhood?

I notice you didn't dispute that you would have thought he was reaching for a gun.

Oh. How convenient that those options were there only when Zimmerman was reaching for his "gun". Since you already decided that he knew of the rash of burglaries, that thought should have been in his mind quite a bit earlier according to the scenario you've already spun. And if Martin already thought of Zimmerman as a criminal who would probably be carrying some kind of weapon, why would he confront him then? And since you've already presumed to know how I'd feel in a situation, I'll take that same liberty with you here. I think you or anybody else with half a brain in their head would have ran their ass out of there as fast as possible, if you thought a potential criminal with a weapon was following you. But he didn't. He instead chose to confront him. Why? Could it be that Martin knew who the potential threat was in the situation?

And I didn't dispute your scenario because it was a hypothetical. There is no way you, me, or anybody else could know how we'd react, or how Martin himself was thinking. I could have told you I absolutely would not believe it. How would you prove I was lying or not? Spin more coulda woulda shouldas?

I notice that you can drop these hypotheticals, and expect them to be some kind of point scored, but when anybody else has done it in this thread, it is not allowed. Is this some kind of fancy lawyerin' trick to shock and amaze us unwashed? It's not working.

 

[Jon88]

I notice that you can drop these hypotheticals, and expect them to be some kind of point scored, but when anybody else has done it in this thread, it is not allowed.

I noticed the same thing!

 

[peplaw06]

Oh. How convenient that those options were there only when Zimmerman was reaching for his "gun".

I never said those options weren't there before that point. I went through a scenario in which I think Martin's actions were reasonable. And I'm not sure why you put gun in quotes. Zimmerman was obviously armed.

Since you already decided that he knew of the rash of burglaries, that thought should have been in his mind quite a bit earlier according to the scenario you've already spun.

I didn't decide anything. I suspected it would likely be the case. We can't know for sure because he's dead.

And if Martin already thought of Zimmerman as a criminal who would probably be carrying some kind of weapon, why would he confront him then?

It may not have been the smartest thing to do, I've never said otherwise. All I've said is it's reasonable to do. Hell Florida's stand your ground law legislates that it's a reasonable thing to do. Zimmerman gets to use that statute as a defense, why can't Martin?

If Zimmerman thought that Martin was a criminal who would probably be carrying some kind of weapon, why would he confront him?

And since you've already presumed to know how I'd feel in a situation, I'll take that same liberty with you here. I think you or anybody else with half a brain in their head would have ran their ass out of there as fast as possible, if you thought a potential criminal with a weapon was following you. But he didn't. He instead chose to confront him. Why? Could it be that Martin knew who the potential threat was in the situation?

I've been in a similar situation before, as I've already stated. I chose to speed away... But the thought did cross my mind to hit them with my car. I was lucky enough to be in a vehicle where I could get myself to safety quicker. If I was on foot, the decision might well have been to assault the person. A human cannot outrun a bullet. A car cannot either, but it's fast enough to get some distance between you and the shooter to where a shot is less likely to be on target.

Regardless I can tell you when you feel threatened like that, you're not thinking 100% clearly. Given the mental state I was in when I experienced a threat like that, I think Martin's decision to confront Zimmerman when he was on foot was reasonable.

And I didn't dispute your scenario because it was a hypothetical. There is no way you, me, or anybody else could know how we'd react, or how Martin himself was thinking. I could have told you I absolutely would not believe it. How would you prove I was lying or not? Spin more coulda woulda shouldas?

I have an idea of how I would react, because it's not completely hypothetical to me. And because I believe my thought process is reasonable, I think most people would have that thought cross their mind. Of course we don't know what Martin himself was thinking, because he's not here to explain it.

And if you deny that the thought that a person following you through a neighborhood at night might have a gun, or might mean to cause you harm, would have crossed your mind, then I *believe* you're lying to yourself. Notice I said I believe. I can't know for sure, and I can't prove it. But it doesn't seem reasonable to me. If you absolutely know it wouldn't cross your mind, I would like to know what would cross your mind? That the person following you was intending to invite you to his house for a drink?

I notice that you can drop these hypotheticals, and expect them to be some kind of point scored, but when anybody else has done it in this thread, it is not allowed. Is this some kind of fancy lawyerin' trick to shock and amaze us unwashed? It's not working.

In order to try to think through this case, you have to think about how you would react if you were put in the same situation... which requires hypotheticals. I'm not sure what you're referring to with my saying hypotheticals aren't allowed. Pretty sure I've never said that. But that doesn't mean hypotheticals cannot be discussed and debated. If you think my debating a certain hypothetical means that I somehow think they are not allowed, then you're mistaken.

 

[Iamtdg]

Words words words

 

[NoDak]

I never said those options weren't there before that point. I went through a scenario in which I think Martin's actions were reasonable. And I'm not sure why you put gun in quotes. Zimmerman was obviously armed.

I put gun in quotes because it wasn't a gun he was going for. It was his phone. This was the scenario you presented. Keep up. You are having us believe that Martin thought it was a gun. But we'll never know, will we? He's dead. (I thought you'd like that, since you use it often)

It may not have been the smartest thing to do, I've never said otherwise. All I've said is it's reasonable to do. Hell Florida's stand your ground law legislates that it's a reasonable thing to do. Zimmerman gets to use that statute as a defense, why can't Martin?

Where am I arguing that law? I'm not? Oh, I guess you're just inserting more smoke and mirrors. Even so, now you'll have us believe that not only did a 17 year old guy know the crime rates of a neighborhood he didn't live in, but now knows of a law, and is thinking of it at the time that he can use to back him in this situation. Oy.

If Zimmerman thought that Martin was a criminal who would probably be carrying some kind of weapon, why would he confront him?

Zimmerman confronted Martin? I thought he was only following him. And when he lost sight of him, was returning to his car when Martin alledgedly confronted him? Are these reports false? Maybe so. That's for the courts to decide. But those are the only reports we've been shown. Show me something that says Zimmerman confronted Martin. I must have missed them.

I've been in a similar situation before, as I've already stated. I chose to speed away... But the thought did cross my mind to hit them with my car. I was lucky enough to be in a vehicle where I could get myself to safety quicker. If I was on foot, the decision might well have been to assault the person. A human cannot outrun a bullet. A car cannot either, but it's fast enough to get some distance between you and the shooter to where a shot is less likely to be on target.

Regardless I can tell you when you feel threatened like that, you're not thinking 100% clearly. Given the mental state I was in when I experienced a threat like that, I think Martin's decision to confront Zimmerman when he was on foot was reasonable.

I have an idea of how I would react, because it's not completely hypothetical to me. And because I believe my thought process is reasonable, I think most people would have that thought cross their mind. Of course we don't know what Martin himself was thinking, because he's not here to explain it.

And if you deny that the thought that a person following you through a neighborhood at night might have a gun, or might mean to cause you harm, would have crossed your mind, then I *believe* you're lying to yourself. Notice I said I believe. I can't know for sure, and I can't prove it. But it doesn't seem reasonable to me. If you absolutely know it wouldn't cross your mind, I would like to know what would cross your mind? That the person following you was intending to invite you to his house for a drink?

Blah, blah, blah. Bunch of speculation and heresy. You can say how you've reacted in a situation. What you can't say is how others would act in the same or similar situations. I've been involved in many life threatening situations. I've reacted differently in some of them, as I had in others. What I wouldn't do is be so arrogant as to think I'd know or could even assume what others would do in those situations.

In order to try to think through this case, you have to think about how you would react if you were put in the same situation... which requires hypotheticals. I'm not sure what you're referring to with my saying hypotheticals aren't allowed. Pretty sure I've never said that. But that doesn't mean hypotheticals cannot be discussed and debated. If you think my debating a certain hypothetical means that I somehow think they are not allowed, then you're mistaken.

Go back and reread the thread. It's very interesting how people have argued this case. And when people on the side of believing Zimmerman's story have used hypotheticals and circumstance, they've soundly been ridiculed for doing so by quite a few people. But when it's used to support the Martin side? ~crickets~

 

[jiggyfly]

All of the speculation of what might have happened is meaningless and its why I have never attempted to put forth a scenario of what happened.

But the 2 most outspoken supporters of Zimmerman are the ones stating things as facts that they have no idea about and its perfectly natural ask why they give Zimmerman's account so much validity.

The facts that cannot be disputed are that Zimmerman said he got out of his car to look at the street sign and was attacked yet Martin was killed in a area nowhere near his vehicle, for this confrontation to take place Zimmerman had to have followed Martin, now what happened after that is up for debate.

So can we at least admit that Zimmerman's initial story has holes in it?

And that going by the 911 call and where Martin was shot Zimmerman had to have been pursuing Martin so he has some right to "stand his ground"?

 

[Midswat]

All of the speculation of what might have happened is meaningless and its why I have never attempted to put forth a scenario of what happened.

But the 2 most outspoken supporters of Zimmerman are the ones stating things as facts that they have no idea about and its perfectly natural ask why they give Zimmerman's account so much validity.

The facts that cannot be disputed are that Zimmerman said he got out of his car to look at the street sign and was attacked yet Martin was killed in a area nowhere near his vehicle, for this confrontation to take place Zimmerman had to have followed Martin, now what happened after that is up for debate.

So can we at least admit that Zimmerman's initial story has holes in it?

And that going by the 911 call and where Martin was shot Zimmerman had to have been pursuing Martin so he has some right to "stand his ground"?

The facts that cannot be disputed is that Martin violently physically assualted a man, and paid the price for it.

 

[jiggyfly]

The facts that cannot be disputed is that Martin violently physically assualted a man, and paid the price for it.

OK, I'm glad we got that straight. :thumbsup

 

[peplaw06]

I put gun in quotes because it wasn't a gun he was going for. It was his phone. This was the scenario you presented. Keep up. You are having us believe that Martin thought it was a gun. But we'll never know, will we? He's dead. (I thought you'd like that, since you use it often)

Oh for fuck's sake. I'm having absolutely no trouble keeping up. You're going back and discussing things that I've already stated. I know Zimmerman says he was reaching for his phone. I've stated that Zimmerman reaching for something, anything in his pocket or at his waistline, or a jacket pocket, or whatever, gave Martin a reason to think that he was reaching for a gun.

Where am I arguing that law? I'm not? Oh, I guess you're just inserting more smoke and mirrors.

I didn't say you were arguing the law. I'm saying that it's reasonable to stand your ground when you feel threatened. Just because you can't have a nuanced conversation about this doesn't mean I'm using smoke and mirrors.

Even so, now you'll have us believe that not only did a 17 year old guy know the crime rates of a neighborhood he didn't live in, but now knows of a law, and is thinking of it at the time that he can use to back him in this situation. Oy.

This is a strawman. I never said Martin had to "know the crime rates" or "know of the law" to back his actions. All he had to do to stand his ground, was be in reasonable fear for his life. I've stated that if the events occurred as I've heard them, it would be reasonable to think that.

Zimmerman confronted Martin? I thought he was only following him. And when he lost sight of him, was returning to his car when Martin alledgedly confronted him? Are these reports false? Maybe so. That's for the courts to decide. But those are the only reports we've been shown. Show me something that says Zimmerman confronted Martin. I must have missed them.

Following an innocent person through a neighborhood at night would likely put the innocent person in fear for their life, confrontation or not. If it's proven Martin confronted Zimmerman, I believe it was reasonable to do so.

Blah, blah, blah. Bunch of speculation and heresy. You can say how you've reacted in a situation. What you can't say is how others would act in the same or similar situations. I've been involved in many life threatening situations. I've reacted differently in some of them, as I had in others. What I wouldn't do is be so arrogant as to think I'd know or could even assume what others would do in those situations.

I've never assumed how others would ACT in the same situation. Yes, everyone is different. I can say that it is a REASONABLE THOUGHT. And that's what jurors are charged with doing. It's not speculation, because I've been there, and I definitely thought my concerns were reasonable.

Go back and reread the thread. It's very interesting how people have argued this case. And when people on the side of believing Zimmerman's story have used hypotheticals and circumstance, they've soundly been ridiculed for doing so by quite a few people. But when it's used to support the Martin side? ~crickets~

So debating a point is ridiculing? You need some thicker skin. Also, I don't answer for what other posters do... that's their choice.

 

[NoDak]

lol

I need some thicker skin? Interesting take after reading that.

Btw. Whered'ja git your lawyerin' certiffykit? I've got a few hours to kill. Sounds like it could be interesting.

 

[Iamtdg]

Someone telling a DCC'er they need a thicker skin is funny. lol