Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman Revisited

[Lord of Planar]

IMO, GZ was like a bulldog looking for something, anything, to bite. Or rather, burn powder on. And GZ is a cry baby coward to boot.

Whatever the boy did, he did not deserve to die.

And you know that how?

Did you testify at the trial for the actions you witnessed?

 

[Lord of Planar]

I wouldn't say that. He was a dumb punk kid. He deserved jail time. Death was a potential consequence. Not deserved. Zimmerman was a dumbass who gave all concealed carriers a bad name.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Same question. Since you speak as if you witnessed the event, did you testify in court?

 

[jaeger19]

Sorry, a man is innocent until proven guilty for a reason in this country. It is correct to say Zimmerman could guilty of murder. The problem is, he may have acted completely legal in self defense as well.

If you have evidence that the prosecution didn't have, then I must ask...

Why did you withhold evidence?

Actually that's not true about the innocent until proven guilty thing.. Zimmerman used a self defense strategy and under the law.. that means you waive innocent until proven guilty. When using self defense, the responsibility is on the accused to prove that his actions were reasonable and necessary to prevent imminent death or grave injury to himself or others.

 

[jaeger19]

To say Trayvon was innocent is to believe he did absolutely nothing to Zimmerman. Do you actually believe that?

Actually no it does not require that.

 

[jaeger19]

What a crock. You can defend yourself by confronting and beating up someone that *gasp* follows and observes you yet you can't defend yourself from someone that punches and jumps on you and proceeds to beat your head on the pavement.

Well.. actually no..

You don't get the legal right to defend yourself when you initiate a confrontation, and then are losing the fight you started and then decide to use lethal force that's not justified.

Heck.. if we followed the premise you suggest.. any mugger that had a victim that fought back would be justified in killing that victim.

The facts of the case are that Zimmerman pursued Martin and as such was a threat to martin.

Zimmerman was armed.. Martin was not.

Zimmerman was a trained martial artist and specifically trained in MMA which teaches pulling guard and fighting off your back. Zimmerman was in a position to defend himself without lethal force.

None of the injuries demonstrate any use of deadly force on the part of Martin.

Zimmerman didn't even have to fear that he would tire and be in danger because he knew police officers were on the way.. because he had called them.

There is no support here for the use of deadly force by Zimmerman.

Martin in all actuality would have a case that he defended his life and unfortunately was not successful.

 

[blackjack50]

Continued from above.


None of these responses make following the suspicious person unreasonable or imprudent.


Misstatement of facts.
While I am not sure of any law regarding "casing" specifically, being up on someones lawn especially while looking into their window can be trespassing. Such activity could also run a foul of privacy laws.

Trayvon's activity is not innocent, nor does it look that way. It looks suspicious and was reason enough to call the police and sufficient enough for them to dispatch unit.


Yeah, not actually a kid except


As you can see I most certainly do disagree as there is, objectively, nothing unreasonable or imprudent about doing so in this case.

As I said. Many a reasonable person would do the same thing he did.



You most certainly can go about trying to do this, but if you say it is unreasonable or imprudent to follow under such circumstances you would be making a false argument.

I have to revert back to the fact that I am NOT arguing about what is and is NOT legal. That is irrelevant in so far as I am not trying to argue that Zimmerman was legally at fault. BUT...looking at this from a historical perspective (as part of the historical record now), you CANNOT argue that Zimmerman's actions put him in a situation where he had to shoot a 17 year old kid. And yes. 17 is a kid legally. Under 18.

It was completely avoidable. Trayvon was not breaking any laws, and the only suspicions we have is that he was walking around looking in windows. The amount of rain is irrelevant, I love walking in the rain. The night time is too. He may have been a criminal, but burglary isn't a death sentence here. Zimmerman did his duty in calling the police. His decision, despite the legality, to follow Martin, for him into a situation where he pulled his gun. That isn't an admirable thing. Especially knowing that Trayvon wasn't doing anything worth dying over.

And further than that...Zimmerman (per his claim), put himself into a situation where he almost LOST. He was on his back. Allegedly trayvon was aware of the gun and "tried to grab it." Why there is any attempt to defend Zimmerman is beyond me. He violated the cardinal rules of self defense and almost paid the price for it. And that is what I mean when I say he had to be held to a higher standard. Not legally/ethically. Morally.

It wasn't his job to confront or follow the kid. And Trayvon was aware he was being followed. So you have to ask yourself what is your response from Trayvon's perspective? Again. This isn't a vacuum. This is critical thinking. Ask yourself what you would do? Ask yourself what a 17 year old you might do? Analyzing this as a self defense situation is critical in understanding what is the correct moral and ethical decision as a concealed carrier and as a citizen.

I still find myself wondering how this escalated into a shooting at the time of contact. What did Zimmerman say? What did Trayvon? Trying to issue a blanket statement and remove all blame from Zimmerman ignores that he DID put himself in a situation that almost got him killed. He wasn't a hero. He was stupid. Being stupid doesn't make you a murderer. It just makes you stupid.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ttwtt78640]

Well.. actually no..

You don't get the legal right to defend yourself when you initiate a confrontation, and then are losing the fight you started and then decide to use lethal force that's not justified.

Heck.. if we followed the premise you suggest.. any mugger that had a victim that fought back would be justified in killing that victim.

The facts of the case are that Zimmerman pursued Martin and as such was a threat to martin.

Zimmerman was armed.. Martin was not.

Zimmerman was a trained martial artist and specifically trained in MMA which teaches pulling guard and fighting off your back. Zimmerman was in a position to defend himself without lethal force.

None of the injuries demonstrate any use of deadly force on the part of Martin.

Zimmerman didn't even have to fear that he would tire and be in danger because he knew police officers were on the way.. because he had called them.

There is no support here for the use of deadly force by Zimmerman.

Martin in all actuality would have a case that he defended his life and unfortunately was not successful.

Pursuit =/= mugging; I suggest you think about that a bit more. Did, or did not, the police dispatcher advise Z to observe M and report any change in position/behavior ("let us know if he does anything else")?

 

[jaeger19]

I don't even see why this is even an issue of race. It was a conflict between 2 minorities so I don't see why people keep bringing it up.

I think the vast majority of people view Zimmerman as an over zealous prick, however that doesn't give someone the right to violently assault someone.

Yes, it could be an elaborate lie on how the altercation took place but ultimately it is the job of the prosecution to prove without any reasonable doubt that a crime was committed. There was nothing they could have charged him with that there wouldn't have been a reasonable doubt that he was innocent.

All of the evidence backed up Zimmerman's claims including the testimony of Trayvon's own friend.

If the roles had been reversed and Trayvon had killed Zimmerman he likely would have been able to get off with a good lawyer because of those 911 tapes. His only issue would be explaining why Zimmerman had all of the defensive wounds. Without eyewitnesses there would likely have been enough to give reasonable doubt.

You would have to have your head in the stand to not understand the racial context here.

If roles were reversed.. and a black man was pursuing a white person (and Hispanics can identify as white particularly in florida) , and ended up shooting an unarmed white kid... he's going to jail.

Yes, it could be an elaborate lie on how the altercation took place but ultimately it is the job of the prosecution to prove without any reasonable doubt that a crime was committed. There was nothing they could have charged him with that there wouldn't have been a reasonable doubt that he was innocent

Actually reasonable doubt does not apply in self defense. That's why criminals don't use it constantly. When you use self defense.. the responsibility is on your to prove that you reasonable were in fear of imminent death or grave serious injury and your actions using deadly force were reasonable.

NONE of the evidence backs up Zimmermans use of deadly force.

If the roles had been reversed and Trayvon had killed Zimmerman he likely would have been able to get off with a good lawyer because of those 911 tapes. His only issue would be explaining why Zimmerman had all of the defensive wounds.

Not at all. Martin was pursued at night by a strange fellow while in his own neighborhood. A fellow that turned out to be armed. It would be reasonable for anyone in that situation to believe that Zimmerman was a deadly threat. I have been in that situation and defended myself and I was justified.. the DA didn;t even bat an eye.

 

[jaeger19]

Pursuit =/= mugging; I suggest you think about that a bit more. Did, or did not, the police dispatcher advise Z to observe M and report any change in position/behavior ("let us know if he does anything else")?

Pursuit by an unknown person.. not a cop.. down a darkened street? Perhaps you need to think about that a bit more.

The police advisor suggest he observe.. BUT when Zimmerman stated he was going to pursue.. the Dispatcher told him that he was not being asked to do that". And that's when Zimmerman stated to the effect of.. "these blanket blanks are always getting away with it"

Which shows his intent on preventing/confronting Martin from "getting away with it".. Ultimately he did pursue Martin.

Of course the "it" was only in Zimmerman's mind.

.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Pursuit by an unknown person.. not a cop.. down a darkened street? Perhaps you need to think about that a bit more.

The police advisor suggest he observe.. BUT when Zimmerman stated he was going to pursue.. the Dispatcher told him that he was not being asked to do that". And that's when Zimmerman stated to the effect of.. "these blanket blanks are always getting away with it"

Which shows his intent on preventing/confronting Martin from "getting away with it".. Ultimately he did pursue Martin.

Of course the "it" was only in Zimmerman's mind.

.

Yep, but no evidence suggests that Z mugged M. How many muggers call the police and give their location prior to their mugging? M suffered no injury except for a single gunshot, the same cannot be said for Z.

 

[blackjack50]

You would have to have your head in the stand to not understand the racial context here.

If roles were reversed.. and a black man was pursuing a white person (and Hispanics can identify as white particularly in florida) , and ended up shooting an unarmed white kid... he's going to jail.



Actually reasonable doubt does not apply in self defense. That's why criminals don't use it constantly. When you use self defense.. the responsibility is on your to prove that you reasonable were in fear of imminent death or grave serious injury and your actions using deadly force were reasonable.

NONE of the evidence backs up Zimmermans use of deadly force.



Not at all. Martin was pursued at night by a strange fellow while in his own neighborhood. A fellow that turned out to be armed. It would be reasonable for anyone in that situation to believe that Zimmerman was a deadly threat. I have been in that situation and defended myself and I was justified.. the DA didn;t even bat an eye.

Race was only a factor because NBC provided edited footage of the audio. Making it seem like Zimmerman was concerned because the kid was black, and not acting suspiciously. Zimmerman introduced race when the police asked for a description of Trayvon.

Why would NBC decide to take out that few seconds of the police asking for the race of Trayvon? And why did they have to put it right after the part where he said he "looked suspicious?"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...3/gIQA8m5jtS_blog.html?utm_term=.b5cfc776538e

Seems real sincere huh? Do you really think this was a race issue? Or was this MADE a race issue by deliberate reconstruction of the events? Did you not pay attention to the next few years? "Hands up! Don't shoot!" There was a clear attempt to create a victim mentality. And it worked.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jaeger19]

Race was only a factor because NBC provided edited footage of the audio. Making it seem like Zimmerman was concerned because the kid was black, and not acting suspiciously. Zimmerman introduced race when the police asked for a description of Trayvon.

Why would NBC decide to take out that few seconds of the police asking for the race of Trayvon? And why did they have to put it right after the part where he said he "looked suspicious?"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...3/gIQA8m5jtS_blog.html?utm_term=.b5cfc776538e

Seems real sincere huh? Do you really think this was a race issue? Or was this MADE a race issue by deliberate reconstruction of the events? Did you not pay attention to the next few years? "Hands up! Don't shoot!" There was a clear attempt to create a victim mentality. And it worked.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Poop. Race was a factor since the first. The officers who came on the scene treated Zimmerman like a victim. and Martin like a "perp". They drug tested Martin's body.. they didn't Zimmerman

Police did not administer a drug and alcohol test or an immediate background check on Zimmerman, although they did both on Martin.

Then the district attorney refused to charge Zimmerman even though the facts of the case supported at least manslaughter or depraved indifference.

There is no doubt that if this was a white kid killed.. and it was done by a black man.. that man would have been arrested and charged without hours of the shooting given the facts of the case.

There was NO evidence.. none that Martin attacked Zimmerman.. or did anything criminal.. but from the first.. it was assumed by the white public that martin was a bad kid and Zimmerman just a concerned citizen.

Its how he got off. When the jurors were interviewed after the case... they identified with "George".. even calling him by his first name.

I actually think that the prosecutor also purposely botched the case.. or exhibited extreme incompetence. There were many points that he failed to instruct the jury.. there were many instances where he should have done a better cross examination or redirect... particularly on the testimony of Zimmerman's MMA coach.

Martin was a victim.. and he did not get any justice because he was black.. and his assailant was not.

 

[jaeger19]

Yep, but no evidence suggests that Z mugged M. How many muggers call the police and give their location prior to their mugging? M suffered no injury except for a single gunshot, the same cannot be said for Z.

First.. you realize that M suffered no injury EXCEPT A FATAL GUNSHOT WOUND... while Zimmerman walked away with a SCRATCH ON HIS HEAD.


Second. IF we were to use your premise.. which is that if you are in a fight.. you have the right to defend yourself.. as you claimed... then a mugger that gets in a fight with their victim is then justified in killing his victim..

Zimmerman was OBVIOUSLY A THREAT.. he pursued Martin in a dark alley and was armed.

What would you do if you were being pursued by an unknown man.. who is larger than you.. not your race.. and you have attempted to elude him and he is actively pursuing you at night?

Ask him to your house for milk and cookies?

Or would you decide not to appear a victim and stand your ground and let this guy know you aren't going to be an easy mark?

What would you do if that person then put their hand on a firearm?

Would you fall to your knees and beg for mercy?

Or would you think "this guy is going to kill me.. and I better act to try and save my life"... and fight for all its worth?

 

[blackjack50]

Poop. Race was a factor since the first. The officers who came on the scene treated Zimmerman like a victim. and Martin like a "perp". They drug tested Martin's body.. they didn't Zimmerman

Zimmerman was a licensed concealed carrier, claimed self defense, and was previously on the phone with 911. You don't think that was a factor?

Then the district attorney refused to charge Zimmerman even though the facts of the case supported at least manslaughter

Not really. Especially based on stand your ground law. Which was never enacted.

or depraved indifference

No. His intent was clear by the phone call to the police. He was acting as a concerned citizen. Stupid is not a crime. And NONE of this proves race was a factor. I reference you back to the description he provided police. Race was not something he first provided. He was asked. Why?

There is no doubt that if this was a white kid killed.. and it was done by a black man.. that man would have been arrested and charged without hours of the shooting given the facts of the case.

Prove it. This is an unsubstantiated claim that you can't prove. Making a wild accusation is just that.

There was NO evidence.. none that Martin attacked Zimmerman..

Except the actual evidence that there was a fight and Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman when he was shot. That's evidence. Burden of proof is on YOU or the GOVERNMENT to charge Zimmerman. He is not guilty until proven innocent. Period.

or did anything crimal

Up until the point of the attack there wouldn't be. And the only evidence we would have is that of an altercation. It would be no different than if they never met and Trayvon tried to mug Zimmerman and the result was the same. No evidence. You still could try Zimmerman for murder or any lesser charge without evidence...and the evidence that DOES exist is that of an altercation.

but from the first.. it was assumed by the white public that martin was a bad kid and Zimmerman just a concerned citizen.

Not the case. I'm a member of the white public who felt Zimmerman was guilty. Based on evidence I changed my position. And NBC edited their footage. Further your blanket statement is illogical and no proof exists.

Its how he got off. When the jurors were interviewed after the case... they identified with "George".. even calling him by his first name

.

Maybe they understood his position? Why does it have to be his race? Hispanic btw.

I actually think that the prosecutor also purposely botched the case.. or exhibited extreme incompetence. There were many points that he failed to instruct the jury.. there were many instances where he should have done a better cross examination or redirect... particularly on the testimony of Zimmerman's MMA coach.

What possible outcome could have changed based on his MMA coach? That he was "better trained" and that makes him the aggressor? I myself have martial arts training. So I don't really know what you are Saying. I don't see what relevance the MMA has. You will need to enlighten me.

Martin was a victim.. and he did not get any justice because he was black.. and his assailant was not.

1) Prove Zimmerman victimized him.

2) prove it was based on race.

 

[Thoreau72]

And you know that how?

Did you testify at the trial for the actions you witnessed?

Gut feeling from an 80 mile distance. Watching him on TV so many times during those long months. And then his several arrests in the meantime. Yeah, he's a role model for some, not me.

 

[blackjack50]

Gut feeling from an 80 mile distance. Watching him on TV so many times during those long months. And then his several arrests in the meantime. Yeah, he's a role model for some, not me.

Damn right. I'm a Florida concealed carry. I have family down in his area as well. His case holds a particular interest for me as the narrative is VERY important. When I discuss this incident with my very liberal friends...I make sure to distance myself from this numbnuts. Any intelligent carrier would not have been in his situation.

But that doesn't make him guilty of murder. Which is important.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jaeger19]

Zimmerman was a licensed concealed carrier, claimed self defense, and was previously on the phone with 911. You don't think that was a factor?

.

Sure.. so was race. If he was named Jamal.. and claimed self defense standing over a white kid that was unarmed.. I know he would have been drug tested..and treated as a potential perp.

Not really. Especially based on stand your ground law. Which was never enacted.

Actually yes. Stand your ground did not pertain to Zimmerman.. he pursued trayvon. He also has no reasonable belief that his life was in imminent threat of death or grave injury.
The irony was that Martin was justified to defend himself under stand your ground law. He had no duty to retreat. Which was another thing not brought up in the trial. Zimmermans defense pointed out that martin could have run away.. and the prosecutor failed to point out that Martin had no duty to retreat.

Another example of martin being treated as if was the perpetrator.

No. His intent was clear by the phone call to the police. He was acting as a concerned citizen. Stupid is not a crime. And NONE of this proves race was a factor. I reference you back to the description he provided police. Race was not something he first provided. He was asked. Why?

Yes.. he was a concerned citizen that without any evidence of a crime had called the police and then made the statement that these "blanket blanks" are always getting away with it, when he was told that he was not being asked to follow martin.

You keep missing the point about race. RACE was a factor in how the police handled the crime. Race was a factor in how the DA handled the crime.. and Race was a factor in how the Jury saw the crime.

Prove it. This is an unsubstantiated claim that you can't prove. Making a wild accusation is just that.

In the middle of a domestic violence incident, believing that her husband was threatening her, Marissa Alexander fired a warning shot into the wall to ward him off. In court, Alexander tried to use a claim of self defense — specifically, Stand Your Ground, the same law that let Zimmerman walk free on the night he shot Martin before later being arrested. As ThinkProgress’s Nicole Flatow previously pointed out, “Alexander would not have needed a Stand Your Ground law to defend her action. While that law goes so far as to authorize unfettered deadly force in self-defense without a duty to retreat, Alexander used significantly lesser force that would fall under a typical self-defense claim.” Ultimately, though, it didn’t matter; her defense wasn’t as successful. Alexander, who had no prior record, was sentenced to 20 years in jail — a mandatory minimum for the crime.

On one fateful night in December of 2005, a black businessman named John McNeil got a call from his son that someone was “lurking” around the backyard. That person turned out to be white 19-year old Brian Epp, a hired contractor for McNeil who had past disagreements with McNeil’s son. When McNeil got home, he told Epp, who was weilding a box cutter, to leave the property several times. After Epp repeatedly refused, McNeil fired a warning shot, which caused Epp to run. As witnesses attest, McNeil then shot Epp in self-defense, killing him. A court rejected McNeil’s self-defense claim, sentencing him to life in prison 

The case of John White is similar to the Trayvon Martin/ George Zimmerman story, but with racial roles reversed. In 2006, black 54-year-old John White shot dead white 17-year-old Daniel Cicciaro after an altercation at White’s home. White reported that Cicciaro and several other white teens showed up at his door looking to beat up his son. White greeted the group of boys at his driveway, holding a pistol. He reported that Ciccairo “lunged” for the gun, and it accidentally discharged, striking the teenager. When the case went to trial, White characterized the group of white teenagers as a “lynch mob” and insisted he was only trying to defend his family. The jury — made up of 12 people, 11 white and one black — found him guilty of manslaughter

Sorry... but not so unsubstantiated.

 

[jaeger19]

Except the actual evidence that there was a fight and Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman when he was shot. That's evidence. Burden of proof is on YOU or the GOVERNMENT to charge Zimmerman. He is not guilty until proven innocent. Period.

Again.. wrong. Zimmerman used deadly force.. its on Zimmerman to prove that he used justifiable force:

He used whats called an AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:

Sometimes, defendants will concede that the prosecution has proved every element of the charged crime, but will offer reasons why they should not be convicted. These reasons are called “affirmative defenses,” and they include claims of self-defense, necessity, insanity, and so on. For example, a murder charge requires the prosecutor to prove three things: that the defendant 1. killed, 2. another person, 3. with the intent to do so. Defendants may concede all three issues, but argue that the killing was justified as an act of self-defense.
When self-defense is at issue, it’s up to the defendant to produce evidence, obviously. But what happens next? Here’s where things get tricky.
•In some states, once the defense has produced the evidence, it’s up to the prosecution to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt the truth of the defense.
•In other states, the defendant has not only the burden of producing evidence, but the burden of persuasion as well. In these states, the defense must prove the validity of its claim by a standard less rigorous than “beyond a reasonable doubt,” known as proof by a “preponderance of the evidence.”

 

[jaeger19]

Maybe they understood his position? Why does it have to be his race? Hispanic btw.
.

What reason would they have to understand his position?

What possible outcome could have changed based on his MMA coach? That he was "better trained" and that makes him the aggressor? I myself have martial arts training. So I don't really know what you are Saying. I don't see what relevance the MMA has. You will need to enlighten

me.

Sure.. UNDER THE LAW.. Zimmerman has to offer evidence that his use of deadly force was reasonable and necessary to avoid imminent death or grave injury. He was a trained in MMA while Martin was not.. which means that Zimmerman would have more ability to defend himself without the use of deadly force. And specifically in MMA.. fighters are taught how to fight off their back and to pull guard.. which entails falling back onto their backs in order to protect themselves and in some cases attack as well. In reference the guillotine

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jzGr_XAtj0

Notice how he falls backwards... perhaps cutting his head on pavement?

As a trained MMA fighter.. he should be in no reasonable fear of death or grave injury from Martin. AND he knew that help was on the way.. because he called them!..

Prove Zimmerman victimized him.

He followed him.. and he ultimately killed him

prove it was based on race

I never claimed that Zimmerman killed him based on race. The way the police, the da and the Jury handled the case was racially biased.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Gut feeling from an 80 mile distance. Watching him on TV so many times during those long months. And then his several arrests in the meantime. Yeah, he's a role model for some, not me.

And your gut feeling is never wrong???

 

[Lord of Planar]

Again.. wrong. Zimmerman used deadly force.. its on Zimmerman to prove that he used justifiable force:

He used whats called an AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE:

When self-defense is at issue, it’s up to the defendant to produce evidence

Are you saying that the gashes on his head and other injuries are not evidence?

 

[jaeger19]

Are you saying that the gashes on his head and other injuries are not evidence?

Nope.. they are evidence that he was in an altercation.

They are evidence that he was not sustaining life threatening injuries.

they are evidence that is also consistent with a person that is trained in MMA and pulls guard or goes for a guillotine choke.. AS ZIMMERMAN WAS TRAINED IN.

They are not evidence of self defense

They are not evidence that Zimmerman was attacked

the irony here is that the evidence of the gashes and injuries on Zimmerman indicate that he was 1. Not sustaining life threatening injuries.

2. they are consistent with someone trained in MMA.

Rather than bolster his claims.. instead they hurt it.

 

[Thoreau72]

Damn right. I'm a Florida concealed carry. I have family down in his area as well. His case holds a particular interest for me as the narrative is VERY important. When I discuss this incident with my very liberal friends...I make sure to distance myself from this numbnuts. Any intelligent carrier would not have been in his situation.

But that doesn't make him guilty of murder. Which is important.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There was a dead man wasn't there? Manslaughter works too, for me.

GZ was looking for trouble, and he found it.

 

[Thoreau72]

And your gut feeling is never wrong???

It has served me well over the years. Not so good with cards, but I'm fairly close with people. Body language and such

 

[blackjack50]

What reason would they have to understand his position?

Concealed carrier. Florida state on carriers have only had 168 revocations due to a crime with a firearm...since 1987. With 3 million issued licenses, that is damn good. He had called police. They may have been aware of previous incidents in the area. They spoke with him.

Sure.. UNDER THE LAW.. Zimmerman has to offer evidence that his use of deadly force was reasonable and necessary to avoid imminent death or grave injury. He was a trained in MMA while Martin was not..

He wasn't. His "coach" made it clear that Zimmerman was a ****ty fighter. Which is clear from the fact that he got knocked on his ass by a scrawny 17 year old kid. But at the end of the day...that is irrelevant. If you are on your BACK...being struck...that is enough evidence to prove that you had reasonable fear for grievous bodily harm. And the firearm was used to end the threat. He didn't have to prove he was at risk. He was. By evidence.

which means that Zimmerman would have more ability to defend himself without the use of deadly force. And specifically in MMA.. fighters are taught how to fight off their back and to pull guard.. which entails falling back onto their backs in order to protect themselves and in some cases attack as well. In reference the guillotine

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jzGr_XAtj0

Notice how he falls backwards... perhaps cutting his head on pavement?

As a trained MMA fighter.. he should be in no reasonable fear of death or grave injury from Martin. AND he knew that help was on the way.. because he called them!..

Wrong. I have been doing martial arts since I was 16. Started boxing, did MMA, and now I'm getting up there with BJJ. If someone knocks you on your ass and takes full mount, you aren't pulling guard. And guard doesn't stop a beating. Especially if your fat ass can't keep the opponent from posturing up.

Further. If the person is trying to take you down...that is a physical altercation in which you have a legitimate fear. And why aren't you addressing THAT? What right does Trayvon have to take down Zimmerman? Further hitting your head on the pavement can KILL you. Zimmerman was not a skilled fighter. His coach stated that.

You are trying to create a precedent where someone who attacks someone cannot be shot as long if they are a better fighter as long as they have no official training. That isn't how it works.

He followed him.. and he ultimately killed him

Sort of. He did follow him. But he had turned around. Why didn't Trayvon make it home?

I never claimed that Zimmerman killed him based on race. The way the police, the da and the Jury handled the case was racially biased.

Prove it. That is on you to prove. Period. You cannot. And Zimmerman was not white. So that is out there. Further...why aren't you addressing the NBC edited footage? Cui Bono? Who benefits from this being a race issue? The "White guy" or the black guy?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk