Merged Continuation Part 2: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[Mumbles]

But Martin didn't have a legal obligation to run, and he may not have known that Zimmerman was armed (as far as I recall). Didn't Martin have the right to stand his ground?

Again.

If you run home, you risk leading this creep directly to your house. Not a good idea.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

But Martin didn't have a legal obligation to run, and he may not have known that Zimmerman was armed (as far as I recall). Didn't Martin have the right to stand his ground?

I thought we were simply discussing what it was reasonable for him to do, not what he had a right to do.

 

[Cylinder]

Martin had the same obligation as Zimmerman to quit the common area -- exactly none.

 

[Mumbles]

No.

If TM was scared of the creepy ass cracker, I offered 2 reasonable responses for him that have nothing to do with race.

The problem is, you didn't.

Because you can't. Because there is no correct answer.

Is there some reason any of us besides you should come to that conclusion ?

Keep in mind, Martin was actually talking to someone on the phone when Zimmerman became enraged by his skin color (and this was what Zimmerman's defense team said was his motivation, as I pointed out before). The police were already on their way. And yet, he ended up being shot and killed by Zimmerman.

So, how would him calling police have helped him?

 

[Upchurch]

Again.

If you run home, you risk leading this creep directly to your house. Not a good idea.

Couldn't agree more. In fact, I think I made that very argument is some earlier incarnation of this thread.

I thought we were simply discussing what it was reasonable for him to do, not what he had a right to do.

If everyone were acting reasonable, Zimmerman wouldn't have been following Martin in the first place. Everyone would have gone home and, maybe, had a pleasant evening. Maybe a snack.

 

[Psiload]

But Martin didn't have a legal obligation to run, and he may not have known that Zimmerman was armed (as far as I recall). Didn't Martin have the right to stand his ground?

The rhetorical question put forth by Mumbles was "What would you do?" not "What are you legally obligated not to do?"

I answered the question... I would've run away. A half a mile away.

He asked. I answered.

 

[Psiload]

Again.

If you run home, you risk leading this creep directly to your house. Not a good idea.

So then don't run home. Run half a mile away.

It's much harder to do bodily harm to a person who is half a mile away, versus a person who is standing directly in front of you.

 

[Psiload]

Martin had the same obligation as Zimmerman to quit the common area -- exactly none.

Yet he did quit the area, at running speed. And the claim has been made that he did so because he was frightened.

The question then becomes... Why did he return to the exact spot which he had supposedly fled in fear four minutes and 7 seconds earlier?

 

[johnny karate]

So I'll chalk you down as a "not guilty" was the appropriate verdict?

I also agree Zimmerman is legally "not guilty", and the way the prosecution tried their case, I can't take much issue with the jurors returning that verdict.

However, none of this has any bearing on the question of whether or not Martin assaulted Zimmerman. An assertion that remains curiously unsubstantiated...

 

[Cylinder]

Yet he did quit the area, at running speed. And the claim has been made that he did so because he was frightened.

The question then becomes... Why did he return to the exact spot which he had supposedly fled in fear four minutes and 7 seconds earlier?

I'm not convinced that he actually left the area around the T. The point is that Zimmerman and Martin both had a legitimate purpose in a common area. Neither had an obligation to leave. The question is set up to elicit a response that Martin should have done this, to which the racial grievance cultists add because he was black.

Martin had no legal or moral obligation to leave the common area because Zimmerman was there. Marin did have a legal and moral obligation to not break Zimmerman's nose, mount him and continue to drive his head into the concrete sidewalk to the point that he one planted in his chest.

It's not a hard question, really.

 

[johnny karate]

Reasonable went out the window as soon as Zimmerman stepped out of his vehicle, so I think both sides can agree to the possibility that both Zimmerman and Martin acted unreasonably.

But as has been stated over and over again by Zimmerman’s defenders, it doesn’t matter if his acts were reasonable, only if they were legal. And the same standard applies to Martin.

I posted this before , and I’ll post it again:

A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.

It’s the Florida statute on the use of force in self-defense.

It’s is both plausible and probable that Martin was legally defending himself, and I defy anyone to present evidence to the contrary.

 

[McHell]

What would I do? I'd Run. I would run far away.

If I was legitimately scared of a person who was staring at me, and then chasing me. I would run away. I would rely on my speed and endurance to outdistance my peruser, and take me out of harm's way.

In Trayvon Martin's case, he had exactly 4 minutes and 7 seconds of time in which to run away. We know this. This is what the evidence shows. That is the amount of time which elapsed between Zimmerman saying "he's running", and the start of the direct confrontation between Zimmerman and Martin.

4 minutes and 7 seconds.

I am a 47 year-old man, and if you gave me 4 minutes and 7 seconds, I could easily put a half a mile between me, and the person staring at me in your rhetorical situation. Half a mile away. My stalker would have trouble shooting me with a sniper rifle at that distance. A point-blank shot, such as Martin suffered, would not be possible.

There is only one conceivable reason why I would would be back at just about the same exact spot from which I had started running, being shot point blank, if I had been granted 4 minutes and 7 seconds of running time, and that reason is because I wasn't scared, and that's exactly where I wanted to be. Back where I started, confronting my stalker.

First, I have to call BS on the idea that there is "only one conceivable reason" why Martin didn't go home. There are plenty of plausible reasons, just for example:

(1) It was reported to have been incredibly dark that night and Martin had no flashlight; Zimmerman himself, despite being on the phone with police and having tactical flashlight in hand and loaded gun on his hip, claims that it was so dark behind the buildings that he was afraid or reluctant to walk back to his truck in the dark. It's certainly conceivable that it was too dark for Martin to continue safely along the sidewalk without sufficient lighting or a flashlight and that forced him to turn back or stop and wait.
(2) It's certainly conceivable that Martin was reluctant to lead a stranger who was clearly following him, directly back to his house, especially considering there were no adults home at the time.
(3) It's certainly conceivable that Zimmerman was lying about the timeline and/or his exact location at points in time, which makes it conceivable that your 4 minutes and 7 seconds is not really accurate. 4
(4) Testimony from the friend on the phone reported that Martin said he thought he had lost Zimmerman after running onto the sidewalk, and therefore he started walking slowly again and continuing his conversation with her. As such, it's certainly conceivable that Martin was just meandering around talking to his friend, not expecting that Zimmerman would actually get out of his truck and follow him onto the sidewalk.

I could go on and on and on but hopefully you get the point that there are certainly more conceivable reasons that you have presented.


Second, let's assume the 4 minutes and 7 seconds is accurate and that Zimmerman was telling the truth. Well then surely you apply the same reasoning to Zimmerman's actions as you do to Martin's, right? Unless you are applying a blatant double-standard, that is. Surely you have to conclude that there is only one conceivable reason why Zimmerman failed to return to his truck in that same 4 minutes and 7 seconds, and instead ended up killing Martin on the sidewalk leading to Martin's destination - and the reason is because that's exactly where Zimmerman wanted to be, right? In which case he lied to the police about his location, motives and intentions, right?

In short, if you cast blame or criticism on Martin for not running straight home despite having the time to do so, then surely that an equal measure of blame or criticism must apply also to Zimmerman considering that he had plenty of time to return to his truck but failed to do so. Right?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

The problem is, you didn't.

Because you can't. Because there is no correct answer.

Oh. It was a trick question.

I give 2 reasonable options, and you arbitrarily dismiss them. That makes a reasoned discussion difficult.

Keep in mind, Martin was actually talking to someone on the phone when Zimmerman became enraged by his skin color (and this was what Zimmerman's defense team said was his motivation, as I pointed out before).

But the enraged part is wholly made up by you.

The police were already on their way. And yet, he ended up being shot and killed by Zimmerman.

So, how would him calling police have helped him?

Staying in a well lit area and calling the police and waiting. Then he wouldn't have been in the dark backyards with a creepy ass cracker.

Really, it's not complicated.

 

[johnny karate]

Marin did have a legal and moral obligation to not break Zimmerman's nose...

Incorrect. See the Florida statute on use of force in self-defense which I have posted twice in this thread. Martin absolutely had the legal right to punch Zimmerman in the nose if he felt sufficiently threatened.

... mount him

In the course of legally defending himself, Martin certainly had the right to "mount" the person he was actively fighting.

...and continue to drive his head into the concrete sidewalk to the point that he one planted in his chest.

A claim by Zimmerman that was never definitively corroborated. Much like the "assault" claim so many have taken at face-value.

No eyewitnesses testified to seeing Martin slamming Zimmerman’s head into the concrete.

Of the three medical experts who testified, only the defense’s witness claimed Zimmerman’s injuries were possibly consistent with his claim. No witness definitively stated they were. He was quite clearly attempting leave the door open for reasonable doubt (which he successfully did) rather than state a medical fact.

It's not a hard question, really.

No, it's not for someone familiar with the law and the facts of the case.

 

[johnny karate]

creepy ass cracker.

You seem fond of repeating this phrase.

Do you believe Martin actually said it?

 

[Upchurch]

The rhetorical question put forth by Mumbles was "What would you do?" not "What are you legally obligated not to do?"

I answered the question... I would've run away. A half a mile away.

Fair enough.

My point was that Martin has just as much right to stand his ground as Zimmerman. It would be a double standard if doing so is considered a virtue for one of them and a failure for the other.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

You seem fond of repeating this phrase.

Perhaps because it adds valuable context to the discussion.

Why was TM scared of GZ ? Why because he was a creepy ass cracker of course !

Do you believe Martin actually said it?

That's a good question. I don't know. I am reluctant to take Jeantels testimony wholly at face value.

But in the context of mumbles posts, I think he is relying on her testimony at face value, so it's appropriate in that context.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

First, I have to call BS on the idea that there is "only one conceivable reason" why Martin didn't go home. There are plenty of plausible reasons, just for example:

(1) It was reported to have been incredibly dark that night and Martin had no flashlight; Zimmerman himself, despite being on the phone with police and having tactical flashlight in hand and loaded gun on his hip, claims that it was so dark behind the buildings that he was afraid or reluctant to walk back to his truck in the dark. It's certainly conceivable that it was too dark for Martin to continue safely along the sidewalk without sufficient lighting or a flashlight and that forced him to turn back or stop and wait.
(2) It's certainly conceivable that Martin was reluctant to lead a stranger who was clearly following him, directly back to his house, especially considering there were no adults home at the time.
(3) It's certainly conceivable that Zimmerman was lying about the timeline and/or his exact location at points in time, which makes it conceivable that your 4 minutes and 7 seconds is not really accurate. 4
(4) Testimony from the friend on the phone reported that Martin said he thought he had lost Zimmerman after running onto the sidewalk, and therefore he started walking slowly again and continuing his conversation with her. As such, it's certainly conceivable that Martin was just meandering around talking to his friend, not expecting that Zimmerman would actually get out of his truck and follow him onto the sidewalk.

I could go on and on and on but hopefully you get the point that there are certainly more conceivable reasons that you have presented.

I think you are way closer to the conceivable side than plausible side.

He had a flashlight - his phone.

Second, let's assume the 4 minutes and 7 seconds is accurate and that Zimmerman was telling the truth. Well then surely you apply the same reasoning to Zimmerman's actions as you do to Martin's, right? Unless you are applying a blatant double-standard, that is. Surely you have to conclude that there is only one conceivable reason why Zimmerman failed to return to his truck in that same 4 minutes and 7 seconds, and instead ended up killing Martin on the sidewalk leading to Martin's destination - and the reason is because that's exactly where Zimmerman wanted to be, right? In which case he lied to the police about his location, motives and intentions, right?

In short, if you cast blame or criticism on Martin for not running straight home despite having the time to do so, then surely that an equal measure of blame or criticism must apply also to Zimmerman considering that he had plenty of time to return to his truck but failed to do so. Right?

GZ should have stayed in the truck. TM should have gone home.

 

[Cylinder]

Fair enough.

My point was that Martin has just as much right to stand his ground as Zimmerman. It would be a double standard if doing so is considered a virtue for one of them and a failure for the other.

Uhh...no.

Assuming for argument that Martin was trying to act in legitimate self-defense as opposed to a criminal motive of revenge, they are not standing on the same ground.

Martin would be presumably acting on the perception of being observed and followed in a common area. Zimmerman was acting on the reality of being punched in the face, mounted and having his head driven into a concrete sidewalk.

No double standard necessary.

 

[Upchurch]

Assuming for argument that Martin was trying to act in legitimate self-defense as opposed to a criminal motive of revenge, they are not standing on the same ground.

Revenge for what?

Martin would be presumably acting on the perception of being observed and followed in a common area. Zimmerman was acting on the reality of being punched in the face, mounted and having his head driven into a concrete sidewalk.

You're assuming that Martin assaulted Zimmerman first. We have no evidence of this (or the reverse).