• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

Status
Not open for further replies.
No busted lip, either.

EMT's can clean up surface blood; but they couldn't make a broken nose (and related facial bruising) or fat lip invisible.
 
I got accidentally popped in the nose once and blood just poured down my shirt. His shirt is totally clean in the front. Just sayin.
 
It's just the way I surmise the situation and completely nonfactual but I don't think he cocked his weapon before jumping out of the car and gave chase. I think it's likely that he had his weapon on him, when he left the house, and still happened to have it on him when he got out of the car. According to his story, it was holstered when Trayvon went for it, which indicates that the gun wasn't an aspect of the chase. I just find the statement that he armed himself to pursue Martin is dishonest.

I feel fairly confident I've always phrased it as arming and pursuing rather than arming to pursue.

Either way, it again strikes me as hair-splitting to say Zimmerman was already armed when he left the house (because I know when I leave the house to go to the store, I make sure to have my keys, wallet, and of course, a sidearm).

He was armed when he went after Martin. That he might have already been armed doesn't make it any less a terrible idea.
 
This entire case hinges on who initially provoked whom into fighting.
I'm afraid the case is very unlikely to hinge on that, because we have no prospect of getting anything but Zimmerman's testimony.

I'm pretty sure I said it correctly. So if what you say is the case, then I believe there will be no trial.

Also, I wouldn't phrase it that way... the point is not "who provoked whom into fighting" but rather who escalated the argument into a fistfight... swinging matters more than provoking.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe you are saying it hinges on "who threw the first punch".

I disagree. That was covered in detail earlier in the thread.

As far as I understand it, if it can be determined that Z "provoked" the fight, then he does not have the right to end the fight in self defense. It does not necessarily matter if he didn't throw the first punch.
 
That man does not have a broken nose.

Internet doctors and lawyers :jaw-dropp

That's fair enough to have an opinion from the video though.
I'll admit he didn't look like too rough to me, but it was hard to discern anything with much resolution.
 
Either way, it again strikes me as hair-splitting to say Zimmerman was already armed when he left the house (because I know when I leave the house to go to the store, I make sure to have my keys, wallet, and of course, a sidearm).

FWIW, I knew a few people who have concealed carry licenses and I can assure you it's exactly like that with them.
 
That's fair enough to have an opinion from the video though. I'll admit he didn't look like too rough to me, but it was hard to discern anything with much resolution.

And that alone leads me to question Zimmerman's account. How hard do I have to look to be able to see evidence of the beating this man supposedly suffered?
 
Also on his shirt being clean. If he was supposed to have shot Martin when Martin was still on top of him, why is his shirt spotless?
 
Also on his shirt being clean. If he was supposed to have shot Martin when Martin was still on top of him, why is his shirt spotless?

The leaked police report says close range - i don't know that is says on top of.

But yeah, where is anyones blood ?
 
Last edited:
Unless one is interested in walking in circles or going on a wild cat chase, holding your hand isn't advisable. As you appear to be a persistent source of misinformation.

The reason you can't cite a police report that says the shooter had a broken nose is because there is no such report.
I never said the police report said he had a broken nose. The police report says he had a bloody nose and a gash in the back of his head. But I was wrong about the swollen lip, that was from an Orlando Sentinel story.

All clear?
 
if it can be determined that Z "provoked" the fight, then he does not have the right to end the fight in self defense.


That is so far from the reality, or even common sense, as to invite ridicule.

Provoked the fight by following? By questioning? Even by shoving or grabbing?

And that forfeits any right to defend one's self no matter what danger emerges from the confrontation?


Zimmerman's claim to self defense is looking a little puny right now, but not because of that bit of imaginary jurisprudence.
 
*: Several years ago Z was arrested soon after, and directly relating to, an incident where Z was arguing with multiple police officers and where Z pushed (or shoved) one of the officers.
You keep bringing this up, as if it's relevant to this case. It's not.
 
Now, I'm no doctor but that video doesn't even appear to show a bandage on his head. Now EMTs/paramedics clean up any blood, but he also doesn't appear to have any blood anywhere nor does he appear to have any blood anywhere. But it is low resolution so I could be missing the blood on his clothes.
 
The leaked police report says close range - i don't know that is says on top of.

But yeah, where is anyones blood ?

Right, I'm not sure he claimed to have shot from underneath Trayvon, but if not, why didn't he just turn tail and run? If he had space, he could have escaped, right? My feeling all along was that he accosted Martin, they got into it, when he got beaten by a kid, he lost it and killed him. I don't see the whole "Trayvon as crazy attacker" narrative as plausible at all. Trayvon expressed fear and concern, Zimmerman agression and contempt. His shirt being clean and his face free of bruising makes me question his whole story.
 
One of the things that has been made crystal clear for a long time, is that Zimmerman was detained, taken to the station, questioned <snip>

The 'fact' that he was never detained or even investigated was debunked long ago.

Yes, I tried very hard to get that nailed down way back on page 1 and page 2. I do realize that the media was reporting that Z was never taken from the scene, so I understand why some people believed that.
 
That is so far from the reality, or even common sense, as to invite ridicule.

Provoked the fight by following? By questioning? Even by shoving or grabbing?

And that forfeits any right to defend one's self no matter what danger emerges from the confrontation?


Zimmerman's claim to self defense is looking a little puny right now, but not because of that bit of imaginary jurisprudence.

If a stranger chases you at night and then shoves and grabs you, that's clearly assault, is it not?
 
Yeah, I'm not sure how that works. Can someone in the neighborhood proclaim themselves - at any time - not acting as a member of the neighborhood watch and then just do whatever they want?

As an adult and a member of the neighborhood watch, Zimmerman knew what his responsibilities were. The organization he belonged to had specific guidelines for handling these situations that he consciously disregarded. And even if he did forget those guidelines, the police reminded him.

He chose to do what he did anyway.
A lot of people in this thread are really hung up on the neighborhood watch thing, as if it's actually relevant. It's an informal organization that has no legal bearing at all. Joining a neighborhood watch imposes no responsibilities at all on the individual, you may as well claim he broke the rules of the boy scouts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom