Posted on 06/25/2013 7:53:51 AM PDT by kristinn
You need a different self defense instructor if yours is telling you to launch into attempted murder to keep the upper hand when talking to someone in a gated community.
That’s a plausible scenario, kristinn, if you make certain assumptions about George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin.
Personally, though, I doubt many of the assumptions.
You assume, for example, that both parties were acting in a reasonable, responsible, adult manner.
I doubt that is the case.
Trayvon Martin was 17 years old and appears to have been a fairly tall kid. Around 6 feet. He had played football, so he was used to some physical engagement.
Martin was probably around 4 inches taller than Zimmerman. He was also 17 years old. 17 year old males are not known for their good judgment.
Martin is also known to have gotten into some trouble at school. Those types of issues can usually be categorized as including a lack of respect for authority.
He also appears to have been a gangsta wannabe.
In other words, Martin was 4 inches taller than Zimmerman, and he had an attitude.
We also know from the 911 call that Martin appears to have turned and approached Zimmerman, and then run away. His behavior, as described by Zimmerman, was rather strange and rather suspicious.
It looks likely to me that he was baiting Zimmerman, that he was itching for a confrontation.
Zimmerman, on his part, had gotten into a little bit of trouble as well: a mild scuffle with a police officer (which nonetheless seems to show a tendency towards scrappiness) and a restraining order alleging domestic violence.
So here you have a collision of two individuals, neither of whom appears to have been the type to shy away from a confrontation.
On the other hand, there is testimony that seems to indicate that Zimmerman, on the whole, is a pretty normal and generally decent guy.
I also find Zimmerman’s behavior after the incident to be interesting. As his lawyer noted, days went by and Zimmerman did not request a lawyer. An interesting case in which witnesses lawyered up, and the (eventually) accused did not.
All in all, there is no physical evidence at all that Zimmerman ever threw a punch at Martin. There is plenty of evidence that Martin assaulted Zimmerman. True, one does not find obvious blood or obvious dna evidence on Martin’s hands. But smashing someone’s nose with your fist isn’t likely to get blood on your hands. And Martin’s hands do not appear to have been handled properly to preserve any such evidence, which would likely have been minimal if detectable at all.
What seems certain in any event is that George Zimmerman did not smash his own nose and repeatedly slam his own head against the concrete. That is not a plausible scenario, and no one, including the prosecution, has suggested any party who might have done the damage to Zimmerman’s face and head other than Trayvon Martin.
So we can reasonably conclude that Trayvon Martin repeatedly punched George Zimmerman, but there is no evidence that Zimmerman ever hit Martin. There certainly is no evidence of Zimmerman throwing the first punch.
That also does not seem in Zimmerman’s character.
Zimmerman was also packing. I think it is safe to say that when someone is carrying a firearm, that significantly reduces the likelihood they are ever going to throw a first punch.
So we are back to the moment at which Zimmerman fumbles for his cell phone. Does Martin sincerely believe Zimmerman is looking for a gun to shoot him with? Possibly.
But that seems very doubtful to me.
Based on all I know of the case, including what we know of both Zimmerman and Martin, it seems more likely that what happened was along the lines of the characterization by “E. Pluribus Unum” in post 3.
So is George Zimmerman guilty of anything? If so, it appears to me that the worst thing that Zimmerman might be guilty of would be a bit of overzealousness and aggressiveness in confronting someone who he thought might be a troublemaker.
And that, friends, is not a crime.
Is it possible that Zimmerman failed to identify himself as a Neighborhood Watch captain? It’s possible.
But whatever Zimmerman said to Martin, if anything, it must have been along the lines of, “What are you doing?”
Such a comment would have been a clear indication that the person confronting Martin was not a thug trying to kill him, but someone wanting to know what Martin himself was doing, and whether he was up to no good.
Even if such a person WERE pulling a firearm, it would be clear that he was pulling a firearm NOT for the purpose of shooting you, but for the purpose of holding you until police could arrive and sort things out.
Given the circumstances and what we know of the players involved, I really can’t think of anything Zimmerman might have said to Martin that would have given him the reasonable expectation that Zimmerman was going to attack him.
And if the story is that Zimmerman erred by following Martin, then surely that works two ways. Surely Martin erred by apparently turning to confront Zimmerman.
Even if Zimmerman pursued Martin and said, “You there! What are you doing here?” - a scenario that we have no evidence for - all Martin had to do was say, “I’m visiting here and I have a right to be here,” and keep walking.
To sum up: I would repeat what E. Pluribus Unum said earlier.
“The only thing Little Trayvon had to do that night to not die was to not physically assault George Zimmerman, or anyone else.”
You walk close enough to my house to stay out of the rain, and I’ll confront you myself...
...so, if it starts pouring when I’m out walking, and I seek shelter underneath a tree which is twenty yards or so from your house, or maybe even less, you’re going to give me a hard time about it?
...you wouldn’t make the logical assumption I’m only trying to stay dry, and let it go at that...?
I would be interested in knowing more about this. What was the situation, and why?
Yup. . I always run to the nearest tree to huddle under during a downpour. . .you know, lightening-type of weather, always good to jump under a tree.
;-)
From M’s POV, Z would have had to have pulled a weapon and not just a cell phone to justify a punch in self defense.
Otherwise, a lot of folks would be running around breaking other folks’ noses just because the other folks pulled out cell phones during a conversation. Carried to the extreme, the use of cell phones would need to be tempered with the warning that pulling one out of one’s pocket is inciting other folks to punch the cell phone user in the nose.
Also I am not yet clear on what possible good motivation could be for slamming someone’s head into the ground while on top that person. If the person being (..ahem..) mounted has a deadly weapon, then it seems most logical that the person on top should grab the weapon to attempt to neutralize it, otherwise one risks being injured by the weapon. On TV fiction crime shows at least, a close combat struggle between two people with a weapon always has the weapon as the center of the struggle, and no one ever to my recollection ever goes for the armed person’s extremity over the armed person’s weapon. Those struggles are always depicted as ending either in one person being injured or killed by the weapon, or in the weapon being taken or tossed away by the other person.
What is at issue is whether Z is guilty, not M’s guilt or innocence. While I think your physical scenario is plausible, and usable by the defense, I would not spend much bandwidth trying to let M off the hook for escalating. To me, the possibility of unjustified escalation to physical violence by M upon seeing Z reach for a cell phone would suffice for reasonable doubt of the prosecution’s scenario.
What is the MMA version of the “use of force continuum”? I imagine that the MMA fighting style does *not* take into consideration the possibility that one combatant may be armed with a deadly weapon. Perhaps also the MMA fighting style presupposes that the fight occur on a soft martial arts mats such as made with 1” thick closed cell high density EVA foam rubber here:
http://www.rubberflooringinc.com/interlocking-tile/foam/1-jumbo-soft-tile.htmlwAqQ
Imaginably, as a 17yo, M not only was not totally aware of his own strength, but also less than fully aware of the lethality of his MMA fighting technique when performed outside of a professional MMA ring of the type that he probably had opportunity to see used only on TV. He was obviously not counting on Z being armed.
This might be part of what the public who is sympathetic to Z is enraged about at the core: the unrealized mismatch of intentions and mismatched levels of maturity, leading to fundamentally different potential POVs by M and Z during the incident. M might have wanted to hurt Z severely, and attempted to do so unjustifiably, using immature judgment (assualt, escalating to assault using deadly force). This view emotionally does not take into consideration Z’s POV, that of an immediate need to respond with deadly force to an apparently adult assailant using potentially deadly martial arts skills to inflict mortal damage. However, in the ‘continuum of force’ model, that view may be considered reasonable, and permitted. Admittedly, Z is not an LEO, so the continuum of force model does not apply in totality, but what may be needed for these types of situations is a SYG analog to the continuum of force model. With such a model, the police, DA, and public can understand similar incidents better when they occur (and perhaps help avoid yellow journalism defamation, show trials, malicious persecution, and street riots in the future).
Admittedly, Z is not an LEO, so the continuum of force model does not apply in totality...
All that is necessary for Zimmerman to have acted in a justifiable way is: Did the other party initiate the actual fight, and did Zimmerman reasonably fear that he was at risk of death or serious injury?
That's it.
Based on the evidence presented, I would say the answer to both questions appears to be yes.
The answer to the first question is not absolutely, 100% certain. It is PLAUSIBLE, though not at all likely, that Zimmerman COULD have thrown the first punch.
That would undermine the claim of self-defense.
But there is absolutely no hard evidence in favor of that, and there is CERTAINLY more than a reasonable doubt against it.
The answer to the second question appears to be an indisputable YES.
I see no sane way to return any verdict other than acquital. At this point the case appears to be so weak that it should NEVER have come to a trial.
Insofar as the trial goes, I would tend to agree.
However, in the larger scheme as I mentioned a SYG continuum of force model would be of use in society at large, not just limited to the trial itself. For example, public understanding and acceptance of a SYG continuum of force model would tend to help avoid currently anticipated street riots if charges are dismissed or a not guilty verdict is returned.
I don’t know what you mean by an SYG continuum. I’m not familiar with “SYG.”
Regardless, I think it is unrealistic, and probably unreasonable, to expect a civilian to adhere to a “continuum of force” when his head is being slammed against the concrete and his nose is being violently smashed.
I don’t think a policeman would restrain his force under the same circumstances, either.
SYG = stand your ground
The continuum of force model might be better recognized as escalation of force principle: a police officer may only select the minimum amount of force necessary to control a situation. As a guideline, in an incident between a police officer and a suspect, if the suspect uses some kind of force to resist control, the officer may only proceed one step higher in the force continuum to achieve control.
That says it all.
I specifically stated close enough to my house. Didn't say trees 20 yards away. If you're close enough to my house to avoid rainfall, you are basically on my front porch, or hugging my exterior walls. I will confront you.
I don’t think Zimmerman had any option other than to pull the trigger.
I don’t think there’s a policeman in the world who wouldn’t have done the same.
I doubt there are very few people on the planet who would’ve done anything other than pull the gun and pull the trigger.
Zimmerman doesn’t need stand-your-ground as a defense. There was no place he could go.
The ONLY way Zimmerman could emerge from this having any real culpability at all, as far as I can see, would be if he started the fight.
You are missing my point.
The point is that many people currently start and end their reasoning from a point of view sympathetic to M. They do not take into consideration Z’s point of view. I am saying that for those people, a generally accepted standard reference model of behavior in similar situations would help. As of now, apparently, no such commonly accepted standard model exists, which leads to the kind of social whiplash that we are seeing now.
The existence and acceptance of a model reduces the amount of thought and process required to that of whether or not the model is accepted, and if so, whether or not the procedure followed adhered to a checklist developed from the model.
I am also saying that if such a model had existed, then there would have been general public and law enforcement acceptance that no trial would be needed in the first place.
I am addressing the larger social context outside this incident and outside of the trial, not the incident and trial themselves.
But I don’t think we need such a “model.”
All we need to do is ask people to look at the photos of what was done to George Zimmerman by Trayvon Martin.
And then the question: “If you had someone on top of you, doing what Trayvon Martin did to George Zimmerman, smashing your nose like Trayvon Martin smashed George Zimmerman’s nose, beating you repeatedly, smashing your head against the concrete to produce the kind of injuries Trayvon Martin inflicted on the back of George Zimmerman’s head, and you couldn’t stop it and you couldn’t get away, and there was no one to help you, and no one else available to stop the violence, and you were continuing to receive those kind of injuries, and the only way you could fight back or get away was by using the firearm in your pocket, what would you do? What would any reasonable person do?”
There is only one answer to that question: SHOOT the SOB.
I was only guessing that this guy's purpose was to beg for money. He was not holding anything. If I had thrown a punch, it would have occurred about 18 inches from the door of my truck. Had such an event occurred, I would no doubt be relying on my credibility as a law-abiding citizen, with no history of bothering others, making a routine visit to a department store. This would be up against the word of a person who perhaps has a background of drug use, petty crimes, or possibly even complaints of criminally aggressive panhandling.
The other person's behavior caused me to have a reasonable apprehension that I was about to be harmed. Fortunately, my body language made clear to him that I desired no conversation or other contact with him and that his further approaching me was unwelcome in the extreme.
I think he approached me the way he did with the intention of causing me to have to brush past him in order to proceed with my business. He was counting on my wishing to avoid a confrontation as a means of making me willing to donate to his cause. He was not expecting me to so quickly defend the space that I already occupied and abandoned his plan immediately.
That’s it.
There are only two questions in this case.
1) Can the prosecution PROVE that George Zimmerman STARTED THE FIGHT?
Answer: NO. They can’t.
2) Making the reasonable assumption that George Zimmerman did NOT start the fight, did he act in reasonable self-defense by shooting Trayvon Martin?
Answer: Not just yes, but HELL, yes.
That’s it. Not guilty. Case over.
Absolutely NOT correct.
Agressively entering a stranger's personal space, then their intimate space, is sufficient justification for a defensive response.
Anyone "getting an inch away from a stranger's face" in a threatening manner, is in effect issuing a threat, and that threat should be neutralized with whatever degree of force is necessary to remove the threatening person from the intimate and personal space.
According to what GZ said a long time ago, it was only when Martin caught sight of his gun and tried to grab it that Zimmerman decided he had to use it to save his own life. Of course that was while he was having his head beat against the concrete and Martin was telling him he was about to die.
Hannity, who used to be sympathetic to Zimmerman, had Mark Fuhrmann and a Democratic woman on his show last night, both hostile to Zimmerman. Fuhrmann was minimizing Zimmerman's injuries and the Democratic woman suggested that Zimmerman should have just hit Martin on the side of the head with the gun. Unreal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.