As far as escaping the rain by standing under the trees.... well... that hardly seems possible.
Posted on 06/25/2013 7:53:51 AM PDT by kristinn
Two flawed innocent lives intersected one 2012 February night in the town of Sanford, Florida. Afterward one life was ended and another was marked for death.
The debate over the shooting death of Trayvon Martin at the hands of George Zimmerman sixteen months ago has partisans painting each as villains in order to justify their belief in the guilt or innocence of Zimmerman of the charge of second degree murder.
Those who believe Zimmerman is innocent have rejected the Martin family’s attorneys’ portrait of Martin as a cuddly boy who looked about twelve years old. Instead, they point to Martin’s thug-wannabe social media persona and high school suspensions to portray the just turned seventeen-year-old as a hardened Black street thug who was casing the neighborhood where Zimmerman lived.
Those who believe Zimmerman is guilty have cast the part Black, part Hispanic, part White, then-twenty-eight-year-old as a white racist cop-wannabe who stalked Martin that February 26th night with murder in his heart.
But what if neither view is correct. What if the basic stories told by the two key witnesses in the case were pretty much what happened. Zimmerman and the mysterious ‘Witness 8’s tales overlap on key points.
Witness 8 is the alleged girlfriend of Martin who was supposedly speaking to Martin as he walked though Zimmerman’s neighborhood as he made his way to the townhouse home of his father’s then girlfriend where he was staying after being suspended from school in Miami. Her statement (albeit with spin and hyperbole) was relayed by Martin family attorney Benjamin Crump at a news conference March 20, 2012.
Zimmerman and Witness 8 both say that Martin was staying close to buildings. Both say Martin walked near Zimmerman’s parked car to check him out. Both say that Martin and Zimmerman lost sight of each other. Both say they came back in contact. And both agree confrontational words were first exchanged followed quickly by a physical altercation between the two.
Witness 8 says Martin was staying close to the buildings to get out of the rain—an innocent thing to do—and got upset that someone was watching him. Zimmerman, involved in his community’s neighborhood watch, took into account the rash of burglaries in recent months as he observed the stranger lurking near buildings.
Martin wanted to get a closer look at the stranger to him who was eyeballing him. Zimmerman took that as menacing. Martin then got away from Zimmerman. Zimmerman got out of his vehicle to see where the stranger to him was running toward. Losing him and being advised by the dispatcher not to pursue the stranger, Zimmerman says he started to make his way back to his vehicle.
It is not known why Martin did not go straight to his father’s then-girlfriend’s townhouse. He could have gotten disoriented in the evening rain as he tried to get away from the stranger, or he could have decided to confront the stranger who had gotten out of his vehicle in the rain to follow him. He would have been in his rights to do so--as would Zimmerman be in his rights to check out and follow the stranger in his crime-stricken neighborhood even if the police dispatcher advised him not to.
When the two met face to face, neither got violent right away. They both asked each other ‘what are you doing’ type questions. What apparently made the confrontation turn violent is the move by Zimmerman to reach for his cellphone. As he relates in his written statement to Sanford police the night of the incident: “…as I tried to find my phone to dial 911 the suspect punched me in the face. I fell backwards onto my back. The suspect got on top of me…the suspect grabbed my head and slammed it into the concrete sidewalk.”
Martin could very easily have been acting in self-defense if he took Zimmerman fumbling for a cellphone as him reaching for a knife or a gun. The way he reacted, according to Zimmerman, is exactly how a friend into self-defense told me long ago to get the upper hand in such a situation: First punch the nose hard enough to break it, thereby stunning your opponent, and then beat the tar out of them before they can recover.
So Martin would have been in the right acting in self-defense against a strange man who was following him who reached for something as they confronted each other.
Zimmerman also would have been right in trying to defend himself with deadly force as he did not initiate the violence and was quickly facing having his head bashed in.
There are no eyewitnesses to the beginning of the fight between Martin and Zimmerman, save for Zimmerman himself. The description by one eyewitness who saw some of the fight before the gunshot tracked with Zimmerman’s description at that point of the incident—just as Witness 8 largely tracks with Zimmerman’s account.
It is quite likely that the unarmed Trayvon Martin died believing he was fighting for his life from a stranger who stalked him with bad intent and was trying to pull a weapon on him. Zimmerman saying that when they were on the ground Martin saw the gun in his waistband would only have confirmed Martin’s fears.
If Zimmerman were trying to pull his gun out at the onset, rather than fumble for his cellphone, the fight would have right away been a struggle for control of the gun. There’s no evidence that happened.
It is my belief that both Martin and Zimmerman acted within their rights the night of February 26, 2012. Sometimes acting within your rights with flawed judgment can get you killed. Other times it can get you put on trial for murder by a legal lynch mob.
Is Hannity not sympathetic to Zimmerman now?
How many free punches to the face will Fuhrmann take before he reaches for his firearm?
I would be in the camp that favors there be no trial of Z to begin with. Since there is a Z trial, I would argue that something is missing from society-- a model to tell us what is acceptable behavior when carrying concealed during an incident. Had there been such a model, society could simply refer to the model and not prejudge someone like Z to begin with. In the Z case, society is clearly conflating SYG with vigilante-ism and coming up with wrong answers. What should be happening-- that Z be free to go-- is not happening-- Z is on trial.
model + no Z trial > no model + Z trial
Trayvon had been suspended multiple times. There are pictures of him on the internet showing pot plants in his room, and him holding a gun and a stack of money. The police had caught Trayvon with burglary tools and some unidentified jewelry, after being called to the school for some 'problems'.
Trayvon's mom kicked him out and told him to go live with his father.
Trayvon's father was living with his 'girlfriend' Brandy Green.
Since it is unlikely that Tracy Martin (the father) was on the lease agreement, he was living there in violation of the rental agreement, and having Trayvon move in was a further violation. IF Trayvon got into any 'trouble', it would make this public and endanger Brandy Green's lease.
Apparently, Trayvon's death has pulled Trayvon's mother and father back together. My guess is that Brandy Green kicked Tracy Martin out so she wouldn't lose her lease. She seems to be nowhere around and Mother and Father are sitting together in court and making appearances together. Besides, they both have 'income' from TRAYDMARK (or whatever it is) and Tracy has a place to live again, so, you know, it's all cool.
Trayvon wasn't seeking shelter under a tree. Going by the evidence photos, there weren't trees big enough to 'find shelter under'.
If he wanted to get out of the rain, all he had to do was go straight to Brandy Green's condo.
George Zimmerman wasn't 'going for a walk'. He was in his vehicle, heading to Walmart to go shopping. He stopped because he saw Trayvon wandering around aimlessly, looking into the condos.
What trees?
As far as escaping the rain by standing under the trees.... well... that hardly seems possible.
[[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.]]
Good luck with htat especially if htere are bno witnesses-
http://www.justanswer.com/law/2g5b3-assault-punching-someone-nose-during-verbal-argument.html
1. The police can be informed and there could be an arrest for assault and battery.
2. The injured party can request a Personal Protection Order against the assailant.
3. The injured party can sue, in civil court (small claims probably), for assault and battery.
http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federal/Simple-Assault.htm
In order for a defendant to be convicted of simple assault, the prosecutor or district attorney must prove every aspect of the crime (called the “elements” of the crime) beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence must show:
•that the defendant intentionally threatened the victim with an attack or bodily harm
•that the defendant appeared to have the ability to carry out the threat and/or took some sort of action that seemed to set an attack in motion, and
•that this threat caused the person to fear immediate serious violence, or
•the defendant actually attempted to or applied physical force to the victim.
Defendants charged with simple assault have the usual defenses available to all criminal defendants, starting with “You’ve got the wrong person, it wasn’t me.” In addition, a defendant can claim self defense or defense of others and present evidence that the alleged victim initiated the confrontation and that the defendant was defending himself or another person from the alleged victim’s attack. That defense may take the form of showing that the other person actually threw the first blow, the defendant could not safely retreat, and he had to take physical action to stop the attack or to protect himself.
It differs fro mstate tro state- but basically if there are no other witnesses you are goign to have a very hard tiem convincing a judge you just needed to smack the other person EVEN KIF they were one inch from your face screamign at you-
IF you have witnesses, you’re on better footing, but still have to show just cause— personal space however has notrhign to do with it-
You said ‘aggresively entering’ the space- Again- the onus will be on you to prove you reasonably felt in danger- there is no ‘personal space’ or ‘intimate space’ that I am aware of in regards to legal terms-
Next you mention “Anyone “getting an inch away from a stranger’s face” in a threatening manner,”
That wasn’t what was beign discussed- screamign at someone does NOT automatically constitute a ‘threatening manner’- you still will need to prove you felt reasonably afraid of assault in order to avoid beign charged with assault yourself-
you legal rights however begin when you go to leave a situation, and hte person blocks you from doing so and makes it clear that they are not goign to let you just walk away- OR if you have asked hteo ther person to desist from speakign to you in such a manner, and the person refuses, then you are on better fotting regardign hte law- i nthe first case, you are being held agaisnt your will, in the second, you’ve made itclear that you are beginnign to feel trhreatened, and will act if the person does not desist
Two peopel standing right in front of each other screamign at each other, or even just oen screaming, does not cosntitute reasonable threat- if that were the case, many husbans and wives woudl be charged without ever havign laid a hand on the other person- Asd I mentioend earlier, cops always look for marks- if there are none, there is nothign they can do legally (EXCEPT IF there were witnesses) if htere are marks o none person but not the other, that person is concidered the victim IF there are no witnesses
Generally, it coems down to whether or not you used reasonable discretion and have evidence you tried to avoid a situaiton but coudl not-
I agree with you on that.
Since there is a Z trial, I would argue that something is missing from society-- a model to tell us what is acceptable behavior when carrying concealed during an incident.
And here I disagree.
We HAVE such a model.
It's a very simple model. It's the model that says: "If someone has you on the ground and is pummeling you with his fists, breaking your nose and smashing your head against the concrete, threatening your very life, you are well within your rights to pull a firearm and thoroughly perforate his sorry @$$."
That model EXISTS. And it is understood by almost everyone.
It did NOT stop the prosecution of George Zimmerman, because there were political concerns that outweighed it.
Those same political concerns would also have outweighed any OTHER, more complicated model that you could possibly propose.
Sorry - failed to italicize the second quote, starting with “Since...”
Don't you mean "fiancee?"
By the way, the co-opting and corruption of that previously honorable word disgusts me.
Well, the model you say exists obviously is not sufficient to support SYG in practice, would you not agree? That is, it is insufficient if people like Z who use SYG can still be prosecuted in spite of common sense.
Those same political concerns would also have outweighed any OTHER, more complicated model that you could possibly propose.
Whether or not Z is found guilty, one of the larger issues is a chilling effect that the mere prosecution of Z implies that many people will be more reluctant to count on society's law to support their well being when using SYG. Ultimately this results in more disrespect for the law. I would welcome what you regard as a more complicated model over anarchy or the loss of innocent life due the the chilling effect that the prosecution of Z currently has among law abiding, CW carrying citizens.
Saying stuff over and over again like Z is innocent on FR is like preaching to the converted. OK, ...but so what? This is an open discussion and IMHO we can and should be open to larger implications and discuss larger issues raised. Think small, stay small.
Zimmerman didn’t use stand your ground. He had no place he could retreat to.
Yea I agree with him. You don’t come into my yard or walk around my house in the dark looking for a tree to avoid rain. Get your ass to your own house and tree.
How about what downpour? It was a light rain.
Not according to the prosecution.
There was a period in 2012 when Hannity was openly sympathetic to Zimmerman and even had him on his show. Then he shut up, for whatever reason. Possibly Fox told him to back off his support. I haven’t seen that much of his recent segments on the case but it was my impression that he was trying to act impartial, and not correcting misinformation put out by pro-Trayvon guests he has on.
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.