General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMarcia Clark brought up a great point on Anderson Cooper
Since Zimmerman was packing he knew he was getting into a fight he couldn't lose!
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
dkf
(37,305 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)I'll bet my bottom dollar that the MOMENT you heard the name Zimmerman, you thought "White guy kills a black guy."
Nanjing to Seoul
(2,088 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)I simply stated that the poster could NOT know, in his heart of hearts, what he claimed to "know".
Nanjing to Seoul
(2,088 posts)And you are very rude in your response.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I don't know what it is about this case that shuts off DUers' ability to think.
(Unless you actually did mean "imply", but that's a weird question to ask.)
appacom
(296 posts)And you decided the moment you heard the dead youth was Black, that he was a thug who deserved to die.
Cronus Protagonist
(15,574 posts)He telegraphed his intentions on that police call where he read off the shooter's checklist with all the attributes necessary for a defense of an extrajudicial killing in Florida. And he had to lie about the teenager to make these claims, which is why his testimony is inconsistent. That showed intent right there. And his actions also showed intent. He was never interested in catching a petty thief, he was interested in shooting one of "these people". Clear as day.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Yes, he betrayed his intent on the phone.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)What is it about this topic that makes so many people on DU incapable of thinking?
lumpy
(13,704 posts)It backfired and Zimmerman was met with resistence leading to a wrestling match and Zimmerman's last resort of pulling of the trigger. Why he was in fear of his life has yet to be determined.
alfredo
(60,071 posts)
jeffrey_pdx
(222 posts)If Zimmerman takes the stand, I'd push him hard about why he couldn't outfight some skinny teenager. I bet his psuedo-macho, Chuck Norris ego couldn't take it. All bullies are really scared and if you push them they'll deny it. But they'd rather be guilty than shown their true colors.
HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)There is no way in hell he goes on the stand. Not gonna happen. EVER. But I agree with your assessment of bullies, each and every one of them are cowards.
alfredo
(60,071 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)...when he started stalking Trayvon he knew he was going to shoot him.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Seriously. I literally think that's crazy, and I can't understand why so many people on this board think that.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Zimmerman got out of his car, packing his gun, to make a confrontation he had been told to not make, and now the person he confronted is buried.
Do you suppose the gun just went off on its own? Poor Zimmerman, a victim of uncontrollable circumstances?
Adsos Letter
(19,459 posts)no, definitely not. I don't think Zimmerman's actions are defensible; however, it's a huge leap to say that he intended beforehand to shoot Trayvon Martin.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Those are George Zimmerman's own words before he clambered out of his truck to pursue Trayvon, bringing his loaded, safety-off gun with him to do so. I think, from this, it's pretty obvious he planned to pull a Dirty Harry on whoever he was chasing, to play out a fantasy cop-versus-badguy scene. The gun was part of whatever was running through Zimmerman's head, certainly.whether he planned to shoot, or just wave it around, I have no idea, but it's plainly obvious he wished to initiate a hostile confrontation with the belief that he had the upper hand because of his weapon.
Adsos Letter
(19,459 posts)"Fucking punks. These assholes always get away." That leads me to believe that Z intended to use that gun to hold TM until the cops got there. I am not saying that he should have done that, only that I don't believe the shooting was premeditated. And, again, that's just my opinion.
Since everyone is speculating about what Z intended: I think Z intended to hold TM at gunpoint, if necessary, until the cops got there because he thought TM was up to no good. He had no reason to believe that about Trayvon because TM wasn't, in fact, doing anything illegal. That should have been left to the cops to determine.
Something happened that escalated that situation into the use of deadly force. I don't know what that was, and we may never actually find out beyond a reasonable doubt (again, my opinion only).
I think Z was morally wrong to shoot TM; however, the Court isn't interested in whether the shooting was morally wrong, but whether it was legally wrong. That, at least, is my understanding. For myself, I suspect he was also legally wrong. Whether the jury agrees remains to be seen.
Some have complained about the amount of discussion that this is garnering on DU but I am glad there is this much discussion going on, as it is forcing me to examine my own beliefs on a whole raft of issues associated with this killing.
My opinion about this, and a lot of other things associated with it continues to evolve, and I thank you for contributing to that evolution.
reusrename
(1,716 posts)Then he changed his behavior and acted in an "armed and dangerous" manner.
The Martin boy probably picked up on the fact that some "creepy ass cracker" was acting in an "armed and dangerous" manner, and was probably in legitimate fear for his life.
The premeditation question should be: Would Zimmerman's behavior have been the same if he had not prepared for the encounter by making himself "armed and dangerous?"
It's obvious that chickenshit little prick would never have gone anywhere near the Martin boy without a gun.
He's a coward and a killer. Premeditated killer. This was his best fantasy come true.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)Or he wanted to question TM closely, since TM fit the profile of a potential burglar. TM was threatened by Zimmerman's actions and attacked him. After the fight went south, Zimmerman killed TM. It was likely Zimmerman screaming for help, since the closest witness placed him on the bottom, and Zimmerman had injuries consistent with a beat down.
The law may be on Zimmerman's side, even though it shouldn't. It isn't illegal to follow another person and it isn't illegal to carry a weapon. It is illegal to attack someone, as it appeared that TM did to Zimmerman. The law says that the victim of an attack can shoot that attacker if they feel significantly endangered.
This scenario does set up a situation where there is a good potential of a shooting. Zimmerman behaved in a way that had a significant chance to lead to the death of TM: provoke and shot. It works against people that will easily attack when they feel threatened. TM shouldn't have attacked Zimmerman since he didn't know Zimmermans intentions.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)like Zimmy carry guns hoping and praying that they get the chance to use it and be a hero. I hope Zimmy gets the maximum.
BlueJazz
(25,348 posts)Their minds think: "Maybe today..just maybe something will happen that will show the world I really am important.
In the case of ZimmyBoy, he caused it to happen.
Mariana
(14,854 posts)Zimmy may very well have been one of them.
From Zimmy's call to the police, it really does sound as if he was already setting up his self-defense scenario with the stuff he said about Trayvon, all the crap about "There's something wrong with him, I think he's on drugs" and so on. Remember he said something about Trayvon was coming toward him with his (Trayvon's) hand at his waistband? If Trayvon hadn't run off at that point, I bet Zimmy's next words on the phone, regardless of what Trayvon was actually doing, would have been something like, "Oh shit, I think he has a gun! He's still coming toward me! Oh God!" Then, BANG.
HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)He just over estimated his intelligence, it happens with stupid people. They aren't intelligent enough to know they are stupid.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)I think Z was out that night, and other nights, packing a gun, looking for someone to use it on. And he found Trayvon.
What I'm curious about is this: Did Z mention anything about the Stand Your Ground law after he was arrested? Did he know about it before he met up with Trayvon?
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)
Tippy
(4,610 posts)I heard it mentioned several times by different sources...
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)Tippy
(4,610 posts)But the NRA said yes The police should have followed up on his 9/11 calls. He was a murder looking for a place to happen...This hot dog needs to spend his life behind bars...
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)
Aristus
(66,316 posts)and this little beauty will ensure it ain't me!"
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Seriously, that's a very disturbed view of the millions of Americans who carry guns.
Maximumnegro
(1,134 posts)is justified. At this point other First World Countries have pretty much shown that America's obsession with guns is insane. There really is zero defense for owning anything more than a hunting rifle. None.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)He set out to make a "citizens arrest", and teach "those punks" a lesson and impress the cops. Backfired when an innocent kid walking home wouldn't put up with his shit. So, faced with a kid who wouldn't do what he said, he tried to physically restrain him, and when Trayvon resisted, Zimmy shot him.
aquart
(69,014 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)There is no hard evidence Zimmy had those fantasies (blog, etc). Maybe he did, but it cant be proven. However, its reasonable to assume (lacking evidence to the contrary) that Zimmy didn't walk oit of his house that night intending to kill someone. He just wanted to be an authoritative bigshot... but bit off more than he could chew, panicked, fired his gun, and killed an innocent kid. Could be 2nd degree or voluntary manslaughter. Def not first degree.
aquart
(69,014 posts)He brought a loaded gun. He selected his prey and stalked him. He got out of the car and confronted him. He shot him dead.
You don't see premeditation and I do. NOTHING would have happened if that brainless bigot hadn't caused it.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)He stalked Martin with the intent of stopping one of "those punks" and getting approval from the cops. He just got in over his head, panicked, and pulled the gun.
If he just intended to shoot someone, why call police? He would have shot and run away.
aquart
(69,014 posts)It is a reason to go to ballet school.
HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)Zimmy is dumb as a bag of cat shit, he was NOT looking for approval that night. He had a new toy and wanted to play with it. He was hunting.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)I'm merely expressing my opinion of what his probable mindset was, since it relates to murder1 vs murder2. You seem to be looking for an arguement.
malaise
(268,913 posts)
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)I"m not saying Zimmy intended to kill the kid...I am suggesting that gun emboldened him...
dkf
(37,305 posts)
Captain Stern
(2,201 posts)We don't know that Zimmerman even knew he was getting into a fight. We also have no reason to believe that Zimmerman thought he was the only one that had a gun.
elleng
(130,864 posts)or anyone else out there, WOULD have a gun?
Florida is a 'shall issue' concealed carry state.
elleng
(130,864 posts)I'm STILL not used to all this 'carry' etc. crap. 
Pelican
(1,156 posts)... but as we saw from the cell phone photos Martin had at least some access to firearms.
Not relevant to the case at all but just a side note.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)things. Turns out, Martin really did need a weapon against this so-called "law-abiding" gun toter.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts).
KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)Most would be out gunned but Marcia Clark couldn't prove that water is wet.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)Zimmerman had no way of knowing that Martin wasn't armed.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)Even Zimmerman admits that he was following Martin for at least some time previous to his 911 call. Also, if he thought Martin had a gun why did he voluntarily place himself in a dangerous situation by confronting him? Either way, Zimmerman becomes the aggressor who created a volatile situation when he had no legal right to do so. Also, once Zimmerman had established that Martin was not carrying a weapon the use of a gun became disproportionate defense even if Martin did physically attack him.
This is basic law. If you attack me with your fists, I am not legally allowed to shoot you with my gun. I can only defend myself in a manner fitting the situation. Also, since it has been admitted that it was Zimmerman who confronted Martin, Zimmerman cannot claim that he had the right to act in self defense. Again, basic criminal law states that once you begin a fight, you lose any self defense claim regardless of how the fight goes.
Captain Stern
(2,201 posts)I thought his story was that Martin confronted him. And from what I can tell, that is still what he says happened. Perhaps I'm mistaken, and his version has changed.
As far as the law goes, if I attack you with my fists, and you have a reasonable belief that you are in grievous danger, you most certainly can shoot me, or stab me, or hit me with a bat. You are not limited to fighting back with fists only.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)If you weigh 200lbs and I weigh 150lbs then I do have the right to defend myself with a weapon that makes the challenge more proportionate. That's not to say that Zimmerman couldn't have used a bat if Martin was attacking him but the law does not allow pulling a gun in non-life threatening circumstances such as a fist fight.
As for confrontation, Zimmerman admits that he went after Martin after the call. That should be enough to establish who confronted whom.
Captain Stern
(2,201 posts)If someone feels they're in danger of grievous harm, they can defend themselves. IF Zimmerman was on his back and being being straddled and beaten by Martin, he's got a good case for shooting Martin in self-defense.
I haven't heard any evidence that shows that Zimmerman 'went after' Martin after the call. I think we might disagree on what 'went after' means. I think it's important to remember that following someone is completely legal. If Zimmerman started the physical confrontation, his self defense claim definitely shrinks, but if all he did was follow Martin, he's not legally at fault.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)If it did then every altercation could result in someone being legally killed. The reason the law was written was to keep this very thing from happening.
I won't argue the confrontation question because we disagree on what has been admitted and what it means. That happens.
However, you need to remember that Zimmerman has already admitted to killing Martin. Now it is up to him to present proof that he did so in self defense. It is unlikely his word will be enough to establish his innocence by a preponderance of the evidence.
Captain Stern
(2,201 posts)I think that perhaps we disagree on what constitutes a physical confrontation. I think that means the first time that one party lays hands on another, whether it's a blow or a hands on attempt to constrain.
I agree that Zimmerman has admitted to killing Martin. And I also agree that at this point, Zimmerman has to show that he killed Martin in self defense, but he doesn't have to prove it. He just has to explain why it was self-defense. Then, the prosecution has to convince the jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman's version of the story couldn't have happened. That means that the prosecution has to disprove at least some aspects of Zimmerman's version of events. In my opinion, they haven't done that yet.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)Self defense is known as an affirmative defense in criminal cases which requires the defendant to prove his case, not merely tell his side of the story.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense
An affirmative defense is a complete or partial defense to a civil lawsuit or criminal procedure that affirms the complaint or charges but raises facts other than those alleged by the plaintiff or prosecutor which, if proven by the defendant, would defeat or reduce a claim even if the allegations alleged are all proven.
Captain Stern
(2,201 posts)Zimmerman's version of the events is that he was struck by Martin and that knocked him to the ground. He then claims that he was being repeatedly struck by Martin while Martin was straddling him, and that Martin was also banging his head against the sidewalk. He also admits to shooting Martin at that point. His claim is self-defense.
The questions:
1. Is Zimmerman's story true? Is there enough evidence to convince the jury that things didn't happen the way Zimmerman said they happened? (In my opinion, there's not so far. although there definitely are other scenarios that could have happened)
2. If Zimmerman's story is true, was it reasonable for him to believe he was in danger of grievous harm? I believe that if things happened the way Zimmerman said they did, then yes.
Once Zimmerman has laid out his case for self-defense, my understanding is that it's up to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his version didn't happen. If they jury thinks that Zimmerman's story could reasonably be true, they should acquit. I could be mistaken, but that's my understanding of how it works.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)I don't know how following someone helps determine if they're armed, or not.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)he still had no legal right to place himself in a situation that could result in what happened. So either Zimmerman broke the law by confronting a kid who had no weapon or he broke the law by confronting a kid who did have a weapon.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)I only addressed Marcia Clark's assumption.
Pelican
(1,156 posts)You have to be able to articulate why you felt, at the time, and in a reasonable manner, that the attack put you in fear for your life.
People die in fist fights without weapons all the time. That's like saying that if I'm beating you with a lead pipe you can only respond with force up to or equal to a pipe.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)An old woman in a wheelchair can generally use more force than could a 25 year old, 200lb man in peak condition. There are always exceptions based on the circumstance but this doesn't appear to be one of those situations.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)was a coke can. He told teh cop on the phone that TM was walking toward him, that he had "something" in his hand.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)Against all other proofs, you know that Martin confronted Zimmerman? Interesting. In a legal sense, many would say that Zimmerman confronted Martin by forcing a stand off when he continued to follow him. However, I don't know what the jury will decide.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)You didn't hear that recording?
It's that conversation where the cop tells GZ not to get out of his car. But earlier in the conversation, GZ is telling the cop where TM is or whatever, and the cop tells him to stay put, that the cops are on the way. Cop asks him for physical description of TM and what race. Near the end of that conversation GZ says that TM is walking toward him, holding something in his hand.
Witness today testified that s/he saw TM straddling GZ on the ground, pummeling him with both arms/hands, like a martial arts thing, is the way the witness put it. While he heard screams of "help me." Witness yells out to stop it.
Important witness. The only one to see the altercation, as far as I know.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Maybe I'm just a wuss, but if I believe there's a possibility that Martin is armed, my sense of self preservation kicks in and i wait for the cops. Zimmerman was looking for confrontation just like the asshole who killed that kid in front of the convenience store for playing music too loudly.
Cha
(297,136 posts)
applegrove
(118,609 posts)for more than a second before he shot his gun. If Zimmerman did yell 'help me', knowing he had a gun, should he not have stopped for more than a second to let his possession of a gun sink into Martin's brain? I still think it was Martin who was yelling for help. I trust his mom to know her own son's screams.
pacalo
(24,721 posts)random & less aimed than point-blank, directly in Trayvon's heart. As soon as Trayvon was shot, the screaming ended. If it had been Zimmerman screaming as long as what I heard, he sure gathered his composure quickly. He calmly spoke to the neighbors who asked him what was going on. He wasn't in an agitated state for someone who claims to be screaming 'help me, help me'.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)were heard?
TM had GZ down on the ground, straddling him and pummeling him with both hands, like a martial arts position, the witness said. While there were screams of "help me."
That's what the witness today said.
Just sayin'. Sometimes the evidence is not the way people think.
applegrove
(118,609 posts)pay attention to this trial, like I ignore most trials, but it seems it is impossible. No I had not heard that. If Zimmerman was yelling for help he should have stopped once he pulled his gun and given Martin the chance to back off. There was no time between Zimmerman yelling for help and Martin being shot. And if Zimmerman was yelling help me while pointing a gun at Trayvon then that seems like it was a set up. Oh. Dam. I‘m getting sucked in. It is so sad.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)by pulling a gun and then yelling for help, fake-like. That's expecting a level of planning, cunning, and non-emotional behavior that is beyond most people, and GZ is definitely not a non-emotional person.
I'm not watching the trial. I work during the day. But I see clips and read about the witnesses that day.
If people don't watch the evidence unfold, they may not understand the jury verdict when it comes down. They'll have missed key evidence. That's true, whether the person thinks GZ is guilty or thinks he is not guilty.
I watched most of the OJ Simpson trial, which is how I came to the conclusion that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but the jury did a nullification verdict based on something else and/or didn't understand DNA (DNA was new at that time).
Zoeisright
(8,339 posts)That was Trayvon screaming. Nothing else makes any sense.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Goodness, why don't we call Christopher Darden and ask him what HE thinks?
If the two of them think Zimmerman's guilty, I can pretty much guarantee an acquittal.
Marcia Clark? Seriously?
Captain Stern
(2,201 posts)They got rich and famous by sucking at their job.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)"So Marcia, what do you think of George Zimmerman?"
"Well Bruce, I'm convinced that Mr. Zimmerman got INTO his car that night with the intent to shoot and kill someone, preferably a young black man in a hoodie."
"But Marcia, a witness stated under oath that he saw Mr. Zimmerman on the bottom during the altercation leading to the shooting of Trayvon Martin."
"Bruce, I have it on good authority that Mr. Zimmerman was more comfortable fighting from the missionary position, and as they say if he's on bottom, that means we got him."
"Um, okay Marcia, thanks. Next up, evidence that Nick Wallenda never crossed the Grand Canyon on a wire, but was a hologram projected from four NSA satellites so as to present a 3D image. We'll be back after a word from our sponsor... NSA, Protecting the American Government from Its Citizens."
Captain Stern
(2,201 posts)Everybody's got to make a living, so I don't begrudge her for taking the opportunity to make a few dollars. But I hope she recognizes the fact that she's famous for failing in a big way. She's not being asked for her opinion because people respect her opinion. She's being asked for her opinion because people know who she is.
hibbing
(10,096 posts)I know, she is on the television as some sort of expert. It is crazy ass shit.
Peace
Maximumnegro
(1,134 posts)I notice OJ's name keeps popping up and there NOTHING these cases have in common. So please back off the OJ references.
appacom
(296 posts)Maximumnegro - I really like that handle. 
I'm an ole newspaper writer who no longer writes, but this case is burning inside me, giving me that old itch to be heard. I keep reading, and listening to trial accounts, and nobody seems to be getting it right. When I figure out what it is I want to say, I'd like to first share it with you.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Ms.Clark prosecuted OJ and lost the case to a rhyme. Her prosecutorial prowess is questionable.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)She lost a case.
Is she the first attorney to lose a case?
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Or maybe race was introduced into the case and a major state witness was impeached for using the N word.
But I "applaud" Zimmy's attorneys for introducing race into the case to distract the jurY. It's the 180 degree version of the O J defense. But their job is to get an acquittal , not justice.
Terutt
(1 post)Well, I watched the show. For me Marcia Clark showed why she was a poor prosecutor and continues to be a poor lawyer. Remember, her whole approach to trying to convict oj was to show that Nicole had been abused, and that it ultimately escalated into oj killing her. Now last night, with Zimmerman, who was being punched in the head (and had his nose broken in the process) and was having his head slammed into the concrete (all of which where much more serious injuries than Nicole suffered under oj...untill he killed her). Marcia tried to argue that zimmerman's injuries did not qualify as serious bodily injury and so maybe he was unjustified in using deadly force...wtf? I am guessing she considered the abuse Nicole suffered as serious. So she is at best inconstant in her reasoning, but at least this demonstrates that this trial has sort of crossed the threshold regarding who the debate about who the physical aggressor was (trayvon) and now it becomes a debate if the injuries suffered warranted killing him. If that is the case, this trial is over because the law is suffered injury or feared suffering injury (so if a guy is charging you with a knife, you can shoot him even though he has not injured you yet). I think having your head banged on the sidewalk qualifies as a reasonable fear that you are about to be seriously injured. Given the law (which I am not defending) around stand your ground, I don't see how you convict him. He was in a place he had the right to be, carrying a legal firearm, and if you are on a neighborhood watch (meaning you are actively looking for criminals) then carrying a weapon as a defensive last resort seems reasonable, and it's application in this case seems legal. This is the law...if you don't like the outcome, repeal conceal carry, actively discourage neighborhood watch programs which fosters conflict between criminals (and innocent people) and ill-trained gun toters, and make the law so that you can use deadly force only to stop the loss of life (and not just to protect property/prevent serious injury)
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)1) The physical evidence pointed to Simpson's guilt.
2) The abuse was just part of the mountain of evidence.
3) Whether or not Zimmerman thought death or great bodily harm was imminent is a jury question. The jury isn't required to put themselves in Zimmerman's shoes. They are required to put themselves in the shoes of a reasonable person.
Auntie Bush
(17,528 posts)When he picked that fight he didn't know TM knew Karatti too. That must have been a shock! I hope he got in a few kicks. Oh I just got a thought. Maybe TM didn't have bruises on his knuckles...because he kicked TM and then pinned him down.
TeeYiYi
(8,028 posts)...because he knew he was packin' and that if the confrontation escalated, he would be in a position of power. I think he envisioned himself making a 'citizen's arrest' but ended up killing Trayvon instead.
Guns aren't always like in the movies where someone pulls their gun and the other person freezes. In real life, when a gun gets pulled, it usually gets fired. Just like in real world police situations, once the gun comes out it usually ends badly.
Zimmerman was a wannabe cop. I think he got his wannabe wish. I think he had his gun drawn from the jump.
”Zimmerman told authorities that during their fight, Trayvon tried to cover Zimmerman's mouth with his hand and tried to pull the handgun away from him.”
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-05-15/news/os-trayvon-martin-gun-20120513_1_gun-shop-owner-gun-owners-kel-tec
I believe that Trayvon tried to save his own life by trying to hold Zimmernan down and/or grabbing the gun away from him. He never beat Zimmerman with his fists. He was too busy trying to keep from being murdered.
Then Zimmerman managed to get a shot off and the recoil of the gun smacked him in the face. (The gun he was using has a reputation of 'kicking like a mule.')
Short of Zimmerman's gun jamming, the possibility of Trayvon surviving Zimmerman's planned confrontation was next to zero. He never really had a chance.
I agree with Marcia Clark.
TYY
Pelican
(1,156 posts)... as it does when I read it?
Man X on top of Man Y... Man X is acting defensively by repeatedly "holding him down" and trying to grab a weapon?
TeeYiYi
(8,028 posts)...so, no.
TYY
Pelican
(1,156 posts)*goes to google the verb "to swype"*
TeeYiYi
(8,028 posts)TYY 
Zoeisright
(8,339 posts)Man X has a gun and stalks and confronts Man Y. Who's the aggressor here? You really need to learn some reasoning skills, because you don't have ANY.
Pelican
(1,156 posts)... that Zimmerman brandished or displayed his gun up to and including the time that he and Martin were speaking?
aquart
(69,014 posts)And one of those times I was trapped in an elevator with armed teens and I was ranting, calling them idiots for mugging someone on the way back from shopping when the money was gone and then I went on listing every rotten thing that had happened in the last month because this was my first day out after weeks of illness. And still the gun was not fired.
Maybe because you didn't try to fight or take the gun away...
Oh well; my theory is only conjecture. 
TYY
Coccydynia
(198 posts)The fact the Zimmerman chose not to pursue that hearing is all you need to know about the guilt of Zimmerman.
No Vested Interest
(5,166 posts)Wouldn't a shoulder have accomplish the aim to get Trayvon off of him?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)usually taught by some hack certified by the NRA.
No Vested Interest
(5,166 posts)That's more than self-defense, isn't it?
Seems to me that it would be enough to just immobilize the other.
But, as is obvious, I don't know a thing about that way of thinking.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)to convince you aiming for center mass minimizes chances of "innocents" being hit. They actually believe such crud, worse they spread it among the cult.
No Vested Interest
(5,166 posts)Thanks.
Pelican
(1,156 posts)HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)You want me to bring my son to the keyboard, he was with the Marines 3/7 in Iraq. I'm sure you know that unit, right? He got a Purple Heart for his service Pelican. He is sleeping now after a long drive from So CA but I am sure he could answer your post.
Pelican
(1,156 posts)... but please ask him what he thinks about shooting someone to immobilize them.
I don't say this out of snark, I say it to make people go through the logical process. If you aren't willing to kill someone, then you shouldn't be carrying a gun with all that it entails, good and bad.
When people talk about this they usually think of Hollywood where the hero shoots the bad guy in the leg so the police can take him away or shoots the gun out of his hand or some other silliness.
The reason you shoot center mass, especially with a pistol, is so you don't miss. This is the same reason that shooters are taught not to aim for the head (as a general rule.) Small target means more chance that you miss and less chance that the the threat will be stopped.
If you are far enough away and have enough time to take a calm aimed shot at an arm or leg to "immobilize them" then you have enough time to get the fuck out of there because your life isn't in danger.
This advice applies mostly to handguns at short range in a non-warfare setting.
Cheers...
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)as long as I have a gun I can go start I fight with anyone, then if I start getting my ass kicked I can just shoot the person I started a fight with and it is self defense.
what utter bullshit
pnwmom
(108,975 posts) justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)it's no wonder Martin was fighting... he was fighting for his life.
Zimmerman told authorities that during their fight, Trayvon tried to cover Zimmerman's mouth with his hand and tried to pull the handgun away from him.
How did Zimmerman get the gun into his hand while they were rolling around on the ground, fighting? In court, Z writes with his left hand but the police reported the gun was on his right hip. So, Z is either ambidextrous or he has to cross-draw. If he has to cross-draw, that makes getting the gun from the holster, while fighting, even more difficult.
Something just doesn't add up here.
Kingofalldems
(38,444 posts)They are freaking everywhere.
