Trayvon Martin and the return of a quaint southern tradition.

[Oniya]

As I stated in another forum (which I WISH had the civility of this one), if the reports of Martin attacking Zimmerman are correct, should the Stand Your Ground law not apply to Martin as well? I mean, if shooting someone is an appropriate response for getting punched in the face, shouldn't punching someone in the face be an appropriate response for getting stalked?

If I hadn't slept in, I would actually have called in to the guys on In Session for that.  *makes note not to nap tomorrow*

[vtboy]

Two forensic voice identification experts have now opined that the background voice crying for help on one of the 911 recordings is not Zimmerman's.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/01/10963191-trayvon-martin-case-911-call-screams-not-george-zimmermans-2-experts-say?gt1=43001

Hopefully, there are some exemplars of Martin's voice which might furnish a basis for an expert opinion as to whether or not the pleas for help were his. One can only wonder whether the police bothered to perform any sort of analysis on the recorded voice.

Does anyone know what Zimmerman's or the official explanation is for the apparent absence of Martin's blood from Zimmerman's clothing and person after the shooting? I'm no expert on this, but it seems to me that if Zimmerman's account of the incident (i.e., that he shot Martin at close range in a scuffle on the ground in which Martin was on top of him) is accurate, there should at least have been some blood on him? Or, perhaps the police simply concluded that it was not important to test Zimmerman's self-defense story against the available physical evidence. 

[Trieste]

The physics of blood can be complex and a little boggling. The shape of the drop, the length of the 'tail' (if a drop is found on a hard surface) and whatnot are all important factors. The absence of blood is just as much a part of ballistics as the presence of blood, so it can be assured that the lack of blood on Zimmerman's clothes tells the experts something. What that something is, I have no idea, as my physics acumen is hardly good enough to tell you the direction a frickin' bouncy ball will go.

*hates physics SO HARD*

[AndyZ]

Does anyone know what Zimmerman's or the official explanation is for the apparent absence of Martin's blood from Zimmerman's clothing and person after the shooting? I'm no expert on this, but it seems to me that if Zimmerman's account of the incident (i.e., that he shot Martin at close range in a scuffle on the ground in which Martin was on top of him) is accurate, there should at least have been some blood on him? Or, perhaps the police simply concluded that it was not important to test Zimmerman's self-defense story against the available physical evidence.

Fair warning that I'm not fully reading this thread, just felt like popping on for a quick peek to the final post, so PM me if you need a response.

However, from my understanding of when you shoot someone, most of the blood doesn't spray out of them in your direction, but in the opposite direction.

JFK's Head Movement

Here's a thing that Penn and Teller did a while back on the JFK stuff.  It shows how that, contrary to movies, shooting someone in the head actually makes them stumble towards you and not away.

No idea where Trayvon was shot, probably wasn't the head, but the physics might work out in a similar way to send everything flying out the back.

You were pretty nice in my other thread so I wanted to try to help out some with your question here; I hope that explains a possible reason.

[Callie Del Noire]

It tells us this much.. depending on how close Zimmerman SAID he was that he was lying. Thing is.. if Trayvon was close enough to bloody his nose.. was there any of Zimmerman's blood on Trayvon's clothing? Definitely there is something off with his story.. but how much of that is distortion from the telling of himself what happened and he MIGHT be concealing.

[Cythieus]

As a Texan, the stand your ground clause isn't meant to be used for you to go looking for trouble. The law is meant to be used if you're jumped on while you're otherwise doing nothing and in fear for your life. This doesn't mean you can shoot police because while your life could be threatened by them, it usually is because you were already in the wrong. At the same time, if you go somewhere and people look suspicious the last thing you should do is get out of your car and follow them, that's not fear for your life. I live near a city where I see strange shit go down all of the time, I've seen people fighting and pulling weapons and stuff like that. What do I do? Call the police. I never hesitate to call the police and they never have to tell me to maintain my distance. The only time you can interject like Zimmerman did is if someone is attacking someone else and you see it, and even then you have to use appropriate force.

Stalking and harassment are against the law too. And all of this stuff floating around on Facebook and the like about how wearing a hood makes you look like a criminal is irrelevant. I heard someone in a coffee shop speaking when I was getting up to leave and they said "If you look like a criminal than you probably are one". Sorry, but being black and in a hood aren't justification to be shot. Hell, being a criminal isn't really one either. Shooting is for serious crime, home invasions, things when you and others around you are in danger.

In closing, I'd like to pose the question: Does anyone really think that the streets are safer without this kid? What about with this lunatic running around armed and on the neighborhood watch? Do we want him out there?

[elone]

In closing, I'd like to pose the question: Does anyone really think that the streets are safer without this kid? What about with this lunatic running around armed and on the neighborhood watch? Do we want him out there?

Just for arguments sake why is Trayvon this kid, and why is Zimmerman a lunatic? By his friends account, Zimmerman was not racist and was a concerned citizen. No he should not have confronted Trayvon, but also, Trayvon should not have jumped him. I of course am assuming unknown certainties here.

Also, if you carry a firearm, one of the worst fears is that someone will take it away from you. (a good reason not to carry) If, as witnesses have said, Zimmerman was getting the crap beat out of him what should he have done? What should someone do under that circumstance? Regardless of what occurred prior to the scuffle, what were Zimmerman's options if he genuinely feared for his life or the loss of his firearm to an assailant?

I had occasion to carry concealed in the military, I hated it and avoided it unless absolutely necessary, just could not get used to it.

[Oniya]

A question:

If you had your head beat against the sidewalk for even a minute, how much medical assistance/care would you require?  Not even talking about procedures - how much time would you expect the medical professionals to devote to making sure that you didn't have a concussion, patching up any lacerations, and ensuring you didn't need transport to the nearest E.R.?

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2012/04/02/nr-trayvon-martin-timeline.cnn

[Callie Del Noire]

A question:

If you had your head beat against the sidewalk for even a minute, how much medical assistance/care would you require?  Not even talking about procedures - how much time would you expect the medical professionals to devote to making sure that you didn't have a concussion, patching up any lacerations, and ensuring you didn't need transport to the nearest E.R.?

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2012/04/02/nr-trayvon-martin-timeline.cnn

Not sure myself, but there were what? Five/six officers, two emts on the scene? I figure it was a neat organized event and I'm sure that Zimmerman got less than the eight minutes. I'm sure that if some form of evidentiary photos could have been taken of the wounds a lot of questions would be answered. One way or another.

[elone]

A question:

If you had your head beat against the sidewalk for even a minute, how much medical assistance/care would you require?  Not even talking about procedures - how much time would you expect the medical professionals to devote to making sure that you didn't have a concussion, patching up any lacerations, and ensuring you didn't need transport to the nearest E.R.?

For a cut and bloody nose, not much time. Concussion? Don't know but not much if he was conscious and coherent.

One thing to note, we have not heard a peep from the EMT's on the scene. They should have filed a report of the call. Also, they have not been identified as far as I know. This will definitely come out in an investigation, or it certainly should.

[Callie Del Noire]

For a cut and bloody nose, not much time. Concussion? Don't know but not much if he was conscious and coherent.

One thing to note, we have not heard a peep from the EMT's on the scene. They should have filed a report of the call. Also, they have not been identified as far as I know. This will definitely come out in an investigation, or it certainly should.

You know.. I hadn't considered that. The EMTs would at the very least be able to say what sort of wounds he incurred.

[Cythieus]

Just for arguments sake why is Trayvon this kid, and why is Zimmerman a lunatic? By his friends account, Zimmerman was not racist and was a concerned citizen. No he should not have confronted Trayvon, but also, Trayvon should not have jumped him. I of course am assuming unknown certainties here.

Also, if you carry a firearm, one of the worst fears is that someone will take it away from you. (a good reason not to carry) If, as witnesses have said, Zimmerman was getting the crap beat out of him what should he have done? What should someone do under that circumstance? Regardless of what occurred prior to the scuffle, what were Zimmerman's options if he genuinely feared for his life or the loss of his firearm to an assailant?

I had occasion to carry concealed in the military, I hated it and avoided it unless absolutely necessary, just could not get used to it.

His option was simple: not to be in that situation.

The events and the outcome are more to do with Zimmerman's actions than that of Martin. The same could be said of Martin, he could be called out as someone who feared for his safety, its been said that he was heard on the phone telling another party that he thought he was being followed. What would your reaction be to being followed? Could you say that you'd just like to let them continue to do it? Now you can say that Zimmerman was defending himself, but it was his own actions that put him into a place where he needed to. With things like neighborhood watches and security guards they are constantly telling you that you're not the police and your primary function is to observe and report.

The gun is a last resort, if you're carrying one, to assure your safety. But a gun can do well to enable someone to take more liberties than they should, I can't say for sure that's what happened. But it sounds like Zimmerman did something dangerous by following someone---would he still have done that if he had not been armed?

As for the insanity thing, that's honestly how I see the guy. As the kind of lunatic I don't want anywhere near a gun.

[elone]

The problem with this whole tragic episode is that there is not enough reliable information that has come out. Everyone is speculating on what happened. My guess it that someone, The FBI or state investigators have a whole lot more than the rest of us know about. I would think that they are keeping it close to the vest until either they charge Zimmerman or convene a grand jury to make that decision.

The same could be said of Martin, he could be called out as someone who feared for his safety, its been said that he was heard on the phone telling another party that he thought he was being followed. What would your reaction be to being followed? Could you say that you'd just like to let them continue to do it?

If I feared for my safety the last thing I would do is confront the person following me. His girlfriend said about the phone conversation that Trayvon asked Zimmerman why was he following him. This was an open area behind townhouses/homes, dark, with several avenues to leave and just go home. Trayvon did not take that route. I would have.

Also, we don't know that Zimmerman kept following him after the person told him "we don't need you to do that." For all we know at that point he turned and was walking back to his vehicle when Trayvon confronted him. This is what I mean when I say we just don't have all the information needed to make any kind of conclusion.

If this was a simple case of Zimmerman being obviously guilty or reckless, he would be in custody now. Apparently the authorities have just as many questions as the rest of us.

[Rhapsody]

The problem with this whole tragic episode is that there is not enough reliable information that has come out. Everyone is speculating on what happened. My guess it that someone, The FBI or state investigators have a whole lot more than the rest of us know about. I would think that they are keeping it close to the vest until either they charge Zimmerman or convene a grand jury to make that decision.

If I feared for my safety the last thing I would do is confront the person following me. His girlfriend said about the phone conversation that Trayvon asked Zimmerman why was he following him. This was an open area behind townhouses/homes, dark, with several avenues to leave and just go home. Trayvon did not take that route. I would have.

Key words here are 'I would have'. Not everyone reacts to stressors in the same way. I can pretty much guarantee that my husband would have reacted the way Martin has been said to react: confrontation. He sees a threat, and his hardwiring tells him to deal with it head-on.

[Oniya]

For a cut and bloody nose, not much time. Concussion? Don't know but not much if he was conscious and coherent.

One thing to note, we have not heard a peep from the EMT's on the scene. They should have filed a report of the call. Also, they have not been identified as far as I know. This will definitely come out in an investigation, or it certainly should.

I'm hoping it does.  As of right now, the claim of self defense is being supported by Zimmerman's statement that Trayvon jumped him, and beat his head against the sidewalk 'for a minute'.  Now, in my younger days, I fell quite a bit on sidewalks.  Never on my head, but it doesn't take a whole lot of force to get a scrape on concrete.  If your head is being struck against concrete repeatedly over time, and with enough force that you feel in danger of your life, I would suspect that the EMT's would have quite a mess to clean up, at the very least.

[gaggedLouise]

Here's a thing that Penn and Teller did a while back on the JFK stuff.  It shows how that, contrary to movies, shooting someone in the head actually makes them stumble towards you and not away.

I remember hearing this one from an experienced doctor of forensic medicine speaking of some other gun assassination (other than JFK, that is): "It's actually quite unsafe to shoot people in the head, when you're up close, if the objective is to kill them. There's no guarantee that the target will perish straight off, even if hit in the face; they may move quickly and there's the risk of ricochets. An experienced killer who is very close would go for the back or the chest, unless the person he wants to hit is unconscious."

[elone]

Key words here are 'I would have'. Not everyone reacts to stressors in the same way. I can pretty much guarantee that my husband would have reacted the way Martin has been said to react: confrontation. He sees a threat, and his hardwiring tells him to deal with it head-on.

And what does that get you ... dead.

[Tamhansen]

Look, being a foreigner, and not really understanding this stand your ground act. Could, say Trayvon's family kill Zimmerman and call on the same act, claiming they felt threatened by someone gunning at their family for no reason?

I'm not saying that's what happened, just that many perceive it that way, and the bill talks of the assumption of threat rather than factual threat.

I'm asking this purely to understand what the legislature entails, since I'm going on holiday to Florida next summer, and I'd really hate to get shot for wearing a hoody, for exmple.

[Cythieus]

Look, being a foreigner, and not really understanding this stand your ground act. Could, say Trayvon's family kill Zimmerman and call on the same act, claiming they felt threatened by someone gunning at their family for no reason?

I'm not saying that's what happened, just that many perceive it that way, and the bill talks of the assumption of threat rather than factual threat.

I'm asking this purely to understand what the legislature entails, since I'm going on holiday to Florida next summer, and I'd really hate to get shot for wearing a hoody, for exmple.

The stand your ground law is pretty clear that there has to be reasonable assumption of a threat. Meaning that usually a jury would decide if it was self defense, if the threat wouldn't be perceived by a reasonable person then it's not going to fly. Let's say that balloons scare you, there are people with that fear. One night you're walking minding your business and a little girl with a balloon who is lost without her parents wanders up. In fear for your life from the wafting terror, you shoot her in self defense.

This is not reasonable.

As to why Trayvon's family can't shoot at Zimmerman it's because the threat has to be immediate.

[vtboy]

Look, being a foreigner, and not really understanding this stand your ground act. Could, say Trayvon's family kill Zimmerman and call on the same act, claiming they felt threatened by someone gunning at their family for no reason?

I'm not saying that's what happened, just that many perceive it that way, and the bill talks of the assumption of threat rather than factual threat.

I'm asking this purely to understand what the legislature entails, since I'm going on holiday to Florida next summer, and I'd really hate to get shot for wearing a hoody, for exmple.

Self defense has long been recognized by the common law, and later by statute in most states, as a legal defense to homicide. As Azrael pointed out, the defense requires a reasonable perception of threat of imminent death or serious bodily harm. Many jurisdictions have further conditioned the use of deadly force in self defense to situations where the subject of an attack reasonably perceives he or she cannot avoid harm by retreat. Florida's "stand your ground" statute eliminates the obligation of reasonable retreat before one may respond to an attack with deadly force.

Florida's is one of a spate of similar statutes recently passed by state legislatures, chiefly at the urging of the National Rifle Association, a private group which, for many years, has opposed all efforts by government to regulate gun ownership. The NRA is widely perceived to be among the most powerful lobbying forces in the nation. Its counting house is overflowing with purchased politicians. The NRA's cause recently benefitted from decisions handed down by a sharply divided U.S. Supreme Court which pare back the powers of state and local governments to restrict individual access to hand guns, a right which, in the enlightened minds of the majority justices, is as fundamental component of our scheme of ordered liberty as the rights of speech, press and religion. Flush with this judicial victory, it appears the NRA turned its sights from expanding ownership of guns to expanding their use.

I would suggest that when you come to visit the Sunshine State, you come packin' and, with the blessing of its Legislature, be prepared to shoot first and ask questions later.

[Oniya]

As I understand it, Stand Your Ground was originally intended to allow homeowners to defend themselves in their home from an intruder, even if it's possible for them to retreat (i.e., by abandoning their house).  Applying it when someone is not defending a residence and is able to retreat (which Zimmerman was able to prior to exiting his car) seems counter to the original premise of the law.

[vtboy]

As I understand it, Stand Your Ground was originally intended to allow homeowners to defend themselves in their home from an intruder, even if it's possible for them to retreat (i.e., by abandoning their house).  Applying it when someone is not defending a residence and is able to retreat (which Zimmerman was able to prior to exiting his car) seems counter to the original premise of the law.

Before "stand your ground" legislation, many (perhaps most) states recognized a home invastion exception to the requirement of retreat. The effect of the "stand your ground" statutes is to eliminate the requirement of retreat in all situations.

[Callie Del Noire]

Before "stand your ground" legislation, many (perhaps most) states recognized a home invastion exception to the requirement of retreat. The effect of the "stand your ground" statutes is to eliminate the requirement of retreat in all situations.

The police said it applied BUT the state senator who word, submitted and pushed the bill through said it didn't. There is enough shady ground on this that the feds and state attorney both found reason to investigate the situation. I defintely expect to see some 'tweaks' to the law coming up soon.

[vtboy]

The police said it applied BUT the state senator who word, submitted and pushed the bill through said it didn't. There is enough shady ground on this that the feds and state attorney both found reason to investigate the situation. I defintely expect to see some 'tweaks' to the law coming up soon.

I am not surprised that those elected officials responsible for this benighted piece of legislation are now casting about for constructions at odds with its plain language.

I assume that what this state senator meant is that the defense should not be available to someone who has exposed himself to attack through his own unlawful aggression. Unfortunately, that is not what this idiot's law says. Moreover, strict construction rules applicable to criminal statutes might prevent a court from reading into the defense an unarticulated exception applicable when the defendant is the initial aggressor, especially if the initial aggression did not involve deadly force. At the time of the law's passage, I suspect this faithful public servant was more focused on pleasing his NRA masters than he was on the law's obvious invitation to unnecessary violence.

[Callie Del Noire]

I am not surprised that those elected officials responsible for this benighted piece of legislation are now casting about for constructions at odds with its plain language.

I assume that what this state senator meant is that the defense should not be available to someone who has exposed himself to attack through his own unlawful aggression. Unfortunately, that is not what this idiot's law says. Moreover, strict construction rules applicable to criminal statutes might prevent a court from reading into the defense an unarticulated exception applicable when the defendant is the initial aggressor, especially if the initial aggression did not involve deadly force. At the time of the law's passage, I suspect this faithful public servant was more focused on pleasing his NRA masters than he was on the law's obvious invitation to unnecessary violence.

Actually if you look at the language of the law, and I have (as did the man  who wrote it) and it comes down to this. Zimmerman called the cops..they (though the operator) warned him off. That is where 'just cause' goes out the window as far as I'm concerned. He was the aggressor from the beginning. He wasn't defending his house or business. There is sufficent evidence to show that he'd chased down others as well. Zimmerman's actions could easily be interpreted by the ongoing grand jury as 'aggressive beyond need' and there is a fair argument to be made that he'd been told to stand down.