Exclusive! First hand Witness: Trayvon Martin attacked Zimmerman Zimmerman Innocent Smoking Gun

Originally posted by Xtrozero

...Like it or not Zimmerman created the whole situation, and like it or not that just might be fine within the FL law.

You mean that it isn't illegal follow someone, and ask them what they are doing in the area? Do you want that to be illegal?

Like it or not, you don't have the right to attack someone even if they are being rude to you.

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by Xcathdra
I can't state this enough - If people want to try an understand how Zimmerman / Martin arrived at their conclusions, forget all the info you have read and view it through their eyes. Which is to say you know nothing about each other or their intent.

I agree, but when one carries a deadly weapon one has to be responsible. Zimmerman basically created the altercation knowing he was armed and had the advantage, and he used that advantage. Like it or not Zimmerman created the whole situation, and like it or not that just might be fine within the FL law.

Actually thats not a consideration. Please point out where it states Zimmerman had his gun out prior to or at contact with Martin. Please point out where it states Martin told his gf a guy with a gun was following him.

Absent that, we dont know where the gun was when the incident started. Being Zimmerman was in lawful possession of a fire arm its not a consideration in terms of criminal activity. It only became an issue at the very end when it was used.

The question is -
What occured at that moment that resulted in Zimmerman fearing for his own safety / life that compelled him to discharge his weapon?

What occured at that moment that resulted in Martin fearing for his own safety / life that compelled him to engage Zimmerman in a physical manner?

Can you for sure state, with 100% accuracy, what occured? Second by second, word by word, blow by blow?
What each person was going through in their minds?
What each person perceived from the other?

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by Logmafia

That is a logical fallacy, had Trayvon survived he could have been charged with battery.

Zimmerman shooting Trayvon was a tragedy, I hope that someday some good will come out of it.

Could Martin have thought he was under attack and defended himself? I guess we will never know since Zimmerman is the one witness to it all.

Which is the exact reason why the SYG law is being questionsed and reviewed.

The SYG law allows for an aggressor to use deadly force if the person he is confronting escalates force.

Throw out the SYG law and you still have the stand alone law of self defense.

In either case in order to charge and secure a conviction the government must demonstrate and prove beyond a resonable doubt that the suspects use of force was inconsistent with the situation.

The defense requirement must in terms of evidence is preponderance of a doubt. A significantly less standard than Proof byond a reasonable doubt.

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Could Martin have thought he was under attack and defended himself? I guess we will never know since Zimmerman is the one witness to it all.

Yes, Martin could have thought that he was under attack.

The question is would a reasonable person feel that Zimmerman's actions constituted an immediate threat of illegal violence?

If I'm walking threw down the street, and some guy walks up to me and asks me what i'm doing there. I personally wouldn't feel like I'm being attacked.

Zimmerman may have done something else to be a threat, but as it is I think the evidence shows that Martin attacked Zimmerman without just cause.

how about this. would zimmerman have been brave enough to go follow a "thug" if he didnt have his gun? zimmerman was an accident waiting to happen and you guys know it. zimmerman is the only one with a violent record. trayvon was no angel but he didnt have a violent record, that whole bus driver incident is not verified from what i know the only evidence for that was from his hacked twitter account.

reply to post by conspiracy nut


As was pointed out, past actions have no bearing on it. The only thing that matters is in the spur of the moment, if Zimmerman felt his life was endangered when he was being assaulted. If he did, then the shooting was lawful.

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
how about this. would zimmerman have been brave enough to go follow a "thug" if he didnt have his gun? zimmerman was an accident waiting to happen and you guys know it. zimmerman is the only one with a violent record. trayvon was no angel but he didnt have a violent record, that whole bus driver incident is not verified from what i know the only evidence for that was from his hacked twitter account.

Ironically your own question is the answer...

We dont know how each person would have acted. So Zimmerman was in lawful possession of a gun. Did he have it out while following Martin? Did he have it out when contact was made?

According to Zimmerman Martin went for his gun, which if the gun was holstered, regardless if it was open carry or concealed, is an escalation to deadly force.

Martins defense would be he was confronted by an armed individual and felt in imminent fear of his life.
Zimmermans defense would be his gun was holstered / secured and Martin lunged for it, placing Zimmerman in fear of his life.

In order for the gun to be a factor, we need to know how it entered the equation. That answer will be impacted by how contact was made and what transpired.

We dont have all the info....

As far as the continued attempt to introduce information from Zimmermans past be careful as that is a double edged sword. The same can be done for Martin, and with his past of burglaries, assaults and drug possession a picture can be painted of him as well.

Secondly prior bad acts cannot be used in court as they can prejudice the proceedings.. So again people really need to get over that info and stop trying to introduce it as a factor.


ETA - What he said

from a LEO'S point of view would you condone further behavior from would be zimmermans? now from an average joe's point of view, what kind of a country would we be with a bunch of vigilantes running around, armed, following and calling 911 on anyone they deem suspicious?

reply to post by conspiracy nut


It never bothered me to get dispatched to a suspicious person, I like people being more aware of what is happening around them.

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
from a LEO'S point of view would you condone further behavior from would be zimmermans? now from an average joe's point of view, what kind of a country would we be with a bunch of vigilantes running around, armed, following and calling 911 on anyone they deem suspicious?

My personal opinion on peoples actions are separate from what the law allows them to do. We dont get to determine innocence or guilt. We respond, and if during the course of our investigation there is the possibility a crime occurred, we go from there. Once the investigation is completed we submit all information to the PA, who then decides whats going to happen.

I have already stated, personally, that Zimmerman should have chosen a better course of action when it came to Martin. He never should have left the vehicle at all, regardless if Martin was the one who attacked him in the end.

I don't advocate any civilians placing themselves into a situation where their is a possibility of an altercation / deadly force (aside the obvious defense / defense of others). I also do not advocate laws that require a law abiding individual to retreat either.

I don't agree with Florida's SYG law, however it is law and regardless of how I or anyone else feels about it, its there.

reply to post by conspiracy nut
A proactive community is a safe community. If you are out of place in this community, you will get confronted head on and asked what you are doing in the area. We don't call 911 here unless it is a necessity. I suppose the fact that a lot of us walk around with a rifle slung on our backs helps too

Originally posted by Logmafia

Like it or not, you don't have the right to attack someone even if they are being rude to you.

We do not know what caused him to fight....Did Zimmerman grab his arm and say I'm going to detain you...or something like that? We only have Zimmerman's account for the attack too...

reply to post by Xcathdra


thanks for the honest reply, very logical and i agree with your assessment. although i may not agree with the legal mumbo jumbo that might get zimmerman off, in my opinion, unless some mind blowing evidence comes to light in his favor, zimmerman was in the wrong.

reply to post by TKDRL


geez, remind me never to visit your neighborhood. where do you live, ruby ridge?

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Can you for sure state, with 100% accuracy, what occured? Second by second, word by word, blow by blow?
What each person was going through in their minds?
What each person perceived from the other?

Is there a case in the history of law that this could be done to?

It doesn't really matter does it.... There is no way for anyone to know, so I guess whatever Zimmerman says is the truth...right?

All I'm saying is it all seems strange in many ways as how Zimmerman states it, and I don't think Zimmerman would ever had approached him if he didn't have his gun, do you?

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

thanks for the honest reply, very logical and i agree with your assessment. although i may not agree with the legal mumbo jumbo that might get Zimmerman off, in my opinion, unless some mind blowing evidence comes to light in his favor, Zimmerman was in the wrong.

Which is the sole reason we have laws and a judicial system that's based on those laws and not public opinion. As we have seen on this topic we have people making argument in both directions. The problem is none of us were present when it occurred. That forces the reliance on testimony from Zimmerman and the physical / forensic evidence present.

Even then just because there is a smoking gun present does not mean we know how it happened or that the evidence has been correctly interpreted - For proof of that just look at the Kennedy Assassination.

This is the main reason the State is required to prove guilt and the suspect / defendant is innocent until proven guilty.

Its dangerous to circumvent the judicial system based on emotions / personal values / morals. Worse yet is when the courts reach a decision and the people refuse to accept the outcome.

reply to post by conspiracy nut


Haha, no it's just the country. Not that there is anything wrong with ruby ridge. We got lots of dangerous animals around. Coyotes(not the cute dopey ones like the states, these ones crossbreaded with timber wolves), timber wolves, lynx, porcupine and bears to name a few. The bears are probably the least dangerous, they are very shy in most cases.

One thing we don't have is violent crime
I will take some animals over rampant violent crime anyday. Also, people are not busybodies, the only laws we give two hoots about is natural laws. As long as you aren't hurting anyone else, do what you please. People can smoke their pot out in the open and such. As long as you aren't blowing it in people's faces, no one cares.

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Is there a case in the history of law that this could be done to?

Yes.. there are many cases where each and every step has been witnessed by a person / caught on camera - video and audio. I pointed out earlier that it is possible to arrest and individual, charge them with a crime, prosecute them, find them guilty and sentence them to death all without ever reading them their Miranda rights.

Absent those being present, we are restricted to the suspects version of events and the physical evidence.

If people don't believe the suspects version of events that's fine. However we come back to the requirement of providing evidence that shows the suspect / defendant is wrong and if the evidence does not support that, then the conclusion is the defendant was justified and within the law (no matter how pissed we get about the outcome).

Our judicial system is predicated on the belief that its better to let criminals go than incarcerate 1 person who is innocent. A concept people don't agree with however its still present and valid.

It doesn't really matter does it.... There is no way for anyone to know, so I guess whatever Zimmerman says is the truth...right?

Originally posted by Xtrozero
All I'm saying is it all seems strange in many ways as how Zimmerman states it, and I don't think Zimmerman would ever had approached him if he didn't have his gun, do you?

Any inconsistencies can be brought up by the prosecution to help make their case. Also we have not officially heard Zimmerman's side of the story. All we have are people repeating what they supposedly heard and until those people go on record (and are allowed to officially by the judge) its speculation with no link directly to Zimmerman in terms of being factual.

As far as a person approaching or not approaching based on being armed I can't speak to that. I am not Zimmerman, I don't know what type of training Zimmerman has, I don't know what was going through is mind that night, I don't know if he felt scared, nervous, agitated, etc (at the outset, not confrontation).

However, going back to what was stated before, Zimmerman was in lawful possession of a firearm and was in compliance with all applicable Florida Statutes.

It's because of that, lawful possession, that is going to make it difficult to try and use the fact he was armed as being a factor in his actions.

The only person who knows how Zimmerman thought and felt that night is Zimmerman, and for anyone to try and fill in that gap on their own through speculation needs to rethink that position.

Totality of Circumstances....
No 20/20 hindsight...
Innocent until proven guilty...
In lawful possession of a fire arm....

If we subscribe to the theory of being able to Monday morning quarterback the actions of others then be prepared for that same standard to apply to you / everyone else in everything you do.

There is a legal term - Leap of Logic.

Its when people take the information present and assemble it in a manner that they view as obvious.

Example -
You walk into your neighbors house and see an ashtray on the table with a cigarette in it.
Leap - Your neighbor smokes.
Factual - Your neighbor does not smoke however a friend they have over does.

You are in the mall and hear screaming and gunshots. You look to your left and see a guy running and directly behind him is another guy chasing him with a gun in his hand.
Leap - The guy chasing the individual is trying to kill him.
Factual - The guy chasing who is armed is an off duty police officer and the person he is chasing was armed while robbing the store, dropping his gun when confronted by the off duty officer.

Its easy to make a list of facts...

Its impossible to assemble those facts based on assumptions and personal / moral opinions in place of law.

reply to post by TKDRL


i can see how different people can have a different opinion on this, we all have different experiences that could shape our thinking. where i'm from its nothing to see people that seem out of place and we dont have people walking around with rifles on their backs. maybe that is why this case seems so messed up for me and normal for you. i'm not knocking you, i'm just starting to understand why you have the opposite opinion as me.

reply to post by conspiracy nut


Yeah I know what you mean. I have mostly lived in the country, at least that I can remember. I was born in a ghetto area in CT, we moved into a more suburban area when I was 3 and pops could afford to move us. Two years later we were living in the country. From that point, until I was 19, I lived in the country. I lived in White Plains NY for a few years after I graduated high school, totally different worlds really.