Trayvon Martin awarded posthumous bachelor's degree in aeronautical science from Florida university - Sensationalist Headlines

Trayvon Martin awarded posthumous bachelor's degree in aeronautical science from Florida university

96 replies, posted
In This Thread

[QUOTE=bdd458;52189613]Lmao what Trayvon Martin was 5'11'' and Zimmerman is 5'7'' And if I remember correctly as well. Zimmerman was out of shape at the time. Trayvon being smaller my ass[/QUOTE] Martin was skinny as, Zimmerman not so much. Also Armed. Also cop/power fantasies. Also anger problems.

Martin was in better shape. Zimmerman was a portly little man. Doesn't matter who started it, Trayvon is dead and won't be coming back, and no amount of feel good degrees are going to change that. People need to stop puppeting corpses.

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52189379]Yea thats actually exactly how it works. Martin was physically assaulting Zimmerman and put him in fear for his life. Zimmerman rightly defended himself. Yea Zimmerman shouldnt have followed Martin but maybe Martin shouldn't have responded to a verbal confrontation with violence. [editline]5th May 2017[/editline] Thats actually not really relevant. Bottom line, Trayvon was killed while straddling Zimmerman. He was slamming Zimmermans head into the pavement when Zimmerman pulled his pistol and shot him. Zimmerman verbally confronted Trayvon. Trayvon responded to this verbal confrontation by assaulting Zimmerman. Who is the poorly adjusted one in this situation?[/QUOTE] There's zero evidence to support your narrative that Zimmerman's role in the confrontation was purely verbal, or that Martin was the one who escalated the situation to violence. If Zimmerman had his gun drawn already, for example, it completely changes the scenario of the confrontation to one of justifiable self defense on Martin's part, and unfortunately there's just no way to prove or disprove that this isn't what happened. So, it may be true that all we can do is speculate about the confrontation itself, but examining the facts of the events leading up to the shooting tell a fairly complete story on their own. A disturbed vigilante with fantasies of being a hero chased down a teenaged boy at night on no other basis than than the color of his skin and forced a confrontation. During this confrontation, the boy was killed. Zimmerman forced the confrontation to happen after Martin tried to run, Zimmerman was pissed off, Zimmerman was racist, Zimmerman was armed. While that may not be enough for a conviction, it is PLENTY to convince me that Zimmerman is far from an innocent victim of circumstance. He forced a violent confrontation and killed a boy. He should hardly be celebrated, nor the boy vilified.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52189644]There's zero evidence to support your narrative that Zimmerman's role in the confrontation was purely verbal, or that Martin was the one who escalated the situation to violence. If Zimmerman had his gun drawn already, for example, it completely changes the scenario of the confrontation to one of justifiable self defense on Martin's part, and unfortunately there's just no way to prove or disprove that this isn't what happened. So, it may be true that all we can do is speculate about the confrontation itself, but examining the facts of the events leading up to the shooting tell a fairly complete story on their own. A disturbed vigilante with fantasies of being a hero chased down a teenaged boy at night on no other basis than than the color of his skin and forced a confrontation. During this confrontation, the boy was killed. Zimmerman forced the confrontation to happen after Martin tried to run, Zimmerman was pissed off, Zimmerman was racist, Zimmerman was armed. While that may not be enough for a conviction, it is PLENTY to convince me that Zimmerman is far from an innocent victim of circumstance. He forced a violent confrontation and killed a boy. He should hardly be celebrated, nor the boy vilified.[/QUOTE] Im not celebrating or trying to put Zimmerman in the right. Hes a true and through racist ass hat. Hes no hero, but the facts that we know point to Martin attacking Zimmerman and defending himself justly. Anything else is speculation. Zimmerman shouldnt have confronted Martin, but Martin shouldnt have attacked Zimmerman under any circumstances, especially if he had a gun drawn on him.

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52189702]Im not celebrating or trying to put Zimmerman in the right. Hes a true and through racist ass hat. Hes no hero, but the facts that we know point to Martin attacking Zimmerman and defending himself justly. Anything else is speculation. Zimmerman shouldnt have confronted Martin, but Martin shouldnt have attacked Zimmerman under any circumstances, especially if he had a gun drawn on him.[/QUOTE] No, the facts do [I]not[/I] prove that Zimmerman justly defended himself. You're right in saying that my theory is speculation, I was quite forward about that, but so is yours. There is no evidence to prove either narrative. The best that we can say is that there is sufficient doubt of the events of the confrontation itself that it would have been wrong to convict Zimmerman, but the evidence available does not actually prove that Zimmerman was the victim in the conflict and acting in reasonable self defense. Given everything we do factually know about the scenario, there is only one piece of missing information here, and it changes everything: after Zimmerman chased down and confronted Martin, did Zimmerman escalate the confrontation to violence by drawing his gun or otherwise getting physical, or did Martin escalate the confrontation by attacking first? Unfortunately, we'll probably never have the answer to this question. The facts of the case can't prove it either way. The reason why this one piece of information is so critical however is because it [I]completely[/I] changes the landscape of the situation. If Zimmerman drew his weapon, escalating the confrontation, then it creates a very strong argument for self defense on Martin's part. Consider that scenario from Martin's perspective: [quote]You are walking home from a convenience store with a snack and a drink. You're talking on the phone with a friend. Up the street, a big truck suddenly pulls over. After a moment, a man gets out and starts yelling at you, chasing you. You hang up on your friend and run, try to hide, but the man catches up. He's yelling at you, accusing you of being up to no good. He's pissed off and he just chased you through the streets for no reason. Then, he pulls a gun. This is now a survival situation. Fight or flight, and you've already tried flight. Fearing for your life, you attack him.[/quote] Likewise, if Martin escalated the situation first, then it lends veracity to the claims of self defense on Zimmerman's part. Now, [I]in my opinion[/I], Martin attacking first still doesn't exonerate Zimmerman in the slightest because Zimmerman still gave Martin reason to fear for his life by chasing him through the streets, [I]but[/I], legally speaking, that would be a case of justifiable self defense. Surely you can see how knowing that one key piece of missing information completely changes the scenario. If Zimmerman drew his gun on Martin first, it completely upends his case for self defense and applies it to Martin instead. Shooting somebody who is attacking you is not self defense if the reason that person is attacking you is because you chased him down and pointed a gun at him. That's manslaughter, at best. In summary: neither of us can say what actually happened that night. Claiming that either party was acting in self defense is just speculation, because the facts can't prove what actually took place in that confrontation beyond the fact that Martin hit Zimmerman, and that Zimmerman shot Martin. There are two likely scenarios, and neither can be proved true. That doubt is why Zimmerman was not convicted -- [I]not[/I] because he was actually found to be acting in justifiable defense. If it could have been proven that Zimmerman escalated violent confrontation by drawing his gun first, he would have been found guilty of manslaughter.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;52189626]Martin was skinny as, Zimmerman not so much. Also Armed. Also cop/power fantasies. Also anger problems.[/QUOTE] That "not so much" is fat, not muscle.

[QUOTE=loopoo;52186872]Fuck me, this happened in 2012? 5 years. I feel like life's just slipping by[/QUOTE] Not gonna lie I'm pretty bummed out this kid's accomplished more since then than I have.

I'm on the side that Trayvon was the innocent person by far and Zimmerman essentially a disgusting murderer, but this is just weird. Usually degrees given like this have a direct relation between the person and what the degree is. E.g. you do good work in a field and get given an honorary PhD

The reason this event is ridiculous has nothing to do with Trayvon. It has everything to do with the University itself. The University doesn't care about Trayvon or Trayvon's family. They don't care about Zimmerman. They care about getting in the news. So they latched on to a large controversy to make themselves look better. It's just shitty and insulting. It has nothing to do with whether or not Trayvon "deserved" the degree.

For those finding issue with my argument for self defense on Martin's part, let me ask you this: Assume that you're having an evening stroll through your neighborhood. You are carrying a pistol for self defense. Suddenly, a strange man jumps out of a truck and starts screaming at you. You back off, and he advances. You try to run, and he starts chasing you. you try to hide, and he finds you. Now you're cornered, and this outraged stranger pulls a gun and points it at you. You draw your pistol and shoot him first. He dies. Do you not consider this to be an act of self defense? Alternatively, you fire your weapon at him, but it only injures him. He shoots you, and you die. Was [I]he[/I] just "defending himself," despite the entire confrontation being instigated and escalated by him? Should he walk away without consequence? If you subscribe to this second belief, then what is your reasoning for that? There is not a single piece of reliable evidence or testimony that can counter this series of events. There is nothing to indicate that it was not Zimmerman who escalated the conflict, forcing Martin to act in self defense. Furthermore, this scenario is hardly a stretch of the imagination given Zimmerman's numerous incidents of gun threats, domestic violence, and assault. While accepting this narrative as the unvarnished truth of what happened is impossible, immediately dismissing it is equally foolish and only speaks to your personal bias. Again: there is no evidence to support the theory that Zimmerman was only acting in self defense. If he is the one that escalated the confrontation into violence by drawing his gun or physically engaging Martin first, then Zimmerman has no claim to self defense. Martin would, instead, and Zimmerman would be convicted of manslaughter or murder. All of this is just to say that making a statement such as "Zimmerman was only acting in self defense" or "Martin jumped Zimmerman" is ignorant speculation. You don't know that. That cannot be proven. Saying that is irresponsible.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52190131]For those finding issue with my argument for self defense on Martin's part, let me ask you this: Assume that you're having an evening stroll through your neighborhood. You are carrying a pistol for self defense. Suddenly, a strange man jumps out of a truck and starts screaming at you. You back off, and he advances. You try to run, and he starts chasing you. you try to hide, and he finds you. Now you're cornered, and this outraged stranger pulls a gun and points it at you. You draw your pistol and shoot him first. He dies. Do you not consider this to be an act of self defense? Alternatively, you fire your weapon at him, but it only injures him. He shoots you, and you die. Was [I]he[/I] just "defending himself," despite the entire confrontation being instigated and escalated by him? Should he walk away without consequence? If you subscribe to this second belief, then what is your logic for that? There is not a single piece of reliable evidence or testimony that can counter this series of events, and they're hardly a stretch of the imagination given Zimmerman's numerous incidents of gun threats, domestic violence, and assault. While accepting this narrative as the unvarnished truth of what happened is impossible, immediately dismissing it is equally foolish and only speaks to your personal bias. Again: there is no evidence to support the theory that Zimmerman was only acting in self defense. If he is the one that escalated the confrontation into violence by drawing his gun or physically engaging Martin first, then Zimmerman has no claim to self defense. Martin would, instead, and Zimmerman would be convicted of manslaughter or murder. All of this is just to say that making a statement such as "Zimmerman was only acting in self defense" or "Martin jumped Zimmerman" is ignorant speculation.[/QUOTE] Is there any evidence that Zimmerman started "screaming" at him or that he ran chasing after him? In fact, that seems to go against the narrative of facts that we have. The friend of Martin, who was talking to him on the phone, claims to have heard someone (Zimmerman) ask Martin what he was doing there, not that Zimmerman was "screaming" at him. Also, according to the transcript of the 911 call from Zimmerman, Martin started running away as Zimmerman was on the phone with the police. I doubt Zimmerman was sprinting after Martin while calmly talking on the phone.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;52189267]For the most part, I agree with people here - establishing an honorary scholarship for disadvantaged youth would be a much better symbolic move than an honorary degree. But it's an honorary degree for a dead kid. It's a symbolic gesture. It has zero effect on anybody, other than making the family feel better. Getting upset about granting an honorary degree to a dead person is about as petty as you can get. LIVING famous people get more honorary degrees than people like Martin, and from significantly more prestigious universities. Oprah has FOUR honorary DOCTORATES, including one from Harvard. Honorary degrees are [I]meaningless[/I]. It's more honorable to get a key to the city. It's a symbolic gesture and impacts none of us in any way whatsoever.[/QUOTE] Exactly. I'm honestly pretty amazed at how many people get so outraged over something like this. [editline]5th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=geel9;52190058]The reason this event is ridiculous has nothing to do with Trayvon. It has everything to do with the University itself. The University doesn't care about Trayvon or Trayvon's family. They don't care about Zimmerman. They care about getting in the news. So they latched on to a large controversy to make themselves look better. It's just shitty and insulting. It has nothing to do with whether or not Trayvon "deserved" the degree.[/QUOTE] This just seems like conjecture to me. And even if it were a shameless PR move, if it makes the family feel better, who cares? This is a gesture from the Mother's former Alum to give a bereaved family a moment that all parents want to have--their son getting their degree. It harms literally no-one. I'm sure the parents definitely dont feel "shitty and insulted".

[QUOTE=sgman91;52190158]Is there any evidence that Zimmerman started "screaming" at him or that he ran chasing after him? In fact, that seems to go against the narrative of facts that we have. The friend of Martin, who was talking to him on the phone, claims to have heard someone (Zimmerman) ask Martin what he was doing there, not that Zimmerman was "screaming" at him. Also, according to the transcript of the 911 call from Zimmerman, Martin started running away as Zimmerman was on the phone with the police. I doubt Zimmerman was sprinting after Martin while calmly talking on the phone.[/QUOTE] Zimmerman did begin chasing Martin, and that is a verifiable fact as proven by the very transcript you're referencing. The Dispatcher told Zimmerman to remain in his vehicle and not follow the suspect, and Zimmerman did not heed the warning. He exited the vehicle and began chasing after Martin. He lost Martin temporarily, finding him again a few minutes later, and that is when the violent scuffle broke out. Regardless, you're picking at straws here. Even if I allowed that Zimmerman was quietly following Martin at a walk, instead of yelling at him and running, my primary point remains untouched. If a strange man is following you, corners you, and points a gun at you, would you be justified in attacking him as an act of self defense? I say yes, and so does the legal system. Zimmerman made a series of horrible decisions in his vigilantism, but the crux of the entire situation boils down to that one unanswered question: who escalated the conflict to violence? Did the teenage boy attack first, unprovoked, or did the man who ignored dispatcher warnings to leave his truck and stalk that boy through a neighborhood at night make (yet another) bad judgment and draw his weapon or physically engage the boy? If it was Zimmerman who escalated to violence, then Martin acted in self defense. If it was Martin, then Zimmerman did. We can speculate all day, but because nobody knows the answer to this question other than Zimmerman and Martin themselves. Forensic science could not prove it. Testimony could not prove it. We sure as hell can't prove it either. My point in all this is that saying that George Zimmerman acted in justifiable self defense simply isn't factual. It's speculation, and not especially well founded speculation to boot.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52190335]Zimmerman did begin chasing Martin, and that is a verifiable fact as proven by the very transcript you're referencing. The Dispatcher told Zimmerman to remain in his vehicle and not follow the suspect, and Zimmerman did not heed the warning. He exited the vehicle and began chasing after Martin. He lost Martin temporarily, finding him again a few minutes later, and that is when the violent scuffle broke out. Regardless, you're picking at straws here. Even if I allowed that Zimmerman was quietly following Martin at a walk, instead of yelling at him and running, my primary point remains untouched. If a strange man is following you, corners you, and points a gun at you, would you be justified in attacking him as an act of self defense? I say yes, and so does the legal system. Zimmerman made a series of horrible decisions in his vigilantism, but the crux of the entire situation boils down to that one unanswered question: who escalated the conflict to violence? Did the teenage boy attack first, unprovoked, or did the man who ignored dispatcher warnings to leave his truck and stalk that boy through a neighborhood at night make (yet another) bad judgment and draw his weapon or physically engage the boy? If it was Zimmerman who escalated to violence, then Martin acted in self defense. If it was Martin, then Zimmerman did. We can speculate all day, but because nobody knows the answer to this question other than Zimmerman and Martin themselves. Forensic science could not prove it. Testimony could not prove it. We sure as hell can't prove it either. My point in all this is that saying that George Zimmerman acted in justifiable self defense simply isn't factual. It's speculation, and not especially well founded speculation to boot.[/QUOTE] He followed after Martin started running away, yes. I don't dispute that. Did he run after him in an aggressive way? No, it doesn't seem like it based on how he was calmly talking to the officer on the phone. At most, he was walking towards Martin. We know for a fact that there's no way Zimmerman could have caught up with Martin if they were in an actual foot race. The fact that Martin ran before Zimmerman starting walking after him is a big deal. That would give anyone a suspicion that he was up to no good. The differences between your narrative and the one I offered totally changes the escalation of the situation. If I were walking through a gated neighborhood where no one knows me alone at night and I saw a guy watching me either from a car or from the sidewalk, I most certainly wouldn't start running away. I agree, we don't know who started the violence, but the way you presented it is more than speculation, it goes against the facts that we know. As far as we can tell: - Martin started running away before George "chased (at a walking or slow jogging pace) after him. - The friend of Martin said she heard someone ask why he was there and Martin responded by asking why George was following him. I assume this is after Martin had already ran away and was found by George. This doesn't seem to present a situation where George was aggressively chasing after Martin with the intent to use violence. Our goal should be to have our necessary speculations fit as closely with the known facts as possible.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52190412]He followed after Martin started running away, yes. I don't dispute that. Did he run after him in an aggressive way? No, it doesn't seem like it based on how he was calmly talking to the officer on the phone. At most, he was walking towards Martin. We know for a fact that there's no way Zimmerman could have caught up with Martin if they were in an actual foot race. The fact that Martin ran before Zimmerman starting walking after him is a big deal. That would give anyone a suspicion that he was up to no good. The differences between your narrative and the one I offered totally changes the escalation of the situation. If I were walking through a gated neighborhood where no one knows me alone at night and I saw a guy watching me either from a car or from the sidewalk, I most certainly wouldn't start running away. I agree, we don't know who started the violence, but the way you presented it is more than speculation, it goes against the facts that we know. As far as we can tell: - Martin started running away before George "chased (at a walking or slow jogging pace) after him. - The friend of Martin said she heard someone ask why he was there and Martin responded by asking why George was following him. I assume this is after Martin had already ran away and was found by George. This doesn't seem to present a situation where George was aggressively chasing after Martin with the intent to use violence. Our goal should be to have our necessary speculations fit as closely with the known facts as possible.[/QUOTE] Fair enough, I can respect that. Ultimately, however, it doesn't change the nature of the engagement, and your perspective is just as speculatory. It [I]sounds[/I] like Zimmerman chased Martin at a run, listening to the recording, but I can't be certain and neither can you. Either way: ran, jogged, walked, or whatever -- Zimmerman followed Martin through this neighborhood at night, with a gun. Martin asking why he was being followed after Zimmerman found him again clearly shows that Martin was aware of this, it wasn't just a chance encounter. Likewise, Martin's decision to run, while potentially seeming suspicious, is not deserving of a death sentence. We know that Martin was innocent of committing the crimes Zimmerman suspected him of, and Zimmerman had zero legal authority to detain him either way. Martin can run from a weird guy following him at night. Maybe he was scared, maybe he was annoyed, maybe he just didn't want to deal with yet another yahoo treating him like a suspect because of the color of his skin. It doesn't matter, and it doesn't give Zimmerman the authority to track him down. So, we're right back at square one. What happened in the conflict? Did Martin attack the man who chased him through the neighborhood that night, or did the man who chased Martin through the neighborhood that night attack Martin? Did Zimmerman draw his gun before Martin attacked him, or did Martin attack Zimmerman without even being aware of a gun? Who provoked who? Who initially felt that their life was in danger. These are questions we don't have answers to, but they are very, very important questions. All we can say for certain is that this entire situation would have been avoided if Zimmerman hadn't tried to play cop and just stayed in his goddamn car as he was told to by the professionals. Thus, as I've repeatedly said, stating that George Zimmerman killed Martin in justified self defense is purely speculative. There exists just as much credibility to the alternate theory that it was Zimmerman who escalated the situation, provoking Martin into attacking him for fear of his life. Whether Zimmerman had intent to kill is the distinction between murder and manslaughter. Whether Zimmerman directly provoked the fatal engagement is the difference between murder/manslaughter and self defense. Don't state that Zimmerman acted in justifiable self defense as a fact, because it's baseless speculation. Don't vilify Martin as some kind of violent thug for attacking Zimmerman, because that too is baseless speculation. That remains the point of everything I've written. Your bias does not a fact make. [editline]5th May 2017[/editline] Furthermore, if you'd like, I'll remove all characterization from the above scenario. You are walking through your neighborhood at night. You have a gun for self defense. Suddenly, a man gets out of his truck and begins following you. You run away and think you have lost him, but he shows up again. He begins to accuse you of something you didn't do. You ask him why he was following you, and he continues to make accusations. Suddenly, the verbal altercation turns violent: 1) He draws a gun and points it at you. Are you now justified in drawing your gun and shooting him in self-defense? I say yes, and the law says yes. If he kills you first, is that justifiable self defense on his part? I say no and the law says no. That's murder or manslaughter, depending on intent, because he not only provoked the entire scenario but escalated the confrontation to violence. 2) He physically engages you in some other way. Maybe he pushes you, starts getting physical. Are you justified in getting physical in self defense? He is assaulting you. I say yes and the law says yes, because he not only provoked the entire confrontation, but escalated it from a verbal conflict to a violent one. If he then pulls out his gun and kills you, is he acting in justifiable self defense? I say no and the law says no. He instigated a physical confrontation, forcing you to defend yourself, and then killed you. That's murder or manslaughter, depending on the intent. 3) He does not engage you physically or point his gun at you. Are you justified in getting physical in self defense? I say no and the law says no, but I can at least understand why you might. After all, this man just followed you through your neighborhood at night demanding answers about something you're not involved with. Scary stuff. The man clearly provoked the situation, [I]but[/I] he did not escalate it into violence. Thus, he can be reasonably said to have been acting in self defense.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52190458]Don't state that Zimmerman acted in justifiable self defense as a fact, because it's baseless speculation. Don't vilify Martin as some kind of violent thug for attacking Zimmerman, because that too is baseless speculation. That remains the point of everything I've written. Your bias does not a fact make.[/QUOTE] You're right, it's not a known fact, but I would also say it's more than baseless speculation. As far as I can tell, this is the basics of what we know happened. I don't think these are controversial: 1) Zimmerman was suspicious of Martin and was watching him either from his car or from the sidewalk. 2) Zimmerman calls the police. 3) During the call Martin starts running in the opposite direction. 4) Zimmerman followed Martin. 5) Martin calls his friend after he stops running, but before Zimmerman finds him. He tells her that some "creepy fucking cracker" (from her testimony in court) is watching him. 6) She hears Martin ask Zimmerman why he was following him. Zimmerman responds by asking Martin what he was doing around there. (It doesn't seem that Zimmerman had his gun out at this point.) 7) She then hears the earpiece fall to the ground and a fight ensues. Other facts we know: - Martin did not have marks on the face that would suggest punches from Zimmerman, but Zimmerman did have injuries to the face that would suggest punches from Martin (broken nose). - Martin had an abrasion on his hand consistent with throwing punches. Zimmerman did not have any marks on his hands consistent with throwing punches. [editline]5th May 2017[/editline] Is it possible that Zimmerman asked him why he was there and then suddenly attacked him? Sure, it's possible, but I don't think it's as consistent with the known facts as the alternative: Martin felt threatened by the situation and attacked Zimmerman. To bring this back around to the topic of the OP: giving awards to people who may very well have been justifiably shot is silly at best and wrong at worst.

I like how when Zimmerman doesn't listen to the police and purses Martin, people on FP don't jump on them for ignoring direct law enforcement directions. If the races were reversed, there'd be a shit ton of people calling Zimmerman a dumbass and railing about how you have to do exactly what you're told by police and how tragic the shooting was.

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52189379][B]Thats actually not really relevant[/B]. Bottom line, Trayvon was killed while straddling Zimmerman. He was slamming Zimmermans head into the pavement when Zimmerman pulled his pistol and shot him. Zimmerman verbally confronted Trayvon. Trayvon responded to this verbal confrontation by assaulting Zimmerman. Who is the poorly adjusted one in this situation?[/QUOTE] How is that not relevant? A proven racist with anger issues and hero fantasies chased town a teenager in the middle of the night with a gun despite the 911 operator specifically telling him he should not do that, and it ended with a physical confrontation in which Martin got on top and Zimmerman shot and killed him. Whoever started the physical aspect of the confrontation is most definitely relevant and yet nobody talks about it. Just because Martin ended up in a winning position doesn't mean he deserved to be shot and killed if Zimmerman was the one who initiated, and seeing as he's a proven fucking madman I think there's a decent chance he was the one to escalate. [editline]5th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;52190588]Is it possible that Zimmerman asked him why he was there and then suddenly attacked him? Sure, it's possible, but I don't think it's as consistent with the known facts as the alternative: Martin felt threatened by the situation and attacked Zimmerman. [/QUOTE] I don't understand why it's unreasonable for someone to respond physically when they feel threatened by a grown man in the middle of the night? If someone broke into a sprint to chase me down in the middle of the night I would be fucking terrified and probably [I]would[/I] swing at them if they got close to me. This is what I don't understand about the Martin case, Zimmerman is known to be a goddamn madman and a racist, he was stalking Martin and chased him down in the night, and what, Martin is supposed to just stand there and politely answer this fucking idiot's questions?

[QUOTE=sgman91;52190412] The fact that Martin ran before Zimmerman starting walking after him is a big deal. That would give anyone a suspicion that he was up to no good. [/QUOTE] Running away from some creepy motherfucker chasing you isn't that suspicious tbh

[QUOTE=zakedodead;52191253]Running away from some creepy motherfucker chasing you isn't that suspicious tbh[/QUOTE] He ran before being chased. Zimmerman chased in response to Martin running.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52189742]No, the facts do [I]not[/I] prove that Zimmerman justly defended himself. You're right in saying that my theory is speculation, I was quite forward about that, but so is yours. There is no evidence to prove either narrative. The best that we can say is that there is sufficient doubt of the events of the confrontation itself that it would have been wrong to convict Zimmerman, but the evidence available does not actually prove that Zimmerman was the victim in the conflict and acting in reasonable self defense. Given everything we do factually know about the scenario, there is only one piece of missing information here, and it changes everything: after Zimmerman chased down and confronted Martin, did Zimmerman escalate the confrontation to violence by drawing his gun or otherwise getting physical, or did Martin escalate the confrontation by attacking first? Unfortunately, we'll probably never have the answer to this question. The facts of the case can't prove it either way. The reason why this one piece of information is so critical however is because it [I]completely[/I] changes the landscape of the situation. If Zimmerman drew his weapon, escalating the confrontation, then it creates a very strong argument for self defense on Martin's part. Consider that scenario from Martin's perspective: Likewise, if Martin escalated the situation first, then it lends veracity to the claims of self defense on Zimmerman's part. Now, [I]in my opinion[/I], Martin attacking first still doesn't exonerate Zimmerman in the slightest because Zimmerman still gave Martin reason to fear for his life by chasing him through the streets, [I]but[/I], legally speaking, that would be a case of justifiable self defense. Surely you can see how knowing that one key piece of missing information completely changes the scenario. If Zimmerman drew his gun on Martin first, it completely upends his case for self defense and applies it to Martin instead. Shooting somebody who is attacking you is not self defense if the reason that person is attacking you is because you chased him down and pointed a gun at him. That's manslaughter, at best. In summary: neither of us can say what actually happened that night. Claiming that either party was acting in self defense is just speculation, because the facts can't prove what actually took place in that confrontation beyond the fact that Martin hit Zimmerman, and that Zimmerman shot Martin. There are two likely scenarios, and neither can be proved true. That doubt is why Zimmerman was not convicted -- [I]not[/I] because he was actually found to be acting in justifiable defense. If it could have been proven that Zimmerman escalated violent confrontation by drawing his gun first, he would have been found guilty of manslaughter.[/QUOTE] Youre still just presenting theories that have no verifiable comparison to the Martin case. You cant really complain about speculation, then start speculating more. From the facts we know, Martin was on top of Zimmerman pounding his head into the pavement when he was shot and killed. This does not point to Zimmerman having drawn his pistol beforehand, else he would have shot him before the fight escalated to that point. Martin didnt just throw a punch at Zimmerman, then Zimmerman retaliated. If that were the case, he would be in prison on murder charges. A fist fight is not legal justification for justifiable homicide. As I've said previously, Martin was on top of Zimmerman punching him in the face when he was killed. We know this from autopsy on the corpse and wounds Zimmerman sustained during the confrontation. [editline]5th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=srobins;52191052]How is that not relevant? A proven racist with anger issues and hero fantasies chased town a teenager in the middle of the night with a gun despite the 911 operator specifically telling him he should not do that, and it ended with a physical confrontation in which Martin got on top and Zimmerman shot and killed him. Whoever started the physical aspect of the confrontation is most definitely relevant and yet nobody talks about it. Just because Martin ended up in a winning position doesn't mean he deserved to be shot and killed if Zimmerman was the one who initiated, and seeing as he's a proven fucking madman I think there's a decent chance he was the one to escalate. [editline]5th May 2017[/editline] I don't understand why it's unreasonable for someone to respond physically when they feel threatened by a grown man in the middle of the night? If someone broke into a sprint to chase me down in the middle of the night I would be fucking terrified and probably [I]would[/I] swing at them if they got close to me. This is what I don't understand about the Martin case, Zimmerman is known to be a goddamn madman and a racist, he was stalking Martin and chased him down in the night, and what, Martin is supposed to just stand there and politely answer this fucking idiot's questions?[/QUOTE] Its not relevant because you cant prove who started the confrontation. Zimmerman has prejudices but that doesnt prove he confronted Martin directly because of that, or that he physically confronted Trayvon and instigated the conflict.

[QUOTE=Action Frank;52190673]I like how when Zimmerman doesn't listen to the police and purses Martin, people on FP don't jump on them for ignoring direct law enforcement directions. If the races were reversed, there'd be a shit ton of people calling Zimmerman a dumbass and railing about how you have to do exactly what you're told by police and how tragic the shooting was.[/QUOTE] Dispatchers aren't cops, people don't HAVE to listen to their orders.

[QUOTE=Ridge;52192033]Dispatchers aren't cops, people don't HAVE to listen to their orders.[/QUOTE] Yeah but it's generally a good idea. According to Zimmerman himself he was ambushed by Martin who, unarmed, managed to get him to the ground. Imagine if Martin had a weapon. Zimmerman should have listened to the dispatcher.

[QUOTE=Ridge;52192033]Dispatchers aren't cops, people don't HAVE to listen to their orders.[/QUOTE] isn't avoiding conflict part of what they teach you when you get a license to CC a gun? he didn't HAVE to listen to them but they were probably right

[QUOTE=Camdude90;52192514]isn't avoiding conflict part of what they teach you when you get a license to CC a gun? he didn't HAVE to listen to them but they were probably right[/QUOTE] It's fairly irrelevant. Zimmerman acting less than perfection is not reason to be attacked unless he threatened violence.

[QUOTE=Ridge;52192033]Dispatchers aren't cops, people don't HAVE to listen to their orders.[/QUOTE] That may be true, but it does demonstrate that Zimmerman acted in violation of good sense in choosing to chase Martin. He was warned not to chase, chose to disregard the warning, and chased anyway. While ignoring the dispatcher has no legal ramifications in itself, it simply represents yet one more act of exceedingly poor judgment on Zimmerman's part that ultimately led to an avoidable shooting death. [editline]6th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52191548]Youre still just presenting theories that have no verifiable comparison to the Martin case. You cant really complain about speculation, then start speculating more. From the facts we know, Martin was on top of Zimmerman pounding his head into the pavement when he was shot and killed. This does not point to Zimmerman having drawn his pistol beforehand, else he would have shot him before the fight escalated to that point. Martin didnt just throw a punch at Zimmerman, then Zimmerman retaliated. If that were the case, he would be in prison on murder charges. A fist fight is not legal justification for justifiable homicide. As I've said previously, Martin was on top of Zimmerman punching him in the face when he was killed. We know this from autopsy on the corpse and wounds Zimmerman sustained during the confrontation. [editline]5th May 2017[/editline] Its not relevant because you cant prove who started the confrontation. Zimmerman has prejudices but that doesnt prove he confronted Martin directly because of that, or that he physically confronted Trayvon and instigated the conflict.[/QUOTE] I'm complaining about presenting speculation as [B]fact[/B], which I am not doing. I am not arguing that Zimmerman definitely escalated the situation into the violence and that Martin was acting in self defense, I am arguing that this is a reasonable scenario (especially given his frequent run-ins with law enforcement over domestic abuse, gun violence, property damage, and assault) and that we are lacking the one key piece of information that could prove or disprove it. It is that same missing piece of information that cannot prove or disprove whether Zimmerman acted in justifiable self-defense. Without that key piece of evidence, it's simply not appropriate to state that Zimmerman was just defending himself as a fact. That Martin was hitting Zimmerman doesn't change that. I'm aware that they fought, and never once tried to dispute that. However, Martin beating Zimmerman does not prove that Zimmerman isn't responsible for turning the confrontation violent to begin with, and vice versa.

[QUOTE=Ridge;52192033]Dispatchers aren't cops, people don't HAVE to listen to their orders.[/QUOTE] Not only is that true, the dispatcher didn't even order him not to follow. He just said, "We don't need you to do that." He didn't tell Zimmerman not to, he didn't tell him it was a bad idea, or any other variation of telling Zimmerman not to follow. The dispatcher just told him that he shouldn't feel obligated to do so. He wasn't even going against advice from the dispatcher by following.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52192537]It's fairly irrelevant. Zimmerman acting less than perfection is not reason to be attacked unless he threatened violence.[/QUOTE] He didn't act "less than perfect" he made a really dumb and shortsighted decision. Even if you think Trayvon Martin was a violent thug out for blood that night and Zimmerman was an angel, it was still a bad move to make, regardless of what the dispatcher said specifically.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52192537]It's fairly irrelevant. Zimmerman acting less than perfection is not reason to be attacked unless he threatened violence.[/QUOTE] yeah, not justifying him being attacked, but he definitely fucked up in that regard hindsight is 20/20 of course, but it seems pretty pointless to point out that he didn't HAVE to listen to the dispatcher when he probably should have

[QUOTE=Raidyr;52192837]He didn't act "less than perfect" he made a really dumb and shortsighted decision. Even if you think Trayvon Martin was a violent thug out for blood that night and Zimmerman was an angel, it was still a bad move to make, regardless of what the dispatcher said specifically.[/QUOTE] It was obviously a bad move to make because it ended in a fight, someone dying, and months in court. It being a stupid thing to do and him being guilty of murder are two distinct things.

Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.