Triggering: Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

If Trayvon did infact attack Zimmerman, it was a justified shooting.

I think you may want to consider the wording of Florida's so-called "Stand Your Ground" law again:

"2011 Florida Statutes CHAPTER 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE[20]
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013. 776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm."

In other words, unless Zimmerman can prove that he had reasonable grounds for believing that deadly force was the only way to protect himself from imminent death or great bodily harm, he cannot rely upon the statute. Contrary to some of the publicity surrounding it, it isn't a "licence to murder" law.

Anyway, while the second degree murder charge does seem odd at first, looking at the circumstances of the death in the public domain thus far it doesn't appear that manslaughter would be applicable. Shooting someone at very close range would be considered by most people as being "imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life" as set out for second-degree murder in chapter 782.04 of the Florida Statutes - admittedly the last bit is very strongly-worded, but in effect it's not the act of someone particularly concerned with the survival of their target. Manslaughter as typically defined requires that one does not know one's actions are likely to kill the other person, and given the role and training of the defendant this would seem unlikely. Indeed, the fact he claimed self-defence in interview would suggest he knew what the outcome was likely to be. On those grounds, I can see why the second-degree charge was made. That being said, it could drop to manslaughter once the trial is underway - my understanding is that it can only go down, though, not up, so that may explain their choice as well.

[TigerTank77]

Originally Posted by dr2005

In other words, unless Zimmerman can prove that he had reasonable grounds for believing that deadly force was the only way to protect himself from imminent death or great bodily harm, he cannot rely upon the statute. Contrary to some of the publicity surrounding it, it isn't a "licence to murder" law.

I'm aware. However, when someone has you pinned to the ground, and is forcibly raining blows down on your head, that's considered imminent death or great bodily harm. It doesn't take very many shots to the head to kill someone. There are documented cases of people dying from contusions caused by a single punch.

Originally Posted by dr2005

That being said, it could drop to manslaughter once the trial is underway - my understanding is that it can only go down, though, not up, so that may explain their choice as well.

I don't think they can drop it down to manslaughter when the trial is underway. They have to either prove in on 2nd degree terms once the trial starts, or acquit him. They can't say "well, we don't have anything to prove second degree murder, lets try manslaughter." You can't just throw charges at someone and hope they stick.

[thebigmole]

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

I don't think they can drop it down to manslaughter when the trial is underway. They have to either prove in on 2nd degree terms once the trial starts, or acquit him. They can't say "well, we don't have anything to prove second degree murder, lets try manslaughter." You can't just throw charges at someone and hope they stick.

Actually there are cases where the jury is told they can consider a lesser charge when making their decision. So it's perfectly possible when they send the jury out that they can tell them that they can also consider manslaughter in their deliberations.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

I'm aware. However, when someone has you pinned to the ground, and is forcibly raining blows down on your head, that's considered imminent death or great bodily harm. It doesn't take very many shots to the head to kill someone. There are documented cases of people dying from contusions caused by a single punch.

A few points to raise in response. One, that level of ferocity of attack is not consistent with the reported injuries to Zimmerman ("raining blows down on your head" woudl arguably cause more than a broken nose, a fat lip and some abrasions) or indeed the account Zimmerman provided to police. It also assumes that Zimmerman's account is prima facie 100% accurate, which is one of the points of dispute. Two, notwithstanding the above, the Florida Statues provision requires such deadly force to be "necessary" - it is debatable the extent to which a fatal chest shot is necessary to subdue a 17-year-old of Martin's build. (Without using weight figures, he weighed less than me and I'm hardly a wrestler) A non-lethal shot would have sufficed - and if Zimmerman was able to carry out a fatal shooting, his level of gun training would indicate he could also have done a non-lethal. Hence why intent comes into the equation. Three, such cases of people dying from a single punch have seldom been the result of 17-year-olds and would entail injuries greater than those sustained by Zimmerman. The odds of such an outcome ensuing on this occasion are therefore unlikely to satisfy the reasonableness test.

I do see the point you're making, but for me it does smack somewhat of speculation.

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

I don't think they can drop it down to manslaughter when the trial is underway. They have to either prove in on 2nd degree terms once the trial starts, or acquit him. They can't say "well, we don't have anything to prove second degree murder, lets try manslaughter." You can't just throw charges at someone and hope they stick.

Taylor beat me to it, but in some circumstances the judge can direct them to consider lesser charges within the same type of offence (in this case homicide). I did, however, suck majorly at explaining and apologise for this.

[thebigmole]

Here's some more ridiculousness for you all. Obviously she was told to retract her statement by someone.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20...old-blood?lite

[Grey Wind]

Originally Posted by dr2005

A non-lethal shot would have sufficed - and if Zimmerman was able to carry out a fatal shooting, his level of gun training would indicate he could also have done a non-lethal. Hence why intent comes into the equation.

I'm assuming you don't know anything about firearms, because you never administer a "non-lethal shot". It violates the most basic rule of firearm safety that you never aim a gun at something you do not intend to kill. That said, when pinned on the ground, you don't shoot with an intention to kill however, you shoot to stop. I think it go's along with that ridiculous mentality some people have who think police can shoot a gun out of a criminals hand.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by Caliber

I'm assuming you don't know anything about firearms, because you never administer a "non-lethal shot". It violates the most basic rule of firearm safety that you never aim a gun at something you do not intend to kill. That said, when pinned on the ground, you don't shoot with an intention to kill however, you shoot to stop. I think it go's along with that ridiculous mentality some people have who think police can shoot a gun out of a criminals hand.

You assume incorrectly, I'm afraid - I have used firearms before (briefly, admittedly) and I know enough to be able to say it's as easy to hit someone in the shoulder as the chest if you're at point-blank range as Zimmerman was, provided you have half a clue what you're doing. Zimmerman was licensed to carry the firearm in a personal capacity (note - not as part of his patrolman duties) and so I would assume he possessed sufficient control to differentiate between the two. Aiming for the centre of mass, as per "shoot to stop" (which, with respect, is something of a play on words - shooting anywhere in the vicinity of the heart or lungs is likely to kill), is only really of relevance when shooting over a distance rather than point-blank because then you are giving yourself the best target area. If your attacker is sufficiently close to punch you, the target area is as large as it's going to get frankly. Admittedly "non-lethal shot" is poor terminology on my part, for which I apologise, but the wider point still stands insomuch as there is arguable grounds for intent. Your comment about not pointing a gun at something you don't intend to kill would appear to support that as well, incidentally.

And for the record, I know police officers can't shoot a gun out of someone's hand - you can probably thank Westerns for that cliche...

[Grey Wind]

Originally Posted by dr2005

You assume incorrectly, I'm afraid - I have used firearms before (briefly, admittedly) and I know enough to be able to say it's as easy to hit someone in the shoulder as the chest if you're at point-blank range as Zimmerman was, provided you have half a clue what you're doing. Zimmerman was licensed to carry the firearm in a personal capacity (note - not as part of his patrolman duties) and so I would assume he possessed sufficient control to differentiate between the two. Aiming for the centre of mass, as per "shoot to stop" (which, with respect, is something of a play on words - shooting anywhere in the vicinity of the heart or lungs is likely to kill), is only really of relevance when shooting over a distance rather than point-blank because then you are giving yourself the best target area. If your attacker is sufficiently close to punch you, the target area is as large as it's going to get frankly. Admittedly "non-lethal shot" is poor terminology on my part, for which I apologise, but the wider point still stands insomuch as there is arguable grounds for intent. Your comment about not pointing a gun at something you don't intend to kill would appear to support that as well, incidentally.

And for the record, I know police officers can't shoot a gun out of someone's hand - you can probably thank Westerns for that cliche...

Pointing up brings you directly to centre mass when someone is ontop of you, however. The last thing you think about is your targets well being when you're trying to arguably prevent your own death. Real life isn't a movie where you "disable" your target. A firearm is for killing, you draw it in a situation when it's your life or theirs. I just don't think Zimmerman's ability to simply "wound" Trayvon is relevant because he shouldn't have, whether it was a justifiable homicide or not.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by Caliber

Pointing up brings you directly to centre mass when someone is ontop of you, however. The last thing you think about is your targets well being when you're trying to arguably prevent your own death. Real life isn't a movie where you "disable" your target. A firearm is for killing, you draw it in a situation when it's your life or theirs. I just don't think Zimmerman's ability to simply "wound" Trayvon is relevant because he shouldn't have, whether it was a justifiable homicide or not.

I am quite aware of the difference between real life and the movies, thank you very much - I have achieved at least that much in the quarter-century I have been alive. My point is - and I suspect it is one we will have to agree to disagree on - that shooting Martin in the chest was not the only option available to Zimmerman. Even taking the centre mass argument, he could have aimed for either shoulder (still part of the centre mass) or the lower abdomen, all within the range of pointing up. That he aimed for the chest could be a factor in whether the intent to kill existed (and therefore murder would be the relevant charge) or not (and therefore manslaughter would be the relevant charge). So there is some relevance in it, I would argue.

Also, I feel your "A firearm is for killing" remark is perhaps an unwise statement to make, given that would infer intent on the part of any shooter and thus making any killing qualify as murder, intentional or otherwise. The danger of sweeping statements in action.

[TigerTank77]

Originally Posted by dr2005

My point is - and I suspect it is one we will have to agree to disagree on - that shooting Martin in the chest was not the only option available to Zimmerman.

Please explain to me how a man being bashed in the head is supposed to take time to weigh his options carefully.

Originally Posted by dr2005

Even taking the centre mass argument, he could have aimed for either shoulder (still part of the centre mass) or the lower abdomen, all within the range of pointing up.

You do NOT shoot to wound. You shoot to neutralize the threat. The fastest way to neutralize a threat is to kill it.

Originally Posted by dr2005

That he aimed for the chest could be a factor in whether the intent to kill existed (and therefore murder would be the relevant charge) or not (and therefore manslaughter would be the relevant charge). So there is some relevance in it, I would argue.

Again, i really don't see how a rational person could look at this and say, "Well, even though he was being physically assaulted and feared for his life, he should have stopped, waited, thought out his actions, considered them carefully, and then chose the decision that I like the best because I don't feel like Trayvon should have been killed."

Originally Posted by dr2005

Also, I feel your "A firearm is for killing" remark is perhaps an unwise statement to make, given that would infer intent on the part of any shooter and thus making any killing qualify as murder, intentional or otherwise. The danger of sweeping statements in action.

Except that a firearm is for killing. That's why they were made. That's why people carry firearms, to kill people trying to kill them. Which is what Zimmerman did. He shot someone who he felt was trying to kill him.

[cuteprickleypink1]

Originally Posted by thebigmole

I do not believe that Casey Anthony murdered her child. There was no evidence or anything pointing to her intentionally killing her child. I do believe she was responsible for her child's death which is why she should have been charged with manslaughter. I believe that if she had been charged with manslaughter she would be in jail right now. As for Zimmerman, there is no way in hell that he is going to be convicted of 2nd degree murder. It is not going to happen. There was at least a chance with manslaughter but there is absolutely NOTHING pointing to 2nd degree murder. To be quite honest I think he's going to get off completely because of the Stand Your Ground law. Which needs to be revised sooner than later.

if it was by accident she would have made a report... She wouldn't have been partying. Circumstantially it's obvious she killed her child. But since she got off, it's understandable to want to believe she didn't murder her daughter and get away. I understand.

You don't hold his fate by what you think... So really what you think will happen doesn't matter. To me, I am just happy justice has been served. He should have at least been charged. I don't care what happens. I think a judge knows more about this than you do js...

Originally Posted by Koharuchan

Actually, this has everything to do with race. This entire stupid case has been about race the entire time. For once it was a black person that got shot by a "white hispanic" guy. Now it's a giant racial issue.

He's not white... Peruvians are mestizo or native american not white. He's only half white...

And no it's not about race it's about a man who killed a 17 year old boy... Race aside he should be charged and am happy with the decision.

[Grey Wind]

Originally Posted by dr2005

That he aimed for the chest could be a factor in whether the intent to kill existed (and therefore murder would be the relevant charge) or not (and therefore manslaughter would be the relevant charge). So there is some relevance in it, I would argue.

I understand what you're saying about the intent being relevant in relation to the charges, but not with the self defense argument. Shooting someone in the shoulder is still using deadly force. Other than that Ben, explained my thoughts well.

[dani99]

I think it was cold blooded murder. It doesn't matter what race anyone is. Murder is murder. I don't like this Zimmerman guy at all. The kid didn't do anything wrong to him or to anyone, in that matter. I don't see why he had to kill him. His butt belongs behind bars, in my opinion.

[TigerTank77]

I'd like to share something new with everyone.



See this? This is George Zimmerman.

According to the media and people out for Zimmerman's blood, he is an enormous man weighing in at a couple hundred pounds.

OBVIOUSLY, THIS IS NOT THE FUCKING CASE. HE IS TINY.

WHEN CONFRONTED BY A 6'3" FOOTBALL PLAYER IN HIS PHYSICAL PRIME, SUDDENLY THE NEED FOR SELF DEFENSE SEEMS 1000000000% MORE RELEVANT.

I wonder what else Trayvon's family and the media have lied about to further their profits. Oh yeah, did I mention Trayvon's family has trademarked his name and anything remotely involving him to make money?

[thebigmole]

Originally Posted by dani99

I think it was cold blooded murder. It doesn't matter what race anyone is. Murder is murder. I don't like this Zimmerman guy at all. The kid didn't do anything wrong to him or to anyone, in that matter. I don't see why he had to kill him. His butt belongs behind bars, in my opinion.

Definition of murder: Murder is the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human, and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide (such as manslaughter).

It wasn't murder. I HIGHLY doubt that Zimmerman was driving along in his car saw Trayvon and thought, hey let me get out of the car and shoot this kid. Especially since the evidence proves otherwise. If he was going to murder him he wouldn't have been stupid enough to call the cops and tell them he was following Trayvon. As for the Trayvon doing nothing wrong to him, while the confrontation could have been avoided if Zimmerman had stayed in his car, Trayvon did beat him up. So that would constitute as doing something wrong to him.

Listen I'm sad the kid is dead. And I do think that Zimmerman is responsible and should be held accountable. However what's bothering me is all of these people saying, oh why did he have to kill him. No one should kill anyone. It is murder. Would you really be saying the same thing if Zimmerman had caught Trayvon in the act of breaking into a house and Trayvon attacked him in the same way? Just because someone kills someone else doesn't always make it murder, or even unjustified or wrong. In this case I do believe it could have been avoided. But people seriously need to get the facts and stop listening to celebrities and civil rights groups that don't know anything and have an agenda, stop jumping on the bandwagon.

[Tyr.]

Dropping the hammer on somebody isn't an act to be taken lightly. Humans are naturally averse to the idea of killing each other.

Compelling somebody to take another's life is difficult. We all (Aside from rare cases, sociopaths etc) have a safety net in our psyche. Let me reiterate - we are naturally averse to taking human life. It's not natural, at all. That's why piranhas fight each other with their tails, not teeth. That's why, during WWI and WWII the vast majority of soldiers either didn't fire their weapons, or fired high. The simple fact is that we don't like killing.

It would take a pretty serious act to force the forebrain into overpowering that built in safety net, and even then it doesn't happen often. Even somebody who is about to be killed might not even fight back, because they are simply so unwilling to kill another person. There has been no shortage of this throughout history. On the other hand, there are aggravating factors. Drugs, alcohol, fear etc. They can all push somebody towards being more willing to kill.

Training, too, can help. Conditioning somebody to kill helps them when the time is right. That is why, when soldiers shoot targets in training they don't shoot bulls-eyes, they shoot human images. Long-term, serious and committed training can overcome that human psyche.

Zimmerman?

Wasn't drunk or high.
Wasn't trained in killing.
Doubt he had prior intent, or why call the Police?

Frankly, I think this guy was actually so damned terrified of Martin, he killed him. That's not a light thing to do. Fuck anybody who thinks that killing somebody is easy. It's not. You either have to be one of the most mentally prepared motherfuckers in the world to pull a gun and blow a guy's chest open, or you have to be under some serious duress. Frankly, I don't think many of the sheltered kids in this thread understand just how bloody serious this is.

I struggle to believe Zimmerman hopped out of his truck because he felt like disrupting his blue collar life by shooting a black man. It doesn't work that way.

- Yogi

[TigerTank77]

Anyone have a pdf reader?

http://media.trb.com/media/acrobat/2012-04/69353440.pdf

Affadavit of Probable Cause.

It sounds like they're hinging their offense on the authority of the civilian dispatcher.

This is not going to end well for them.

[cuteprickleypink1]

he is actually a quite heavyset man... And he looks it in his photo. He is likely to be shorter because of his ethnicity. That doesn't make him weaker just actually have more stregnth. He's not tiny he's quite large just short. And travon didn't look heavy at all... So who's intimidating who....




btw the picture shows thank you very much this is not a black and white issue thank you for showing his photo. He's obviously hispanic js.

And sorry but I actually don't give a care what anyone with any agenda says. You bigmole seem to hav an agenda and a biased. You compared their fight to break in... And I can only surmise why.

[Tyr.]

Originally Posted by cuteprickleypink1

he is actually a quite heavyset man... And he looks it in his photo. He is likely to be shorter because of his ethnicity. That doesn't make him weaker just actually have more stregnth. He's not tiny he's quite large just short. And travon didn't look heavy at all... So who's intimidating who....

We already debunked this claim earlier.

Size means jack and shit. Please stop bringing this up.

- Yogi

[cuteprickleypink1]

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

I'd like to share something new with everyone.



See this? This is George Zimmerman.

According to the media and people out for Zimmerman's blood, he is an enormous man weighing in at a couple hundred pounds.

OBVIOUSLY, THIS IS NOT THE FUCKING CASE. HE IS TINY.

WHEN CONFRONTED BY A 6'3" FOOTBALL PLAYER IN HIS PHYSICAL PRIME, SUDDENLY THE NEED FOR SELF DEFENSE SEEMS 1000000000% MORE RELEVANT.

I wonder what else Trayvon's family and the media have lied about to further their profits. Oh yeah, did I mention Trayvon's family has trademarked his name and anything remotely involving him to make money?

Originally Posted by Yogi

We already debunked this claim earlier.

Size means jack and shit. Please stop bringing this up.

- Yogi

thanks please tell tiger this because they keep bringing up his size. I'm afraid if he keeps on talking about size I am going to have to respond. Not my fault I didn't bring it up...

[thebigmole]

Originally Posted by cuteprickleypink1

he is actually a quite heavyset man... And he looks it in his photo. He is likely to be shorter because of his ethnicity. That doesn't make him weaker just actually have more stregnth. He's not tiny he's quite large just short. And travon didn't look heavy at all... So who's intimidating who....




btw the picture shows thank you very much this is not a black and white issue thank you for showing his photo. He's obviously hispanic js.

And sorry but I actually don't give a care what anyone with any agenda says. You bigmole seem to hav an agenda and a biased. You compared their fight to break in... And I can only surmise why.

Oh good god. I did NOT compare the actual occurrence to a break in I said what if. I'm playing freakin devils advocate. If you had read ANY of my previous posts you would see that. I mentioned breaking in because, if you knew the actual story you would know that Trayvon originally caught Zimmerman's attention because Trayvon fit the description of the suspect of recent BREAK INS in the neighborhood. Hence me saying that if Trayvon had actually been the robber no one would be crying murder. Please get all of the facts before contributing, or at least before attacking another person's argument.

[TigerTank77]

One other thing I forgot to mention.

The man to the right of Zimmerman in the picture I found, Zimmerman's lawyer?

Is about the same height as Trayvon.

While I'm aware size doesn't always mean anything, the common conception was that Zimmerman was larger than Trayvon, this making him seem like he had a duty to retreat or had control over the fight. We know can pretty much safely ascertain that this is not the case, and is actually a matter of a smaller man being held down and beaten by a larger man.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

Please explain to me how a man being bashed in the head is supposed to take time to weigh his options carefully.

If he had enough time and presence of mind to reach for his gun, remove it from the holster, release the safety, take aim and fire, then clearly he wasn't being bashed around the head enough to affect his thought process that much. It also doesn't explain why he went for his gun rather than trying to fight back, or go for a disabling strike like a knee to the groin. That tends to work pretty well if you want someone to stop punching you, believe me.

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

You do NOT shoot to wound. You shoot to neutralize the threat. The fastest way to neutralize a threat is to kill it.

So if neutralise is basically a euphemism for kill, you are in effect suggesting that manslaugher is impossible with a firearm if the gun is drawn intentionally. Correct? If not, please explain why.

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

Again, i really don't see how a rational person could look at this and say, "Well, even though he was being physically assaulted and feared for his life, he should have stopped, waited, thought out his actions, considered them carefully, and then chose the decision that I like the best because I don't feel like Trayvon should have been killed."

See above. If he had enough time to use his gun, he had enough time to go for the groin or similar. He made a conscious decision to use his gun.

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

Except that a firearm is for killing. That's why they were made. That's why people carry firearms, to kill people trying to kill them. Which is what Zimmerman did. He shot someone who he felt was trying to kill him.

You seem to be overlooking the fact that smoke grenade launchers and similar non-lethal weapons are also classed as firearms, as indeed is a firearm loaded with non-lethal rounds. With respect, you need to be more careful with your sweeping statements.

Also, on your comments regarding Martin being a 6'3 "footballer in his prime", 1) he was 6'0 and 2) his weight figures in this article hardly suggest he was a "footballer in his prime". I weigh more than Martin did and I would not expect to last 10 minutes in an American football match, despite the fact I am in pretty good shape. I would be flattened. Exaggeration does not do anyone any favours in cases such as these.

Originally Posted by thebigmole

Definition of murder: Murder is the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human, and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide (such as manslaughter).

"Malice aforethought" simply means intention to kill (hence why I made such a big deal out of the "a firearm is meant to kill" argument and its implications for intent). It doesn't require pre-planning as such, merely that the defendant carried out the fatal act with intent rather than in a state of reckelessness as to the consequences. As such, given that he admitted to the shooting, he would appear to possess both the actus reus and mens rea and is therefore culpable of murder as opposed to manslaughter if he is to be charged with any offence. Intention negates manslaughter pretty much automatically. That is why he claimed self-defence as his rationale.

Originally Posted by Caliber

I understand what you're saying about the intent being relevant in relation to the charges, but not with the self defense argument. Shooting someone in the shoulder is still using deadly force. Other than that Ben, explained my thoughts well.

Self-defence is another matter altogether, and one I have addressed below in response to one of Ben's posts. I have a feeling we may be talking past each other on the deadly force point, so I will sum up as follows: deadly force encompasses force which is likely to kill or cause serious injury. By aiming directly at the chest, at effectively point-blank range, it is far more likely that death is the result. Hence why I made a point of where exactly he was aiming.

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

Anyone have a pdf reader?

http://media.trb.com/media/acrobat/2012-04/69353440.pdf

Affadavit of Probable Cause.

It sounds like they're hinging their offense on the authority of the civilian dispatcher.

This is not going to end well for them.

If he was advised not to pursue and did so anyway, that could be interpreted as provoking the confrontation (particularly in light of testimony suggesting Zimmerman pushed Martin in an attempt to apprehend him). If Zimmerman did not possess lawful authority to pursue and apprehend, then he committed an unlawful act in the first place and it throws the self-defence argument into doubt. I'm not saying it's as clear-cut as that by any means, but having read the affidavit there is certainly a case to answer, and a serious one at that.

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

We know can pretty much safely ascertain that this is not the case, and is actually a matter of a smaller man being held down and beaten by a larger man.

You've mentioned this "being held down and beaten by a larger man" without any sourcing for quite some time now, and I've let it lie up to this point. However, I'm now going to call you out and challenge you to provide a source that proves he was indeed holding Zimmerman down and knocking seven bells out of him. Not just "punching him" - exactly as you describe it. I await with interest.

[Tyr.]

dr2005 is making the assumption that violence is rational.

It's not.

- Tyr

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by Tyr.

dr2005 is making the assumption that violence is rational.

It's not.

- Tyr

Please don't infer assumptions on my behalf. It's not very good form. I make no such assumption - I merely pointed out it's still a conscious process. Conscious =/= rational.

[Grey Wind]

Originally Posted by dr2005

Self-defence is another matter altogether, and one I have addressed below in response to one of Ben's posts. I have a feeling we may be talking past each other on the deadly force point, so I will sum up as follows: deadly force encompasses force which is likely to kill or cause serious injury. By aiming directly at the chest, at effectively point-blank range, it is far more likely that death is the result. Hence why I made a point of where exactly he was aiming.

Wouldn't every case of justifiable homicide regarding a firearm be considered second degree murder if maiming someone in self defense was a viable option over killing them?

And Zimmerman's statement was that he was walking back to his vehicle after the dispatcher suggested he didn't need to follow anyone, and that is when Martin confronted him. Where did you hear "Zimmerman pushed Martin" besides the supposed phone call to his girlfriend that I've already heard might have not happened altogether? Thats new to me.

[Tyr.]

Originally Posted by dr2005

I merely pointed out it's still a conscious process. Conscious =/= rational.

It's not a conscious process either.

You are no doubt going to ask me to explain that. Bear with me, I will start putting together a post now.

- Tyr

[Tyr.]

Originally Posted by dr2005

Please don't infer assumptions on my behalf. It's not very good form. I make no such assumption - I merely pointed out it's still a conscious process. Conscious =/= rational.

Seeing as how we have already beaten this Martin vs Zimmerman thing to death, I will use my own actions as an example.

I was doing urban training a few months ago where my squad was practicing the clearing of buildings. The team would approach the structure from one side, breach the door (Or window/roof/etc) and then proceed to clear the building. For the purposes of training, instructors had fitted the buildings with shooting targets who were to be our "enemy" for the day. We were using blank cartridges in our service rifles, as well as various other pyrotechnics to simulate a full on urban assault.

As usual, I breached the front door and we entered. Too tight to do the usual drill, so right after breaching I continued to push into the structure in lead. We got to the first room, and my partner and myself did the usual room clearance drill. Empty, except for a cupboard on the far side. We assumed we were up against the carboard cutout targets, so what happened next took us entirely by surprise.

One of the instructors came flying out of the cupboard and launched himself at us, screaming "Don't shoot! Don't shoot!" but at the same time running straight for us. I was standing in the room corner, with my weapon at low ready (So in my shoulder, but pointing downwards). I got my weapon in the aim, released safety and double tapped him in the chest before he got halfway across the room. That was entirely subconscious. The after-action report on that building clearance was difficult - because I had theoretically shot and killed one of my own troops wearing our uniform. That's not something to be taken lightly.

Thing is, I couldn't even explain the rationale behind what I did. It wasn't the right thing or the wrong thing to do. I just instinctively reacted, and my body did what it did without having any input from the frontal lobe in my brain. There was no time to apply a conscious thought process. There is very sound psychological evidence behind this sort of behavior (If you want to read more, look for Deep Survival, by Laurence Gonzales) is actually a result of natural evolution.

If I had stopped at that exact moment, standing there with my rifle at low ready, and applied a conscious logical system to come to the appropriate reaction, I would have failed my teammates. The time it takes for the eyes to receive the right information (What is he doing, how fast is he moving, what is in his hands, what is his intent, what is his facial expression telling me, what is he wearing, what is going on around me?) is far too long. Had he been a hostile, in the time it would take for me to come to a conscious decision, I could have been killed. Or worse, my teammates would have died for my failure.

What we use instead, are emotions. Do not confuse me use of the term "emotions" with "feelings". I am not talking about happy, sad, angry etc. I am talking about an instantaneous emotional response your body has when you are faced with a specific situation.

When you see a naked women, your body reacts by increasing blood flow to the genitals, pupils dilate, skin flushes etc. That all happens before you have the chance to actually apply a conscious decision making model to the situation. You don't see a naked women and apply a conscious decision making model, the end result of which is you decide to be aroused. Doesn't work that way. It's highly emotive. Stashed away in the primate part of your brain, you have instinctively and subconsciously red-flagged the sight of a naked women, and it has been paired with the response of "Arousal".

Have you ever been surprised by someone? That is the same concept. Your brain does not logically think "This person should not be here. What is going on? Perhaps I should go into a defensive posture to properly react?". No. Fuck no. Epinephrine and cortisone floods your system instantly, because your subconscious has flagged the situation of "Unknown intruder" as something which requires a defensive posture. That is why you are able to be surprised, even if it is somebody you know well. The rational decision of "Wait, that is just my girlfriend" is a lot slower than the instinctive emotional reaction you had, which is why you have that split second beforehand of defensiveness and surprise, which then quickly goes away.

Because your brain does this sort of stuff subconsciously. When I was standing at low-ready in that kill-house room, my brain had already experienced close quarter combat, so it had red flagged the situation of "You are under attack" and my brain subconsciously knew that the response to that is "Fight back". I didn't need to sit there and think about it. My subconscious kicked into gear as soon as that door opened and somebody was coming at me. I was well trained in weapon drills, so my brain also subconsciously knew how to raise the weapon into the aim, release the safety and fire a double tap. That's why I faced the moment right afterwards of "Woah, what the fuck, that happened before I even had the chance to think". It's a survival mechanism that we all have.

Violence happens very, very quickly. It is not always a conscious process. When I first come into contact, the reaction of "Hit the deck" is not conscious. It just happens. That is not a conscious process. You react the way your brain subconsciously knows how to. That's why some people flounder, panic and stall when in dangerous situations. Because they have no emotional bookmark to refer to, and they end up just shitting themselves. Throw a ball at a sporty guy, and he'll probably either dodge it or catch it. Throw it at some non-sporty girl, and she'll freak the fuck out. A person will revert to their most base self during those moments.

Now, I won't go on to talk too much about Martin vs Zimmerman. But think about what I have just said. The same way I highly doubt Zimmerman just decided to stop and kill a black man (The psychology of which I described in an earlier post) I also highly doubt there was much conscious thought process going on during any struggle. Personally, I doubt I would be capable of deciding during a close quarter struggle to go for a wounding shot. Especially when somebody is mere inches away. I personally just don't have the mental capacity to be doing that during a hand to hand fight. Some people might have a lot more experience and training than me, and they are capable of doing that without thinking too much. Zimmerman, though? No, I doubt it. I suspect all he knew was that he was under attack, and his instincts were screaming "USE THE GUN! USE THE GUN!". Nowhere in there was the logical thought of "Well, I better obey the law here. I should use a non-lethal combatives hold to subdue this opponent, because applying too much force would be immoral and illegal, and I might face consequences afterwards".

Yes, a groin strike would have been the logical thing to do. But you know as well as I do that (Unless you are well trained in combatives) if I came at you, and starting fucking your shit up, you wouldn't be able to properly execute a groin strike. If I asked you afterwards why not, you'd tell me it was just too difficult, couldn't think of how to do it, couldn't think while being attacked etc. Sure, maybe you'd pull it off. But you can't say that with certainty. (Hey, I don't know you that well, maybe you know how to handle yourself in a fight. Maybe you could manage it?). Hand to hand combatives isn't easy.

Everybody ignored my last post I made. I assumed it was because most people couldn't quite handle the idea of somebody applying the known psychology of killing and combat to the shitheap which is this thread. Which is sad, really.

- Tyr

[Tyr.]

What's up kids?

Too many words?

Not comfortable with the topic of taking lives?

- Tyr

[TigerTank77]

Originally Posted by Tyr.

What's up kids?

Too many words?

Not comfortable with the topic of taking lives?

- Tyr

Basically. Poor tiny baby infant Trayvon got shot with a scary cop killing black deadly assault weapon of death firing baby seeking bullets while he was beating up big mean scary white supremicist (even though he's Hispanic and Jewish) Zimmerman because Zimmerman had the NERVE to ask him a question.

[Maverick.]

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

Basically. Poor tiny baby infant Trayvon got shot with a scary cop killing black deadly assault weapon of death firing baby seeking bullets while he was beating up big mean scary white supremicist (even though he's Hispanic and Jewish) Zimmerman because Zimmerman had the NERVE to ask him a question.

Zimmerman is a racist. He said "those c**** always get away" on his 911 call.

[Guile]

Originally Posted by Maverick.

Zimmerman is a racist. He said "those c**** always get away" on his 911 call.

And of course, as we all know, Racists can never be acting legitimately or in legal self defense...

[Maverick.]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3MKB91MyYQ

[thebigmole]

Originally Posted by Maverick.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3MKB91MyYQ

That has to be, by far, the STUPIDEST thing I've seen about this case. Other than the fact that it uses edited versions of the 911 calls it isn't back up by ANYTHING! Heck it isn't even backed up by the original statements the girlfriend made. That has got to be just the most ridiculous thing... I mean it really shows how in the dark so many of the Trayvon supporters out there are. And I believe that Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter! But at least I have an opinion that's based on something more concrete than whoever decided that this was a race issue to begin with.

[Maverick.]

It is a racist issue. If Trayvon was white would he have gotten killed? No. Whether you have a violent mentality or not, if you are a young black male, you are seen as a threat.

[thebigmole]

Originally Posted by Maverick.

It is a racist issue. If Trayvon was white would he have gotten killed? No. Whether you have a violent mentality or not, if you are a young black male, you are seen as a threat.

You are right if Trayvon was white this wouldn't have happened, because Zimmerman was going off of the description of a robbery suspect from his neighborhood. That description was of a BLACK PERSON! So yes you are right if Trayvon was white it wouldn't have happened, unless the description was of a white person instead of a black one.

[Tyr.]

Originally Posted by Maverick.

It is a racist issue. If Trayvon was white would he have gotten killed? No. Whether you have a violent mentality or not, if you are a young black male, you are seen as a threat.

Mav,

You are confusing racism with profiling.

I profile people all the time. I make a living in the world of crime, killing and warfare, so I'm a lot more open about it than the average person. For the average person, they have this moral obligation to believe that every single person should be treated and judged the same irregardless of physical appearance, age, gender, race, behavior and how they dress. That is not realistic. Not only does this moral obligation (Which is only a recent change in human psyche) clash with our evolutionary instinct (Which has been in our psyche for thousands of years), but it is also impossible to execute in some areas of our life. There is sound psychology behind profiling, and if I remember correctly it is the Israelis who are the global leaders in the science of it.

There are a number of reasons why young black males are seen as threats, none of which has anything to do with racism.

I would be more than happy to explain it to you, but so far my other posts have gone unacknowledged. Why should I take the time out of my day to teach you something if you doggedly refuse to take it in?

- Tyr

[Maverick.]

I see your point.

However, the district attorney must feel this is a hate/race issue. he wouldn't have slapped a murder charge on Zimmerman if it wasn't a hate crime. If Zimmerman was in defense, he would have charged him with manslaughter.

[TigerTank77]

Originally Posted by Maverick.

However, the district attorney must feel this is a hate/race issue. he wouldn't have slapped a murder charge on Zimmerman if it wasn't a hate crime. If Zimmerman was in defense, he would have charged him with manslaughter.

It could also be due to the fact that the DA is an incompetent moron.

There is absolutely no way second degree is going to stick. None. Zip. Zero.

Also, there are no hate crime charges being filed, because there was no hate crime.

[Guile]

Originally Posted by Maverick.

I see your point.

However, the district attorney must feel this is a hate/race issue. he wouldn't have slapped a murder charge on Zimmerman if it wasn't a hate crime. If Zimmerman was in defense, he would have charged him with manslaughter.

If he was in defense.... there should be no charge at all.