Trayvon

[Gordon Gray]

So here's what I understand at its most basic level.

TM goes to a store and buys some skittles and a beverage.

He's walking back home when GZ sees him and believes TM is up to "no good".

GZ calls the police. The police tell him not to engage TM. GZ says "these punks always get away with it".

He does not take their advice and confronts TM. TM did not initiate the encounter.

An altercation occurs and TM is killed by GZ.

If GZ had not confronted TM, against the advice of the police, TM would likely still be alive.

GZ claims his life was in danger, after he deliberately initiates the conflict, and is found innocent.

Is there something very wrong with this picture?

GG

 

[ktchnman]

Yes, there is. But like Lisa Bloom (MSNBC) was saying all along, the prosecutors did an awful job. I live in Central Florida, and got into a "discussion" while waiting in a Drs. office on Friday. The basic sentiment in the community is extremely racist, and the locals truly believed that the stoned Trevon was mauling Zimmermam, who was only defending himself. Transplants, such as myself, don't feel like that, but the born and bred locals sure do.

 

[coolcobramatt]

I ride the fence on this one. I think you had a guy who wanted to play cop who ran into a kid with an attitude and it spiraled out of control immediately.

 

[Gordon Gray]

I agree but the basic question remains.

Who started / initiated the conflict?

 

[projectormovielover]

I think the little kid started the violence and got popped maybe? TM has no reason for wanting to go around killing people but he may have felt tough with his gun and provoked the kid. I have been provoked but I would never lift a finger to another soul unless they lay a hand on me as its just sticks n stones

 

[topofroc]

To echo GG's comments, I can't get my head wrapped around the fact that GZ created an atmosphere where something dangerous (and deadly) was likely to occur, and when it did, was absolved of any responsibility. In addition to the fact that GZ followed TM against the direction of the 911 operator, he was carrying a loaded gun during his shift on neighborhood watch patrol - something that is expressly forbidden.Both of these actions, coupled with a zealousness to catch "these punks" who "always get away" almost guaranteed something bad was going to happen.
I get that GZ wanted to protect his neighborhood from an increasing crime wave, but regardless of intent, actions (should) have consequences. For there to be absolutely no legal repercussions sets a dangerous precident.

@coolcobramatt - Based on what we know about TM and what he did that day, why do you think he was a kid with an attitude?

 

[goodwinaj]

The jury has spoken. It shouldn't have and wouldn't have gone to court without outside political pressure. Which was only applied because of the attackers race. I guess the sensitive thing to do would have been to continue and be a victim. Maybe the police would have shown up in time pick up the pieces of his skull from the sidewalk.

 

[topofroc]

@goodwinaj - based on the impartial evidence at the time of GZ arrest, why shouldn't the case have been tried?
Going with the basic facts of the case (unarmed teen walking home is followed home by an armed man who says teen is suspicious. A fight occurs. Teen is killed), why wasn't a thorough investigation warranted?

I would even go as far as asking what makes TM (based strictly off the evidence) any different than the children who were killed in the Sandy Hook tragedy?

Both TM and the Sandy Hook children were doing exactly what society would expect from good kids (walking home, going to school) when they were killed. The one clear difference is that Trayvon was able to land blows on the person who eventually killed him. Even there - the possibility that TM was struggling against GZ in a futile fight to save his own life is just as possible as the idea that TM instigated the confrontation. The evidence doesn't clearly support either story.
So - given the things we are certain about (an unarmed teen in dead) versus what we are uncertain about, why was it so easy for the police to assume the worst about Trayvon? Why is it so easy for people to assume that Trayvon did something that was worthy of suspicion when there in no impartial evidence to back it up?

The answer to that question speaks to the core of the problem of race in America.

 

[coolcobramatt]

I agree but the basic question remains.

Who started / initiated the conflict?

The basic answer is Zimmerman but it's much more than the basic question. The true question is one that cannot be answered unless you were witnessing the event in person from start to unfortunate finish.

 

[coolcobramatt]

I would even go as far as asking what makes TM (based strictly off the evidence) any different than the children who were killed in the Sandy Hook tragedy?

The biggest difference is you don't see many first and second graders posting pics on the internet of themselves flipping people off, smoking pot or having burglary tools in their lockers.


Sorry I missed your question to me but as I stated just above, the things he did publicly in the recent past tell me he indeed had an attitude. I have worked with "at risk" kids much of my life and the similarities are striking. Just working with people in public in general for all of my professional career, a "fight before flight" attitude is pretty easy to recognize.

 

[Gordon Gray]

Hi cool,

First paragraph. Valid comment but my understanding is that the Judge did not allow this as evidence in the trial. As she did not allow GZ's past indiscretions as evidence. GZ was certainly no boy scout either.

goodwinaj, thanks for the input. But how do you reconcile the apparent fact that GZ initiated the conflict and absent that initiation, this tragic incident would never have occurred.

Best,

GG

 

[coolcobramatt]

Hi cool,

First paragraph. Valid comment but my understanding is that the Judge did not allow this as evidence in the trial. As she did not allow GZ's past indiscretions as evidence. GZ was certainly no boy scout either.

goodwinaj, thanks for the input. But how do you reconcile the apparent fact that GZ initiated the conflict and absent that initiation, this tragic incident would never have occurred.

Best,

GG

Please call me Matt, I use this screenname as it's one I was given many moons ago and it just stuck.

Neither of them were boy scouts, but they were oil and water. One who did not care for authority and one who thought he was authority.

 

[Rich]

Honestly, the outcome in this case has less to do with GZ and TV's actions and intentions than it does with the poor construction and interpretation of Florida's (and many other state's) "stand your ground" laws. I firmly believe in the original intention of such laws, i.e. that you should be able to defend yourself against deadly force by using deadly force. But they should never apply when you intentionally put yourself in such a situation (especially after being told by 911 operators to stay in your car, as in this case). And they should never allow the use of a firearm against an unarmed man. That is just ridiculous. Did race play into it? Little doubt in my mind. Had this been a black man who shot and killed an innocent white teen under the same circumstances, I have little doubt we would have had a more immediate prosecution and a different jury verdict.

 

[coolcobramatt]

Rich...on your final statement you are probably 100% correct sadly. Your thoughts on how the laws have been manipulated in this particular case I agree with as well. My question for you is how do you view using a firearm against an unarmed man when the unarmed person is going for your gun? I know it was proposed in the trial that GZ claimed TM was doing just that but I am speaking in general.

I have friends that are cops and most would say you make a grab for my pistol and you will get shot.

 

[Rich]

Matt, it may have been claimed outside of the trial, but certainly not in the trial. The only person who could have testified to that decided not to testify, and there is no other way for that information to have been entered into evidence. So it is not something the jury would have considered in their deliberations. I don't really buy it either. How would TM have known he had a pistol? Unless, of course, he said so. And when most people find out the other person has a gun, they don't usually go after that person. Obviously, every situation is different, but it just doesn't sound like a reasonable answer in this case. Anymore than saying the concrete pavement they wrestled on was a "deadly weapon" as the defense did say in the trial.

Regardless, it does pose a tougher question. And I am not sure there is an easy answer. In my mind, the other person's hand would have had to have actually grabbed the weapon for you to have been justified in using it against them.

As for the cops, I agree that most would say that. But I also know they are well trained in hand combat and most could and would defuse such a situation without actually shooting the offender unless they absolutely had to.

 

[Gordon Gray]

Here's another interesting twist to all of this.

If TM's family files a civil suit against GZ, GZ's attorney has stated that he can prove that GZ was acting in a manner consistent with the "stand your ground" statute and if the court agrees, GZ has immunity from any civil action regarding this incident.

GG

 

[Rich]

The original purpose of "stand your ground" laws was to protect the homeowner who uses deadly force against a home invader. I firmly believe that is a good law. Any person should feel they can defend their home and family with deadly force if necessary against an intruder, without concern of being arrested or sued in civil court by the assailants or their families. But that type of law should never apply outside of the home, on a public street, and particularly in a case where the person using the deadly force put themselves in the position of having to do so by their own actions. Especially after being told by authorities to stay in their car and not engage the other person. I cannot fathom how this law should apply in that situation.

 

[Gordon Gray]

Nor can I, my friend, but I believe my previous post is accurate within the context of current Florida statutes.

 

[coolcobramatt]

In my mind, the other person's hand would have had to have actually grabbed the weapon for you to have been justified in using it against them.

Knowing that person is physically trying to take your gun from you would be the line for me. In a case such as that, the old saying "I would rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6" comes into mind.

 

[timm]

Well. Obviously this is a ridiculous tragedy. Saying that, unfortunately nobody knows what happened -- including the jury. And therein lies the problem. I can speculate just like the rest. My guess is that GZ probably was going to try and hold him until the police arrived and TM was having none of that and decided to try to get away... A fight ensued and GZ was getting a beat down. An adult with an attitude and a kid agitated by it. He's not waiting for the police because he didn't do anything- so he fights.

Would have GZ even got out of his car without the 'courage' in his belt? Doubt it. But he didn't break any laws by carrying that I am aware of. He had wounds on his head proving the scuffle and did he fear for his life when he pulled the gun? Maybe. Did he come and assault the kid or did he approach saying he was from the neighborhood watch? Don't know.

Given that and the lack of evidence GG , can you say you would have convicted if you sat on the jury? Something stinks here I agree - but if there is reasonable doubt or if there is a possibility GZ feared for his life... How do you convict him if you follow the letter of the law? I'm open to suggestions but I don't see how the jury had a choice.