Posted on 06/25/2013 7:53:51 AM PDT by kristinn
Two flawed innocent lives intersected one 2012 February night in the town of Sanford, Florida. Afterward one life was ended and another was marked for death.
The debate over the shooting death of Trayvon Martin at the hands of George Zimmerman sixteen months ago has partisans painting each as villains in order to justify their belief in the guilt or innocence of Zimmerman of the charge of second degree murder.
Those who believe Zimmerman is innocent have rejected the Martin family’s attorneys’ portrait of Martin as a cuddly boy who looked about twelve years old. Instead, they point to Martin’s thug-wannabe social media persona and high school suspensions to portray the just turned seventeen-year-old as a hardened Black street thug who was casing the neighborhood where Zimmerman lived.
Those who believe Zimmerman is guilty have cast the part Black, part Hispanic, part White, then-twenty-eight-year-old as a white racist cop-wannabe who stalked Martin that February 26th night with murder in his heart.
But what if neither view is correct. What if the basic stories told by the two key witnesses in the case were pretty much what happened. Zimmerman and the mysterious ‘Witness 8’s tales overlap on key points.
Witness 8 is the alleged girlfriend of Martin who was supposedly speaking to Martin as he walked though Zimmerman’s neighborhood as he made his way to the townhouse home of his father’s then girlfriend where he was staying after being suspended from school in Miami. Her statement (albeit with spin and hyperbole) was relayed by Martin family attorney Benjamin Crump at a news conference March 20, 2012.
Zimmerman and Witness 8 both say that Martin was staying close to buildings. Both say Martin walked near Zimmerman’s parked car to check him out. Both say that Martin and Zimmerman lost sight of each other. Both say they came back in contact. And both agree confrontational words were first exchanged followed quickly by a physical altercation between the two.
Witness 8 says Martin was staying close to the buildings to get out of the rain—an innocent thing to do—and got upset that someone was watching him. Zimmerman, involved in his community’s neighborhood watch, took into account the rash of burglaries in recent months as he observed the stranger lurking near buildings.
Martin wanted to get a closer look at the stranger to him who was eyeballing him. Zimmerman took that as menacing. Martin then got away from Zimmerman. Zimmerman got out of his vehicle to see where the stranger to him was running toward. Losing him and being advised by the dispatcher not to pursue the stranger, Zimmerman says he started to make his way back to his vehicle.
It is not known why Martin did not go straight to his father’s then-girlfriend’s townhouse. He could have gotten disoriented in the evening rain as he tried to get away from the stranger, or he could have decided to confront the stranger who had gotten out of his vehicle in the rain to follow him. He would have been in his rights to do so--as would Zimmerman be in his rights to check out and follow the stranger in his crime-stricken neighborhood even if the police dispatcher advised him not to.
When the two met face to face, neither got violent right away. They both asked each other ‘what are you doing’ type questions. What apparently made the confrontation turn violent is the move by Zimmerman to reach for his cellphone. As he relates in his written statement to Sanford police the night of the incident: “…as I tried to find my phone to dial 911 the suspect punched me in the face. I fell backwards onto my back. The suspect got on top of me…the suspect grabbed my head and slammed it into the concrete sidewalk.”
Martin could very easily have been acting in self-defense if he took Zimmerman fumbling for a cellphone as him reaching for a knife or a gun. The way he reacted, according to Zimmerman, is exactly how a friend into self-defense told me long ago to get the upper hand in such a situation: First punch the nose hard enough to break it, thereby stunning your opponent, and then beat the tar out of them before they can recover.
So Martin would have been in the right acting in self-defense against a strange man who was following him who reached for something as they confronted each other.
Zimmerman also would have been right in trying to defend himself with deadly force as he did not initiate the violence and was quickly facing having his head bashed in.
There are no eyewitnesses to the beginning of the fight between Martin and Zimmerman, save for Zimmerman himself. The description by one eyewitness who saw some of the fight before the gunshot tracked with Zimmerman’s description at that point of the incident—just as Witness 8 largely tracks with Zimmerman’s account.
It is quite likely that the unarmed Trayvon Martin died believing he was fighting for his life from a stranger who stalked him with bad intent and was trying to pull a weapon on him. Zimmerman saying that when they were on the ground Martin saw the gun in his waistband would only have confirmed Martin’s fears.
If Zimmerman were trying to pull his gun out at the onset, rather than fumble for his cellphone, the fight would have right away been a struggle for control of the gun. There’s no evidence that happened.
It is my belief that both Martin and Zimmerman acted within their rights the night of February 26, 2012. Sometimes acting within your rights with flawed judgment can get you killed. Other times it can get you put on trial for murder by a legal lynch mob.
With the exception that the article is slightly softer on Martin than me (and only slightly), I think he has nailed the whole thing.
He has also nicely summed up why this is Z’s case to lose, and any competant attorney should be able to handle this with “half his brain tied behind his back.”
It wasn't his father's condo. It was his father's girlfriend's condo.
I agree with you that Martin provoked the fight. Or rather that he was worried that if the police were called, he would end up being kicked out of his father's girlfriend's condo, where he was living in VIOLATION OF RENTAL AGREEMENT. So, he took the immature and drug-addled action of trying to punch out Zimmerman so he couldn't call the police and so that he could escape.
One could IMAGINE that Trayvon's father had already admonished him NOT TO GET IN ANY TROUBLE OR HE'S OUT. That was 'likely' a CONDITION of Trayvon moving in that the 'girlfriend' has specified. If she didn't, then she would have to be a completely irresponsible person.
Not widely noted, but evidential in this context. George Zimmerman is Hispanic, while his (assailant? victim?) is of distinctly an American of African descent. This was a black-on-Latino encounter, and any element of race, if injected into the argument, really stirs the pot.
Street gang element? Not apparent, but this may be an underlying motive, a young black man trying to make his reputation among his peers - “I took down that (insert inappropriate epithet here), and slammed him good!”
Clearly, Trayvon must have had an “ah, S***!” moment just as the cold steel of the barrel of the pistol was thrust into his chest.
He tells witness 8 that somebody is following him.
IF he was scared and fearful for his life at THAT point, just go inside the apt. and lock the door.
Evidence shows he decided to confront the person who had been following him.
Really? Scared? Really?
I don’t doubt that when Z reached for his cell phone that would’ve been interpreted as a threatening move.
If the assumption was that Z was reaching for a knife or a gun.
T was itching for a fight. Too late when he decked Z only to learn that Z pulled out his gun and shot him to stop the deadly assault of head slamming into concrete. I think Z has said that T said something like, “you got me” before quickly dying.
It will be so easy to show that even witness 8 advised T not to try anything with the person who followed him, but that T was itching to confront him, did so, violently, and died for it.
Buildings? Let's get this right. These were houses. You walk close enough to my house to stay out of the rain, and I'll confront you myself.
Wouldn't that be:
Lil’ Trayvon©
I will remind you of how this started:
LITTLE TRAYVON: “You got a problem?”
MONSTER GEORGE: “No.”
LITTLE TRAYVON: “You do now.”
I don't. I think it was serious. Trayvon was already in TROUBLE, having been kicked out of his FAMILY HOME.
He was living at his father's girlfriend's RENTAL CONDO.
ONE MORE INCIDENT, and his father would likely had to have thrown him out. Where would Trayvon go then ? He might have to get a job and pay for his own living quarters. His solution? Violence.
Zimmerman was doing what neighborhood watch is supposed to do, watch suspicious people and report suspicious activity.
According to yesterday’s opening statements, Trayvon was about 70 yards from the rental condo where he was living, in violation of the rental agreement.
“Nobody has the right to try to administer a beat down on another person just because they looked at them. Even if they are stoned and not thinking”
Indeed.
Darned right!!
Thanks for the replies. It’s a larger layout than I would have guessed, but if Trayvon was shot 70 yards from his destination, he sure had the opportunity to ignore it all and just return there with his tea and Skittles.
What sort of 17 year-old seeks a confrontation with an older stranger rather than just getting out of the situation by returing to the place he was staying? But they’ll fight any evidence that portrays Trayvon accurately.
“Buildings? Let’s get this right. These were houses. You walk close enough to my house to stay out of the rain, and I’ll confront you myself. “
Insert here the Clint Eastwood “Get off my lawn” picture
(I would, but don’t know how).
You left something out...”BAM!”
And had Zimmerman displayed his firearm as he was replying "no", St. Trayvon would (probably) still be alive after fleeing like punks do.
I have a question. They are making much of Zimmerman calling the police on black “youth†previously. What was the racial make up of the neighborhood? And a second question. Did the robberies stop after St Tryvon of Martin behaved stupidly?
I stand corrected re: condo owner.
You make and interesting point — “ immature and drug-addled” — doesn’t need much more explanation, does it?
There were a bunch of “Helps!” in between.
All the what if’s and could have been shouldn’t really matter. The events before and after the fatal encounter may help to explain the confrontation but the point of legality is the physical encounter itself. Who initiated potentially fatal force that was met with successful deadly force? Who was on the offense and whom was on the defense? That should be the basis of this trial. Everything else is material for the media talking heads and race baiters.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.