Sunday, March 25, 2012

Zimmerman Fails Test Of Self-Defense In Trayvon Martin Killing

George Zimmerman claims that young Trayvon Martin attacked him, thereby justifying his use of deadly force, in killing him. As proof, the Sanford Police point out the grass stains on Zimmerman's back, as though he was on the ground. They point out Zimmerman's injuries, including a broken nose and other bruising, as evidence of defense. Zimmerman may have been attacked, but the real question is if that attack was provoked by his own actions of threat and deadly force (pursuit and possession of a deadly weapon)?

In rebuttal to the Sanford Police, it seems that when one person pursues another while possessing a deadly weapon, the pursuer becomes an antagonist of deadly potential, by absolute definition, and nothing short of breaking off the pursuit can reset the roles. If I attack a bear and that bear subsequently chases me down and claws me, is the bear now the aggressor? No. The aggressive response of the bear is in defense of its life, and justifiable.

Similarly, the probable aggressive response of Trayvon Martin to George Zimmerman's pursuit of him, including Zimmerman's possession of a deadly weapon, does not prohibit young Martin from aggressive defense of his life. In fact, Martin's response is predictably that of someone in fear of their life.

Zimmerman created and controlled all facets of the situation by which he took the life of another person. The only question is how much of his preparation, and actions leading up to the killing, were pre-meditated.

James C. Collier


Technorati Tags: , , , , ,


Anonymous said...

Being on top of someone and beating them while they scream for help is defending yourself? Zimmerman's friend said on ABC news tonight that the voice was Zimmerman's. Martin's father said the voice screaming for help was not his son's. An eye witness said Martin was on top of Zimmerman beating him while Zimmerman was screaming for help. I don't feel the need to provide the links.
The national media is doing a pretty poor job of reporting all the facts, just the ones that they choose to report, the ones that make Zimmerman look like the vigilante and Martin the poor innocent victim. Well sorry, all the facts do not bear that out.

So you have fallen victim to the media misinformation and feeding frenzy. Are you heading to FL to get in on the black panthers hunt and 10 grand reward for Zimmerman, "dead or alive"?

James C. Collier said...

Anon 6:19, You missed the point. Law enforcement officers are uniquely authorized to both pursue qualified suspects, while carrying deadly weapons AND to defend themselves with said deadly weapons. For this authorization, they are trained. Non-law enforcement are NOT authorized, and therefore are NOT shielded, from actions that stem from unauthorized usurping of the constitutional rights of others.

Anonymous said...

It seems apologists feel comfortable in spreading a different take on what the 911 tapes bear out. I am not surprised Anon does not feel it necessary to provide links because an anonymous person named John just so happens to be the only witnesss to view the altercation, yet his 911 call confirming what he "supposedly" saw was not amongst the calls that were actually released by the police. Am I sceptical? Heck yes because mind you this is the same department who did not deem it necessary to do the basic homicide investigation nor obtain proof that there were physical injuries sustained by Mr. Zimmerman that would justify them releasing him. Two separate reports printed on two completely separate days, the first being printed immediately after the event (2/28) which contains nothing that even suggested that there may have been cause for a self defense release, and the other printed several days after the event (3/6) in which it is suddenly mention that Zimmerman had sustained injury and appears to have been on the ground at some point. Now, several days after the release of the 911 tapes from Zimmerman and witnesses there is suddenly someone who claims to have seen the whole thing? Further listening to the tapes the cries for help ended at the sound of gunshot not before as if someone might have suddenly realized he had a gun and decided to shoot but as if someone was crying for help and was then shot, which ended the cries. That is clear in those tapes so yes the facts will bear out that this kid was shot while begging for his life and that there was a few seconds during the screams where Zimmerman could have changed his mind at anytime and held the gun on the kid until police arrived but instead made the decision to go ahead and shoot. It is the worst kind of deceit being employed here to try to defend this man and the police department who decided that this young man's life was not worth a cursory investigation.

Anonymous said...

So what do the faces mean? How different people would interpret the expressions of a fair-skinned guy as opposed to a black guy?

I have taken this silly test before and the artist's rendition of the expression rarely matches what I perceive. You need more than a face, you need body language also, a voice and I suppose (everyone seems to agree) you need clothes. Anyway, immediate gut reaction is: Upper left-hand side is angry; upper right-hand side is teasing; lower left is sad, or maybe scared; lower right looks glad to see someone he hasn't seen in a long time. (I guess the episodes of "Lie to Me" that I've watched didn't do me much good ...)

Are these four images supposed to be GZ and TM? George, angry then scared? Trayvon, angry, then scared?

James C. Collier said...

Anon 4:24, Yes, the images are of assailant and victim, posed as angry and fearful. The images illustrate that regardless of how each is portrayed, Zimmerman pursued Martin with a gun and killed him. As an ordinary citizen, their is no 'law enforcement' shield protecting his actions, nor does stand your ground apply to the initiator of a conflict.

Anonymous said...

different anon here. if trayvon physically attacked mr zimmerman to the point of beating his head off the sidewalk, then regardless of mr zimmermans poor judgement to follow trayvon, there is no crime under floridas crazy stand your ground law. if trayvon did not initiate the physical assault then mr zimmerman murdered trayvon. the law is not emotional or biased. a grand jury will look at the facts and evidence to decide whether to charge mr zimmerman with a crime, the public outrage is a circus and reduces to mere speculation about zimmermans guilt and innocence. while it is tragic, i have sons too) its conjecture to convict the man in the court of public opinion without knowing all the facts of the case. control your emotions people and let reason and the law determine if mr zimmerman is guilty of a crime. that said, my conjecture is that it will be
difficult to convict anyone of shooting someone in florida under the current legislation. all you have to do is say, "i
was motally threatened". good luck prosecuting that.

Anonymous said...

If you read the last reports Zimmerman had lost Martin and was headed back to his vehicle when Martin came after him, confronting him, punching him and knocking him to the ground, banging his head into the ground and continuing to beat him. The police accounts and injuries all align with this account.
So Martin pursued Zimmerman when he could have walked on home. Quite a different story than the "let's not wait for all the facts" news outlets.
The news about the single "eye" witness is finally coming out nationally. It is easy enough to find NOW without someone having to point it out for people.
After all is said and done it looks like a few million people are going to have to question their judgment as well as their favorite new agency.
But of course the truth won't matter to a lot of them. They are now out for blood regardless of any other sides to this story.

Anonymous said...

Here's a story for you. Trayvon's mother is copyrighting her son's name.

Well daaaaaauuuuuummmmnnnnn......

Who in the hell helped her think that up?

The black panthers for their reward? Or just for money for her? or what?

Anonymous said...

diff anon again, perhaps trayvons mother doesnt want to let anyone else profit off her sons death which is why her attorney probably counselled her to copyright trayvons name. and of course she has an attorney counselling her. she'd be foolish not to retain one with the media circus that has developed. look, alot of news and social media are profiting from this young mans death already. a civil case may be the family's only means to seek justice if no criminal charges are filed. so again its mean-spirited speculation to suggest that the family is looking to cash in on their sons death. plus, big civil cases influence legislation.

Anonymous said...

If Florida has castle doctrine there can be NO civil case.

Just checked, Florida does have it.

Mean spirited? Hilarious!

For the definition of mean spirited look up black panther posts 10 grand reward for a man that has no warrant for him. Who also says, he kills one of our so we kill one of theirs.


Anonymous said...

Listen close. Martin had lost Zimmerman. Zimmerman was following him, you can hear him breathing hard, then when the dispatcher tells him he doesn't need to do that a moment later his breathing is normal and he is probably walking normally back to his truck.
The dispatcher is talking to him, asking him where he can meet the officers sent to the area. Zimmerman starts to give his address home number and then says, "Oh crap, I don't want to give it all out, I don't know where this kid is." If he didn't know here he was that means Martin did go towards Zimmerman rather than going home, and then attacked Zimmerman.
Now that is not self defense by Martin. That is a premeditated attack and physical assault.

Anonymous said...

To the author, if you were tring to do a fair portrayal of each person as agressor and victim, in the victim why does the Zimmerman image somewhat fit that description and the Martin image appear happy and smiling? He doesn't seem hurting or confused at all like the Zimmerman image. If the intent was to do a fair reversal of image baiting to prove Zimmermans guilt regardless of the image, the illustration fails to do so.

Anonymous said...

diff anon: the tapes do seem to indicate that mr zimmerman lost trayvon. but what happened after that remains a mystery. that zimmerman wasnt initially charged with manslaughter is also telling of the lack of evidence needed to substatiate even the least severe charges. the castle doctrine wouldnt apply in this case unless trayvon was shot on zimmermans property (i dont know if thats what occurred but if it did then yes that could be used in zimmermans defense).

the new black panthers are just the afro-centric version of the kkk as far as i can tell judging by their kooky bounties and separatist doctrine. so theres a comparison id rather not make about meanspiritedness. but that said, i apologize for the mean spirited comment.

James C. Collier said...

Anon 6:05AM, my motives are not nefarious. The influence of anger/fear in each depiction is approximately the same. The difference you note is due to manliness vs. boyishness, as well as the source photos, where Zimmerman is stoic and Trayvon is smiling.

Anonymous said...

That's exactly my point about the images. "Source photos" are biased. We know very little about Zimmerman as a human being, and that is by design. His "source photos" are released to portray him as a monster. If you however search Zimmerman (besides his mug shot) there is a different image. That has been intentionally left out. An article, especially yours with the topic based on image reversal, should not neglect this basic truth.

James C. Collier said...

Anon 12:16, your comments fail to acknowledge the inclusion of Zimmerman as fearful, along with an aggressive illustration of Trayvon. I have not witnessed these example illustrations anywhere else. The truth exists somewhere in the range of those four drawings. You are complaining about nothing.

Anonymous said...

A bear? Really? So you expect no more intelligent response from a human as you would a bear and use that analogy to suggest Martin was ok to act like a bear?

So please tell your family members that if someone seems to be following them, that to defend themselves AFTER they manage to lose that person they should then go FIND the person and attack him......


James C. Collier said...

Anon 4:31, you are being obtuse. The bear analogy was to illustrate that defensive postures/re-actions often present as otherwise aggressive responses, and can maintain themselves as long as the predator, in this case Zimmerman, remains within striking distance. You obviously have never felt life threatened.

Anonymous said...

IF I did and had lost the person threatening me I would not go find him!!

Would you expect any reasonable person to do that? Would you do that? Would you expect that from say, your wife, as a reasonable reaction to someone she perceived as a threat? If she did you would go off the rail!!

And I am being obtuse??

I expect more from you Mr. Collier, a lot more.

Any defense lawyer would have a field day with that argument.