George Zimmerman suing Trayvon Martin’s family and others for $100 million

[TJ8869]

Uh...refresh my memory does anyone have any proof that Martin initiated the attack other than the word of the guy who killed him?

Proof? No. Forensic evidence? Yes.

Zimmerman had a bloody, fractured nose and scrapes on the back of his head. Martin had cuts on his knuckles.

Those facts are consistent with Martin punching Zimmerman and Zimmerman hitting his head on the sidewalk.

 

[TJ8869]

I remember the original incident prompted me to ditch HROT. I just couldn’t associate with the mental illness on display as folks defended this piece of human garbage. It isn’t healthy.

So when I saw this headline, I figured I would peek back and see if anything’s changed. Would HROT finally turned on this trigger happy pedophile wannabe rent-a-cop? Nope, not really.

Thanks for checking in.

 

[BelemNole]

Proof? No. Forensic evidence? Yes.

Zimmerman had a bloody, fractured nose and scrapes on the back of his head. Martin had cuts on his knuckles.

Those facts are consistent with Martin punching Zimmerman and Zimmerman hitting his head on the sidewalk.

How does that prove who initiated the conflict? All that shows is that zimmerman is a shitty fighter.

 

[bladel]

Proof? No. Forensic evidence? Yes.

Zimmerman had a bloody, fractured nose and scrapes on the back of his head. Martin had cuts on his knuckles.

Those facts are consistent with Martin punching Zimmerman and Zimmerman hitting his head on the sidewalk.

Proof that Zimmerman was in a fight. Strong indicators that he was losing.

Meanwhile, uncontested proof that Zimmerman followed Trayvon and confronted him, both contrary to police instructions.

So yeah, Zimmerman initiated the encounter.

 

[TJ8869]

Proof that Zimmerman was in a fight. Strong indicators that he was losing.

Meanwhile, uncontested proof that Zimmerman followed Trayvon and confronted him, both contrary to police instructions.

So yeah, Zimmerman initiated the encounter.

Where is the uncontested proof that Zimmerman confronted him?

 

[BelemNole]

I remember the original incident prompted me to ditch HROT. I just couldn’t associate with the mental illness on display as folks defended this piece of human garbage. It isn’t healthy.

So when I saw this headline, I figured I would peek back and see if anything’s changed. Would HROT finally turned on this trigger happy pedophile wannabe rent-a-cop? Nope, not really.

Hey, anything to protect our "team". He's a "good guy with a gun", can't say anything bad about him.

 

[bladel]

Where is the uncontested proof that Zimmerman confronted him?

He got out of the car and went to where Martin was, or was last seen. With armed intent. How are you not getting this? Or are you defining “confront” as “threw the first punch?”

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Sweet baby Jesus. You win. I can’t come up with a scenario that’s more batshit crazy that that one. Not without claiming one of them had a jet pack or some shit.

Martin was a 17-year-old football player in excellent physical condition. He took off running while Zimmerman was still sitting in his truck talking to police dispatch and a full two minutes before Zimmerman hung up the call.

And you’re claiming fat-ass George could have leapt out of his truck and “easily” cut off Martin between the buildings, all while still talking to the police dispatcher.

Just...wow.

Zimmerman gets out of his truck as soon as he says, "He's running". Zimmerman is also running...you can hear the rush of air over the phone and Zimmerman's breathing - which, btw, contradicts Zimmerman's claim that he got out of his car to walk 300 feet to find an address to give the police...because he couldn't remember the name of the street he was on. Twin Trees. One of only three streets in the community he's tasked himself with watching.

As for the rest, how fast was Martin "running"? Did he continue to "run" after he rounded the corner of the building and was out of sight? Did he see Zimmerman get out of his truck and start running down Twin Trees and stop. The interesting thing is you take everything Zimmerman says as absolute truth even when he contradicts what he said earlier.

 

[BelemNole]

You guys understand that Martin was a young BLACK male right? That right there makes him the instigator!

 

[bladel]

You guys understand that Martin was a young BLACK male right? That right there makes him the instigator!

As a thought experiment, I always wonder how his defenders would react to Zimmerman running down and killing a young white girl.

Maybe she’s coming home from a kickboxing tournament and breaks his jaw. Or, if you can’t imagine a fight, then say she pepper sprays him. Perfectly understandable in her situation, given that a stranger just followed her home in his car, then jumped out to chase her.

Unfortunately it ends in the same way, with Zimmerman shooting and killing her. Did he “stand his ground”? If not, what‘s different, aside from Martin being a black male and Zimmerman on patrol for “thugs”.

 

[BelemNole]

As a thought experiment, I always wonder how his defenders would react to Zimmerman running down and killing a young white girl.

Maybe she’s coming home from a kickboxing tournament and breaks his jaw. Or, if you can’t imagine a fight, then say she pepper sprays him. Perfectly understandable in her situation, given that a stranger just followed her home in his car, then jumped out to chase her.

Unfortunately it ends in the same way, with Zimmerman shooting and killing her. Did he “stand his ground”? If not, what‘s different, aside from Martin being a black male and Zimmerman on patrol for “thugs”.

Ah see, then it's different. Then it's a poor white girl being attacked by a savage illegal.

 

[seminole97]

You guys understand that Martin was a young BLACK male right? That right there makes him the instigator!

If you asked Vegas for odds on who initiated physical violence, would you expect it to be even money?

“Mac Donald writes: "According to the study, there were 593,598 interracial violent victimizations (excluding homicide) between blacks and whites last year, including white-on-black and black-on-white attacks. Blacks committed 537,204 of those interracial felonies, or 90 percent, and whites committed 56,394 of them, or less than 10 percent.”

 

[BelemNole]

If you asked Vegas for odds on who initiated physical violence, would you expect it to be even money?

“Mac Donald writes: "According to the study, there were 593,598 interracial violent victimizations (excluding homicide) between blacks and whites last year, including white-on-black and black-on-white attacks. Blacks committed 537,204 of those interracial felonies, or 90 percent, and whites committed 56,394 of them, or less than 10 percent.”

lol, there we go. I wondered if it came down to "the black guy did it". You never fail to disappoint.

 

[seminole97]

lol, there we go. I wondered if it came down to "the black guy did it". You never fail to disappoint.

You didn’t answer the question.
Would you expect Vegas to offer even money odds on who initiated violence in this encounter?

 

[BelemNole]

You didn’t answer the question.
Would you expect Vegas to offer even money odds on who initiated violence in this encounter?

I wouldn't expect vegas to offer odds on a murder. But if they did, I'd expect them to lean towards the gun toting guy who told 911 he was chasing down the guy who who was on the phone with his girlfriend after buying some junk food.

 

[GOHOX69]

HROT has a number of racists. Alive and well on this thread I see. Losers.

 

[seminole97]

HROT has a number of racists. Alive and well on this thread I see. Losers.

Why do you think Walter Williams is a racist?

 

[bladel]

If you asked Vegas for odds on who initiated physical violence, would you expect it to be even money?

“Mac Donald writes: "According to the study, there were 593,598 interracial violent victimizations (excluding homicide) between blacks and whites last year, including white-on-black and black-on-white attacks. Blacks committed 537,204 of those interracial felonies, or 90 percent, and whites committed 56,394 of them, or less than 10 percent.”

"Black on white violence" is a dog whistle of the alt-right. The vast majority of violent crimes occur within the same racial group, but this is meant to portray blacks and hispanics as inherently violent.

Setting aside this nonsense, let's say Martin threw the first punch. So what? Some shady f*** just followed him home, got out of his car, and chased after him. Like my example of the young white girl with pepper spray, Martin took reasonable steps to protect himself from a threat. Zimmerman's response, was unreasonable.

And all of this pointless anyway, because let's be clear: Zimmerman initiated the fight when he got out of his car. Zimmerman wasn't a cop, and Martin wasn't on Zimmerman's property. Zimmerman had no cause or authority to seek any interaction with Martin. If he had waited for the police, or stayed home that night and drank a few beers and fell asleep on the couch watching TV, none of this would have happened. Everything, including Martin's death, was a direct consequence of Zimmerman's decisions.

 

[Nipigu]

The jury got it right in the criminal matter. I don’t think the civil case will go so well.

 

[seminole97]

The vast majority of violent crimes occur within the same racial group, but this is meant to portray blacks and hispanics as inherently violent.

I would agree completely with the first half of that comment.
But the statistic I provided merely shows interracial violence runs 9-1 blacks assaulting whites in absolute terms.
To support the second half of your argument you'd need to look at assault rates by race.
But I'd expect better correlations looking at the environment people are raised in. I think race is incidental to that (the environment), not determinative.

let's say Martin threw the first punch. So what?

What is the relevance of initiating violence?
Ultimately goes to whether or not someone's actions are construed as self defense.

Zimmerman initiated the fight when he got out of his car.

Going to disagree here. He isn't committing any harm to anyone stepping out of his vehicle. That's not a fight under any understanding. The idea that stepping out of a car in the situation described justifies someone violently attacking you in response seems absurd.
It's like you're trying to normalize road rage logic here.

Zimmerman had no cause or authority to seek any interaction with Martin.

So if I'm walking in my neighborhood, and see you in my neighborhood, and I approach you that gives you license to assault me?
That doesn't strike you as crazy talk?
On who's authority can I safely interact with you if I see you in my neighborhood?
Note from the mayor?

 

[TJ8869]

Setting aside this nonsense, let's say Martin threw the first punch. So what? Some shady f*** just followed him home, got out of his car, and chased after him. Like my example of the young white girl with pepper spray, Martin took reasonable steps to protect himself from a threat.

So if someone is looking at you suspiciously on a public sidewalk you can just beat the shit out of him with your fists? When did this become the law?

 

[bladel]

I would agree completely with the first half of that comment.
But the statistic I provided merely shows interracial violence runs 9-1 blacks assaulting whites in absolute terms.
To support the second half of your argument you'd need to look at assault rates by race.
But I'd expect better correlations looking at the environment people are raised in. I think race is incidental to that (the environment), not determinative.

I agree with your last sentence - crime (property or violent) is a function of socio-economic environment. And for reasons too broad to explore here (reconstruction, Jim Crow, and northern migration/white flight) these trends hit minority communities earlier and harder.

But for the 90%/10% state to be relevant at all, we have to be willing to give Zimmerman the benefit of every doubt, and assume the worst in Martin. That is implicit bias in action.

What is the relevance of initiating violence?
Ultimately goes to whether or not someone's actions are construed as self defense.

Folks in this thread are pointing to Zimmermans actions as self defense. That's exactly backwards. It was Martin who acted in self-defense. Someone followed him and then started chasing him, and given what we know about the neighborhood, Martin (correctly, it turns out) feared for his life.

Going to disagree here. He isn't committing any harm to anyone stepping out of his vehicle. That's not a fight under any understanding. The idea that stepping out of a car in the situation described justifies someone violently attacking you in response seems absurd.
It's like you're trying to normalize road rage logic here.

No, he didn't "step out of his vehicle." He followed Martin, then got out and pursued him. Both actions disregarding police instructions to de-escalate.

I notice that your dissection of my comment omits this part:
If he had waited for the police, or stayed home that night and drank a few beers and fell asleep on the couch watching TV, none of this would have happened. Everything, including Martin's death, was a direct consequence of Zimmerman's decisions.
Do you disagree with this?

But anyway, let's play out your road rage scenario: If you and I have a fender bender, and I hop out of my car and run over to you waving a gun, is there any doubt which party is escalating?

So if I'm walking in my neighborhood, and see you in my neighborhood, and I approach you that gives you license to assault me?
That doesn't strike you as crazy talk?
On who's authority can I safely interact with you if I see you in my neighborhood?
Note from the mayor?

"Approach"? Have you been following me in your car? Are you now running towards me? Do you not see how I'd feel threatened? Zimmerman saw Martin, believed he was acting suspiciously and (like he had over 50 times before) called the police. That should've been the end of it. Everything that followed, up to and including Martin's death, was a consequence of Zimmerman's actions & decisions.