Zimmerman Got Pounded "MMA" Style [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Zimmerman Got Pounded "MMA" Style


Alizard
05-17-2012, 18:39
According to the eyewitness, Martin had "mounted" Zimmerman's chest and was hammering blows down onto his head MMA style..... and there was no referee to stop Martin from killing him.

Witness said he went to call 911, heard a "pop", then saw the attacker on the ground.

I can't post quotes, so you'll have to read it yourself:

Witness Told Cops He Saw Trayvon Martin Straddling George Zimmerman And Punching Him "MMA Style"

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/trayvon-martin/martin-zimmerman-witness-758903

Gunnut 45/454
05-17-2012, 21:15
Clearly SELF DEFENSE!!! All the evidence points to it! Simple facts. Zimmerman had the right to be where he was, and Trayvon started the fight- he could have just kept going but decided to fight Zimmerman. None of the crap saying Zimmerman profiled means ****! I see all charges found not guilty. :supergrin:

juggy4711
05-17-2012, 21:35
If Zimmerman had a decent ground game he could have hip escaped and perhaps thrown on a triangle or something. No need for guns, just needed more time in the gym. :whistling:

Alizard
05-18-2012, 00:43
The more evidence they release, the more it supports Zimmerman's account of events.

Cavalry Doc
05-18-2012, 04:40
True, but it would be nice to know if there was a witness that saw who approached the other, and who initiated the fight.

If there were a witness that could say, I saw the tall guy in the hoodie approach the short guy from behind, didn't see any guns drawn, the tall guy grabbed the short guy, they only talked for a couple of seconds, and the tall guy just started wailing on the little guy.

That would pretty much convince me. That seems to be the story from team Zimmerman. And it is interesting that everything being released in the first week had this guy as a white nutcase racist that hunted down a 12 year old boy for walking through his neighborhood. But now that some real journalists have started to look at this, Zimmerman turns out to be a likable Hispanic gentleman, TM grew about 4 feet, led a troubled life, and isn't so likable.

The released evidence so far supports GZ's account of events.

I can't wait for holder to go after the guys threatening GZ's life.

hogship
05-18-2012, 05:26
It would be nice to know how the confrontation started, but except for Zimmerman's account, I doubt that will ever be known.

It would also be unreasonable (not impossible) to assume TM beat Z knowing he was armed.......so, it's highly doubtful the handgun played any part in the altercation, except for the final instant.

Even while speculating that Z did something to bring on an altercation, it's hard to imagine that anything he might have said, or did, negates defending himself against a lethal threat.......I think.

ooc

Alizard
05-18-2012, 12:34
But now that some real journalists have started to look at this, Zimmerman turns out to be a likable Hispanic gentleman, TM grew about 4 feet, led a troubled life, and isn't so likable.And Zimmerman is part black himself:


http://www.newsmax.com/US/zimmerman-trayvon-shooting-gun/2012/04/25/id/437099

Zimmerman Bought Gun for Pit Bull, Has Black Ancestors

ModGlock17
05-18-2012, 12:55
It would be nice to know how the confrontation started, but except for Zimmerman's account, I doubt that will ever be known.
...


Agree.

I would argue in court, as a response to special prosecutor's case, that

Zimmerman's alleged pursuit of Trayvon initially, as responsibility of a "confrontation" was given to Zimmerman, is irrelevant AT THE MOMENT Trayvon gained the upperhand and had the opportunity to walk away.

In other words, up until literally seconds before his demise, Trayvon had the power to WALK AWAY from a confrontation, but did not. Therefore, the responsibility of the confrontation can not be rested solely on Zimmerman.

countrygun
05-18-2012, 13:08
Agree.

I would argue in court, as a response to special prosecutor's case, that

Zimmerman's alleged pursuit of Trayvon initially, as responsibility of a "confrontation" was given to Zimmerman, is irrelevant AT THE MOMENT Trayvon gained the upperhand and had the opportunity to walk away.

In other words, up until literally seconds before his demise, Trayvon had the power to WALK AWAY from a confrontation, but did not. Therefore, the responsibility of the confrontation can not be rested solely on Zimmerman.

I will go further and say that Zimmermans statement on the recording "I don't know where he is" is credible as an "at the moment, un premeditated statement of fact" that being the case knowing where Zimmerman was in relation to where he told the 911 calltaker he was going to be to meet the officers would be interesting as well.

If any witness comes forth to confirm that Zimmerman was alone, even for a moment, and Martin returned and actually "confronted" Zimmerman, it is "game over, go to the locker room" for the prosecution.

Mr T
05-18-2012, 13:32
I still think he's going to get roasted. Unfortuanately. Cant have a justifiable self-defence go unpunished. Because the good of the many outweight the needs of the few. Dont want to have riots in the streets, like the King fiasco in LA.

Alizard
05-18-2012, 14:18
When he gets acquitted in state court the Feds will come in and bring civil rights charges, same as the King case. He will probably get convicted on those maybe not. Time will tell.

Alizard
05-18-2012, 14:20
If any witness comes forth to confirm that Zimmerman was alone, even for a moment, and Martin returned and actually "confronted" Zimmerman, it is "game over, go to the locker room" for the prosecution.But there is no witness on that, if there was they would have had to disclose it.

Gunnut 45/454
05-18-2012, 14:33
Alizard
Yep the closest we have is the guy who saw Trayvon going MMA on Zimmerman- game over justified Self defense. They actually got the GF saying that Trayvon went to look for Zimmerman. She heard him engaging Zimmerman. And as I always said - if he was so scared why didn't he call 911 to report Zimmerman. Like all thugs he decided he was going to go MMA instead!

countrygun
05-18-2012, 14:52
But there is no witness on that, if there was they would have had to disclose it.


See gunnuts post (above)

Besides, no, they wouldn't have "Had" to disclose it in public yet.


Have you seen how much was "redacted" in the printed records released recently?

Alizard
05-18-2012, 15:21
See gunnuts post (above)

Besides, no, they wouldn't have "Had" to disclose it in public yet.


Have you seen how much was "redacted" in the printed records released recently?I didn't say they would have had to disclose it to the public. They would have had to disclose it to the defense.

countrygun
05-18-2012, 16:22
I didn't say they would have had to disclose it to the public. They would have had to disclose it to the defense.


Well then how could you say


"But there is no witness on that,"

If as you agree, they do not have to release it to the public, how could you know there is no witness????

Bruce H
05-18-2012, 16:27
Buy the time this gets to trial the fall elections will be over. Depending on who prevails what the justice dept. does.

Alizard
05-18-2012, 16:31
Well then how could you say


"But there is no witness on that,"

If as you agree, they do not have to release it to the public, how could you know there is no witness????The prosecution would heve to release it to the defense on discovery. If there was a witness supporting Zimm's claim that Martin accosted him, the defense would have released that information.

Alizard
05-18-2012, 16:32
Buy the time this gets to trial the fall elections will be over. Depending on who prevails what the justice dept. does.Not sure about that timing. The trial could be a lot sooner than you think. The prosecution will be pushing to get it started while the heat is still up.

Little Joe
05-18-2012, 16:37
Let's say Zimmerman doesn't shoot and kill Martin that night. Martin finishes caving in Zs head. Does anybody really think the police are going to justify his actions because someone was following and watching him from a distance? That is preposterous.

writwing
05-18-2012, 21:32
It would be nice to know how the confrontation started, but except for Zimmerman's account, I doubt that will ever be known.



That leaves us to judge the players by the life they lead. Looks like our parents were right when they told us to dress and act respectfully and to avoid trouble.

QNman
05-18-2012, 21:43
True, but it would be nice to know if there was a witness that saw who approached the other, and who initiated the fight.

If there were a witness that could say, I saw the tall guy in the hoodie approach the short guy from behind, didn't see any guns drawn, the tall guy grabbed the short guy, they only talked for a couple of seconds, and the tall guy just started wailing on the little guy.

That would pretty much convince me. That seems to be the story from team Zimmerman. And it is interesting that everything being released in the first week had this guy as a white nutcase racist that hunted down a 12 year old boy for walking through his neighborhood. But now that some real journalists have started to look at this, Zimmerman turns out to be a likable Hispanic gentleman, TM grew about 4 feet, led a troubled life, and isn't so likable.

The released evidence so far supports GZ's account of events.

I can't wait for holder to go after the guys threatening GZ's life.

Is Horatio Cane on the case yet? There's bound to be some sliver that proves it all beyond a shadow of a doubt. Should only take about an hour...

:cool:

QNman
05-18-2012, 21:46
But there is no witness on that, if there was they would have had to disclose it.

Yes, they would... But not to the news media. Only pretrial and only to each party in the case. If I had that little nugget as Z, I think I'd play that one close to the vest.

QNman
05-18-2012, 21:47
I didn't say they would have had to disclose it to the public. They would have had to disclose it to the defense.

... Or to the prosecutor, depending upon who's witness it was.

QNman
05-18-2012, 21:48
The prosecution would heve to release it to the defense on discovery. If there was a witness supporting Zimm's claim that Martin accosted him, the defense would have released that information.

Why? I wouldn't until I had to.

Paul7
05-18-2012, 21:48
We should give Zimmerman a medal, not persecute him.

QNman
05-18-2012, 21:49
We should give Zimmerman a medal, not persecute him.

No... We should give him the benefit of the doubt and a fair trial of a jury of his peers. It's the American way.

Sendarr
05-18-2012, 22:02
Funny part is if Z hadn't have shot him, M would probably have killed him and none of us would ever know their names or know anything about this....wait that's not so funny after all.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

vikingsoftpaw
05-18-2012, 22:22
"MMA Style" - Police-speak for the reason we shot your ***.

Fed Five Oh
05-19-2012, 06:26
No... We should give him the benefit of the doubt and a fair trial of a jury of his peers. It's the American way.No... No trial should take place. Charges should be dropped. Don't have to stand trial if there is no probable cause. It's the American way.

QNman
05-19-2012, 07:12
No... No trial should take place. Charges should be dropped. Don't have to stand trial if there is no probable cause. It's the American way.

Fair enough. But it is unlikely we are privy to all the evidence.

Is Z being railroaded? Evidence is beginning to look like that is a possibility - at least the evidence released for public consumption, and grandized by the media.

However, I think we are not quite into "medal" territory as previously suggested.

bear62
05-19-2012, 07:17
No... No trial should take place. Charges should be dropped. Don't have to stand trial if there is no probable cause. It's the American way.

The evidence (so far) suggests that charges should be dropped. But please don't pin any medals on GZ for lacking good old fashion common sense.......

Cavalry Doc
05-19-2012, 08:49
No... No trial should take place. Charges should be dropped. Don't have to stand trial if there is no probable cause. It's the American way.

Lawsuits galore if he is vindicated. Going after the prosecutor probably would not work, but NBC, abc, black panthers, spike lee, and a lot of deep pockets are out there.

hogship
05-19-2012, 09:41
The evidence (so far) suggests that charges should be dropped. But please don't pin any medals on GZ for lacking good old fashion common sense.......

Drop charges?

Ain't gonna happen........there will be a trial. There has to be a trial, because too many people are emotionally invested in the outcome, no matter which way it goes.

I can't guarantee it will, or won't be a fair trial, but the trial will happen. The Zimmerman trial may revolve around social issues.......or justice. It's too bad this particular trial is a reflection of our times, and demonstrates racism is still alive and well in America. (OJ Simpson comes to mind......whereas many people feel his trial was heavily influenced by social issues, rather than justice.)

No matter what the verdict is, there is going to be lots of disappointment. It's not unreasonable to speculate the final verdict will lead to venting of racist hatred, no matter if Z is convicted, or acquitted.........I predict the outcome will precede more racism, and possibly violence, either way.

This is not good for America.........but, at some point, we need to pull together and end this eternal racial divide.....and understand that we are in this together. Let's deal with it, because ignoring the problem is obviously weakening our America.

ooc

rhikdavis
05-19-2012, 09:57
Why not move the trial to Los Angeles. With any luck at all they will burn down Hollyweird.

MMA < 9MM

ModGlock17
05-19-2012, 10:36
Funny part is if Z hadn't have shot him, M would probably have killed him and none of us would ever know their names or know anything about this....wait that's not so funny after all.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

yes.

The ironic part is if Z had been black, none of us would ever know their names.

Alizard
05-19-2012, 15:00
The evidence (so far) suggests that charges should be dropped. But please don't pin any medals on GZ for lacking good old fashion common sense.......I said all along he's a bozo whose bad judgement put him into a dangerous situation. People who carry guns should use better sense. I think his stupidity contributed to a human death and he might very well be guilty of some degree of manslaughter, at least in most states. He's definitely not a hero. He's also not a murderer as he is being charged.

hogship
05-19-2012, 15:57
I said all along he's a bozo whose bad judgement put him into a dangerous situation. People who carry guns should use better sense. I think his stupidity contributed to a human death and he might very well be guilty of some degree of manslaughter, at least in most states. He's definitely not a hero. He's also not a murderer as he is being charged.

Your choice of names to call suggests you've already passed judgement on Z.

At this point, I'm not sure about anything, but it does look like there are those who want to crucify Z in the public discourse.

From what we do know, we could very easily conclude that Z only intended to maintain awareness of TM's location until police arrived, and was seen by TM......and, it was TM who initiated the confrontation.

As far as the 911 operator's instructions to not follow TM.......those instructions are standard things to say to cover police liability. The operator wasn't there, so the advice was the best that could be given and cover all the that could go wrong........not what could go right! Get that point? To give you an example, what would you do if you saw a rape in progress, and the 911 operator instructed you to not get involved in any way......????? Nothing, you say?

OK, true, the circumstances leading up to TM's death may have not been that extreme, but the point is that the instructions Z got from the 911 operator are suggestions, and not a lawful order in any way.......after all, Z was there, and the 911 operator was not. If Z was only attempting to maintain awareness of TM's location and nothing more.......off hand, that seems like a reasonable thing to do by a neighborhood watch person........would it not?

ooc

countrygun
05-19-2012, 16:14
I said all along he's a bozo whose bad judgement put him into a dangerous situation. People who carry guns should use better sense. I think his stupidity contributed to a human death and he might very well be guilty of some degree of manslaughter, at least in most states. He's definitely not a hero. He's also not a murderer as he is being charged.


You are kidding, right?

At this point what we know is that everything he was doing was completely legal, it appears that he was seriously illegally assaulted and he defended himself.

Don't put what you think is "bad" judgement (debatable) on the same level as "criminal assault". You may not like Zimmermans choices but your opinion doesn't make them a crime. 'criminal assault" is a real definition of "bad judgement"

Little Joe
05-19-2012, 16:38
From a common sense perspective, I think the first one that went violent has the most culpability.

ModGlock17
05-19-2012, 16:45
I said all along he's a bozo whose bad judgement put him into a dangerous situation. People who carry guns should use better sense. I think his stupidity contributed to a human death and he might very well be guilty of some degree of manslaughter, at least in most states. He's definitely not a hero. He's also not a murderer as he is being charged.

LOL

It's not illegal to have made bad judgment. More than half the marriages are that way.

Alizard
05-19-2012, 21:10
Your choice of names to call suggests you've already passed judgement on Z.

At this point, I'm not sure about anything,My words indicate I have formed an opinion about his actions that night.

What we are sure of is he stuck a gun in his pocket and went out wandering around by himself putting himself in a dangerous situation without any backup. That's stupid. CCW + stupidity = BOZO.

Alizard
05-19-2012, 21:14
LOL

It's not illegal to have made bad judgment. More than half the marriages are that way. It's illegal to act negligently if it reults in loss of life. Read what I wrote:

I think his stupidity contributed to a human death and he might very well be guilty of some degree of manslaughter, at least in most states

Here's why I wrote it:

MANSLAUGHTER

The unlawful killing of a human being without malice or premeditation. The cases of manslaughter may be classed as follows those which take place in consequence of: 1. Provocation. 2. Mutual combat

Alizard
05-19-2012, 21:15
From a common sense perspective, I think the first one that went violent has the most culpability.No question about it. Problem is there's no direct evidence to show who that was.

Alizard
05-19-2012, 21:19
You are kidding, right?

At this point what we know is that everything he was doing was completely legal, it appears that he was seriously illegally assaulted and he defended himself.

Don't put what you think is "bad" judgement (debatable) on the same level as "criminal assault". You may not like Zimmermans choices but your opinion doesn't make them a crime. 'criminal assault" is a real definition of "bad judgement"What makes them a probable crime (in most states) is the legal definition of manslaughter. No question: in most states he would be guilty. Not sure about Florida, they are very "gun friendly" in both carry and self defense laws.

I never said bad judgement was the same as criminal assault: I said this:

I think his stupidity contributed to a human death and he might very well be guilty of some degree of manslaughter, at least in most states.

I think his poor judgement hurts us because he is the poster boy for what can go wrong if you give stupid people carry permits.

Alizard
05-19-2012, 21:23
OK, true, the circumstances leading up to TM's death may have not been that extreme, but the point is that the instructions Z got from the 911 operator are suggestions, and not a lawful order in any way.......after all, Z was there, and the 911 operator was not. If Z was only attempting to maintain awareness of TM's location and nothing more.......off hand, that seems like a reasonable thing to do by a neighborhood watch person........would it not?

oocNO

My opinion is that for any private citizen without backup to pack a gun and wander around in an area which has frequent crime is stupid.

The reason is as was shown here: it can instantly turn into a life-and-death struggle for a gun where somebody is going to die.

IMHO, the only thing neighborhood watch people should be armed with are flashlights and telephones and they should be in groups not alone.

countrygun
05-19-2012, 21:25
My words indicate I have formed an opinion about his actions that night.

What we are sure of is he stuck a gun in his pocket and went out wandering around by himself putting himself in a dangerous situation without any backup. That's stupid. CCW + stupidity = BOZO.

So people who carry in case they are attacked should have "back up"???

I would say that having a phone in your hand and not calling the cops if you think you are being followed is stupid, and we have an example to prove it.

ModGlock17
05-19-2012, 23:38
It's illegal to act negligently if it reults in loss of life.

You're confused. "Acting negligently" in not illegal and never a crime. It only opens you up to CIVIL LIABILITY which can cost you a lot of dough.

FL Statute Title XLV Chapter 768 talks about Negligence. Title XLV is TORTS chapter. This is about whether you are liable or not.

Murder belongs to CRIME section of FL Statute, Title XLVI, an entirely different thing than Torts. Unjustified use of force resulting in death can cost you jail and lethal injection on a gurney. This is about whether you are guilty or not.

Z may be negligent in leaving the confines of his vehicle, but it is not a crime for him to do so. It may have been illegal for LE to detain him in his vehicle on the basis of his 911 call.

As for the discharge of the Keltec PF9 that left a hole in Trayvon, Z's legal team cites FL Statute Title XLVI Chapter 776 section 012:
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 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/STATUTES/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html) (home invasion).

They also cite section 032 of the same chapter:
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/STATUTES/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.012.html), s. 776.013 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/STATUTES/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html), or s. 776.031 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/STATUTES/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.031.html) is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10 (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/STATUTES/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0900-0999/0943/Sections/0943.10.html)(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

Berto
05-20-2012, 00:20
No question about it. Problem is there's no direct evidence to show who that was.

That is the big one.
IMO, Z didn't help his situation, but I'd love to be wrong.
If TM initiated the fight, Z should defend himself with whatever means....but if Z initiated the fight and shot his way out of it, it's completely different.
We still don't know anything until this is determined.

Berto
05-20-2012, 00:26
NO

My opinion is that for any private citizen without backup to pack a gun and wander around in an area which has frequent crime is stupid.

The reason is as was shown here: it can instantly turn into a life-and-death struggle for a gun where somebody is going to die.

IMHO, the only thing neighborhood watch people should be armed with are flashlights and telephones and they should be in groups not alone.

You could apply this to anything. Anyone who is a victim of a crime is 'stupid' for being there.

The issue isn't about where or when it's 'stupid' to be armed, it's about use of force and when it is appropriate.

Cavalry Doc
05-20-2012, 05:16
No question about it. Problem is there's no direct evidence to show who that was.

Innocent until proven guilty still applies. Absent an amount of evidence that concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman broke the law, he should be found not guilty.

We'll probably have to wait for all the evidence available to be made public before we know for sure, if we ever know for sure.

Cavalry Doc
05-20-2012, 05:21
NO

My opinion is that for any private citizen without backup to pack a gun and wander around in an area which has frequent crime is stupid.

The reason is as was shown here: it can instantly turn into a life-and-death struggle for a gun where somebody is going to die.

IMHO, the only thing neighborhood watch people should be armed with are flashlights and telephones and they should be in groups not alone.


Can I ask whether or not you carry a gun? Most of us that do, at least have some training on when you can and cannot use deadly force. You seem to have added a few criteria that I am completely unfamiliar with.

Where did you get the idea that they were fighting for the gun?