"Arbitrarily assigned a badge?" Gee, r, I hope you don't think that's how policemen get their jobs. Just seemed an odd comment, or way to phrase it. And, no, one does not need a badge to defend oneself. And if one is a teen carrying Skittles with a hood over the head because of rain, that doesn't mean one loses his right to defend himself.Well...two things;
One does not need to be arbitrarily assigned a shiny metal badge to be lawfully allowed to defend ones self with violence.
Secondly, to our knowledge, all Zimmerman was doing was 'watching'. He couldn't well watch the suspicious person without staying in tow. Misguided, maybe. Dangerous, certainly. However not a crime nor reasonably menacing in any way.
If I were Trayvon and I realized some guy with a phone to his ear was tailing me through a dark neighborhood at night, I would most likely assume the guy thought I was up to no good. It seems a bit paranoid to assume the person was "Stalking" me or otherwise meant me harm simply through such action as Zimmerman purportedly was doing.
What we don't know here, and may never know especially when it comes to Trayvon, is how much of this is "defending oneself," and how much a cock fight/attitude/approaching too aggressively/assuming shit one shouldn't assume: especially this. What you did have was a potential (obviously) violent situation that tipped into violence.
If I were Trayvon I wouldn't assume that at all. In fact he might have thought it was an abduction situation, or even gang related/skinhead-like. For all the angst about a stupid coat he wore that any idiot can buy at Wally world, George being Hispanic and bald I might wonder if this were gang or abduction. Once again we're assuming Trayvon knew everything was on the up and up and he just turned into some raving asshole. BOTH could have questioned the whole situation in ways deemed worthy of self defense: stand their ground, if you wish.
No, I would assume what you assume at all if I had been Trayvon.
And we're also assuming George identified who he was, what he wanted, what the situation really was and Trayvon found anything he said believable at all. This is the strawman both sides set up: framing arguments as if Trayvon was a pure innocent who didn't overreact, or George was on the up and up in all he said and did. Both framings are bogus, though I'm sure if you asked George he'd say something like that. I would too at this point.
So Trayvon's black eyes and such don't count, but George's wounds do? Hmm... seems a bit skewed. Seems more like mutual battery to me. Here again we are assuming all George did was defend himself: nothing else. I'm sure that will be the stance of the defense. Pursuing and confronting does seem to suggest otherwise. Again: if I found out this was a confrontation that both escalated I wouldn't be surprised. But one innocent of any of that? Eh, to be polite: not so much. More like: HELL, NO!The felony would be aggravated battery. The use of a sidewalk as a weapon, as it were, aggravates the beating into something more than mere fisticuffs. Not relenting as George called for help, as witness #6 originally stated he observed, makes this situation viable for the violent recourse that George selected.
Speaking of "perception"; Much of the defense I've heard for Trayon's unrelenting beating was based on exactly that standpoint, one of perception.....or rather, how Trayvon perceived a person following him.
And again: seems more a case of mutual beating. As far as explanations for what may have followed, if Trayvon was the main aggressor: depends upon how he was approached, attitude and what he was told by Zimmerman. There's a lot of difference between calmly, yet firmly, saying who you are, what you want in a reasonable manner and, "Hey der nigger, whatcha doin in my hood?" Not claiming either was the approach. In fact, my guess, somewhere between. But "these (whatever) always get away" suggests he may not have gone into the mess with the best of approaches and attitudes.
Having typed that: the prosecution has a tough road here, especially since she keeps screwing up: intentionally... or not.
I think you meant to type "the unrelenting beating of George."
Note: do you have proof "unrelenting?" And proof George wasn't unrelenting in responding back, if it was him that cried out for help?
(Your witness, BTW, is unreliable. I'm guessing the initial perception was skewed by defense of community the witness cares for and assuming George did everything right, the second by public angst. Both skews such and make it all unreliable: as a judge I'd agree to have it tossed out... like most of the witness stuff I've heard.)
I would never claim "he got what he deserved." How can you so readily dismiss that Trayvon probably did feel threatened? Over reacted? Maybe. More likely both. The use of Skittles and the drink points to the fact he, as far as we know, wasn't some thug or punk out to cause trouble or rob houses. No, he was just some teen heading back from the store. Both sides are using emotional appeals, mostly because this is being tried on the national stage... unfortunately for both families.I really don't get the incessant mention of "skittles"? What selection of candy snacks that Trayvon had was inconsequential to the matter.
I really see the situation as a 'this-or-that' variety. It's black and white to me (<<pun?). Either George followed Trayvon to a point and menaced him or Trayvon jumped George as Zimmerman returned to his vehicle.
One scenario says George is guilty of manslaughter. The other says that Trayvon is guilty of felony assault and he got what he deserved.
If one side portrays George as some innocent being assaulted by a maniac, there's no surprise framing is going on on the other side. The Skittles paints a sympathetic picture, just like the raving, hooded, beat down rhetoric image paints a more horrible image. That's what sides tend to do in these situations.
Frankly the jumping someone on the way back to their vehicle doesn't strike me as likely. If Trayvon had a history of such violence I might be more amenable to the idea, and George does have a history of overreacting in violent ways... Trayvon more being a typical teen who smoked a little pot and could be occasionally a bit snotty. Not a good combination: a teen expressing their independence in front of most adults: sometimes in over the top ways (like I'm sure 99.9% do) and a guy who felt compelled to pursue and with the "they always get away" attitude.