7 votes

Zimmerman vs Trayvon: Unspoken Realities of Lethal Encounters & Self-Defense; Someone DID Die, from Similar Injuries...in TX!

'Trayvon Martin' lived to tell the tale, but 'George Zimmerman' died that day, in TX.

The following isn't about the specifics in the GZ vs. TM court case.

This is, however, about another 'George Zimmerman' that you most likely have never heard about, that occurred almost exactly seven months AFTER the Trayvon Martin shooting incident.

An El Paso, TX cop and a USMC Iraq/AfPak veteran Jonathan Molina observed teens 'keying' the side of his car, drove to the teens' location to confront them about vandalism, out of uniform, but to still function in 'official capacity' as a cop. Then, counter to his military and tactical OODA-Loop situational-awareness training involving possible multiple assailants, he was clocked cold from the side by a 17yo teen (like Trayvon), one Juan Antonio Gonzalez, and went down hard.

The teen then mounted the cop (like Trayvon), started to pummel Molina's head and proceeded to 'ground and pound' him off the concrete (like Trayvon), KO-ing him unconscious (UNLIKE Trayvon): just NINE days after falling into coma from the concussive injuries and skull fractures, the cop and veteran Marine died.

Guess one of the two Latinos MUST have been a "racist cracker!" right, MSDNC?? Madcow? O'Dunno? MF Harris-Perry? Hayes? Uygur? Anyone??

No Skittles. No AZ Iced Tea. No Kel-Tec PF9.

The 'deadly weapon'?

Just fists, from an angry UNARMED teen, and an innocent man dying for cardoor paint scratch nothing, from them.

2012: Teen accused in El Paso police officer's death charged with capital murder (updated with mug shot)


Meet Juan Antonio Gonzalez: 'The Other 17yo Trayvon Martin,' whom MSDNC never heard of, who lived to tell the Tale, but after 'concreting' the 'Other Zimmerman' to death, is now looking forward to serve out a life term in prison. PHOTO: El Paso Police Department

By Adriana M. Chávez / El Paso Times
Posted: 10/25/2012 10:44:27 AM MDT

According to complaint affidavits filed by homicide detectives, Molina saw a young man use a key to scratch his silver Pontiac Grand Prix in the early evening of Sept. 25 as the teens were walking on a sidewalk on Trowbridge Drive.

Molina got into his car, drove to where the teenagers were and parked at the curb in the 4100 block of Trowbridge Drive to confront the boys about the vandalism. The affidavits state Molina identified himself as a police officer and was acting in his capacity as a police officer even though he was not in uniform. Sometime during the confrontation, Molina asked a bystander to call 911.

While Molina was talking, Gonzalez "struck the victim on the face and then grabbed his legs and threw him to the concrete. (Gonzalez) then got on top of the victim and continued to punch him in the face," the document states.

Police said that Molina was knocked unconscious when his head hit the ground, and that Gonzalez continued the assault despite Molina's being unable to defend himself. Gonzalez ran off when witnesses went to help Molina, who was taken by ambulance to a hospital in critical condition.

H/T: WeaponsMan.com: When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have concrete sidewalks

These are the realities of human on human violent encounters that 99% of the loudmouths in public who've never gotten into a fistfight, let alone a kinderkarten slapfast, who have absolutely zero ideas about, and yet, like in every aspect of the Second Amendment 'debate,' they 'know everything.'

These lunatic hoplophobes literally parrot everything they 'learned' about fighting, gunfights/lethal encounters/self-defense, and gunowners, all from the comfort of their social clique cubicles, simply by watching TV, Films, and the MSM 'news.' And yet, apparently, 'we' are the "crazy" ones.

Get trained, folks: be it guns, knives, or a Tomahawk, or martial arts/combatives, or whatever; while never a guarantee, it gives you the confidence to enact on the numerical ratio of superior fighting chances, instead of becoming a statistic.

A good 'clearing' house of real-life combat analyses info: http://www.activeresponsetraining.net/

=================================================================

UPDATE 1: WTF is it with angry 17year olds??

Here's another case: Roderick Scott (who happens to be black), irrefutably a big dude, the size of an NFL linebacker vs. another 17yo skinny teen assailant half the size, Christopher Cervini (who happens to be white).

No 'white uproar' even though the defendant shot an unarmed white teen to death.

No Skittles.

Just an angry teen armed only with his fists, again.

Rightfully so: the jury of Roderick Scott's peers found him "Not Guilty!" And, to be ENTIRELY in his right to defend himself against an assailant, even if the assailant was an UNARMED 17yo teen, who happened to be white, who was caught burglarizing Scott's private property, yet still had the gall to attack the rightful property owner, after being caught.

Where's MSDNC??

Rightie-o: Inconvenient Reality and all...

The Black George Zimmerman the Media Doesn’t Want You to Know About

LastResistance.com

Originally posted: July 22, 2013
Updated: July 24, 2013
by Onan Coca

Did you notice during the George Zimmerman trial how the media kept repeating the salacious question “What if Trayvon Martin had been white?” They acted as if this question was the perfect response to Zimmerman defenders. They pretended that this was a question without a “safe” answer, but in reality, the question had already been answered.


Roderick Scott, the INNOCENT man, who happens to be black, who had to live through the unfortunate reality of having lawfully, lethally-defended himself against another angry teen, who happened to be white. PHOTO: Uncredited

In April of 2009 Mr. Roderick Scott awoke at 3am to the sounds of three young men breaking into cars on his street. He called the police and went down to the street to make sure the young men did not flee before the police arrived. He shouted at the three to “freeze” and told them that the police were coming soon. The three boys stood before the big man obviously considering what they should do.

That’s when Christopher Cervini (17) rushed at Mr. Scott uttering “I’ll get you” or “I’ll get him.” Roderick Scott fired twice, killing the teenager. The trial that followed was again a case of prosecutorial overreach, as they tried to charge Mr. Scott with manslaughter. Fortunately for Mr. Scott, a jury of his peers agreed with him that he did only what was needed to protect himself.

Afterwards the prosecutor opined, “I just hope it’s not a message to this community… that you have the right to shoot an unarmed 17-year-old kid for breaking into a car.” The problem is that Mr. Scott did not shoot young Christopher Cervini for breaking into his car, but for attacking him. While the Cervini family may now be in much pain over the loss of their son, he brought himself to his tragic end through a series of terrible choices. Roderick Scott had every right to protect himself; he did what he should have… and a jury of his peers agreed.

Oh, and Roderick Scott was a 42 year old black man about the size of an NFL linebacker. Christopher Cervini was a skinny, 17 year old white kid with a little bit of marijuana in his system. Scott was justified in the killing of the younger man not because of the crime that Cervini had committed, but because Scott rightfully feared for his own safety.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Sorry, but from the facts

Sorry, but from the facts that you have presented, (not too sure if it is the whole story), but i might have convicted Scott. Granted, unlike Zimmerman, he did not follow the kid, profile him, or instigate in any way, but he should have been able to manage the situation better. I mean, he could easily have knocked the kid out. Gun ownership means using the weapon as a last possible result. At the very least, he should have brandished it to make the kids back off.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

I agree Dr. No

No citizen has the right to defend themselves .. You are a slave to the state, the state should have to protect you. I mean you should stay home and be afraid .. I mean never yell at someone, or follow them, call them names or even look at them funny, because then you deserve to get beat down right Dr. No .. I mean you could possibly stop a rape , a crime .. but thats not the citizens job, stay home citizen and live in fear .. fear of following someone, fear of telling someone he is doing something wrong, i mean you see someone littering don't yell at the guy, cuz yelling is instigation and you citizen deserve to get beat. You Right on Dr. No

First of all, I presented nothing.

Nor, did I personally proffer any particular facts of my own origin, but merely blurbed about an article referring to the case stating a few particulars of the case.

Sorry, but from the facts that you have presented, (not too sure if it is the whole story), but i might have convicted Scott. Granted, unlike Zimmerman, he did not follow the kid, profile him, or instigate in any way, but he should have been able to manage the situation better.

I'd have to look into the court proceedings to answer your question, more accurately.

That said, so...you yourself admit you are "not too sure if it is the whole story," but you "might have convicted Scott", anyway?

Et was??

I sure wouldn't want you in the jury, IF I were ever to be involved in a lawful lethal defense case! LOL.

Talk about an a-priori assumption, though.

You've just demonstrated pretty much the public sentiment of those who are demonstrating on behalf of Trayvon, without actually having followed the case, nor reviewed the facts as presented by both sides (as biased as it maybe, if we are to strictly speak from whether one would convict defendant X or not within the status-quo judicial paradigm), not to mention familiarity with current laws (the injustice and insanity of the ever-fraudulent, currently 'enforced' 'judicial' system aside, seeing as we're talking about court outcomes).

But don't fret, none of us are immune; I must say I briefly fell into it, at the beginning of the Trayvon Martin case, EVEN when I know better than to trust ANYTHING spouted in the MSM:
http://www.dailypaul.com/222790#comment-2344441
http://www.dailypaul.com/222790#comment-2340118

Still, in my defense:

And as far as this case goes, from "all publicly available info so far" it seems to point in the direction of Zimmerman as the guilty party.

But, of course it's all subject to change, whenever and whatever it is that the investigation will reveal.

Initially, while even then, based on what was publicly available at the early part as the case story was evolving on both defendant & the State's side, strictly based on that, I too thought Zimmerman was guilty...and certainly, imprudent to have been trailing Trayvon (as one claim asserts), but I think I was more wrong in my early ASSupmption, period: now, seeing as how the evidence from the court proceedings make it undoubtedly clear that Zimmerman was being pummeled into concrete with a broken nose and about to get knocked out...with a gun on him (always the paradox w/armed gunnies: the fact you're carrying introduces the possibility that it can be used against you by an assailant, should he/she disarm you, so you're put in a position to consider lethal options against an unarmed assailant. Regardless, makes it doubly important that you DON'T get knocked out unconscious), he had every right to defend himself, once Trayvon started ground N' pounding him.

I will now, eat some crow, like this Slate.com scribe: http://www.dailypaul.com/292920/slatecom-liberal-admits-hes-...

LOL...er.. .o(

That said:

At the very least, he should have brandished it to make the kids back off.

Well, what would you exactly call 'holding someone at gunpoint until cops arrive' means? That IS 'brandishing.' No?

If you were Scott, you dialed 911, communicating the fact that you were intending to let cops simply arrest the burglars, and you would not escalate the situation beyond what has already transpired: that demonstrates clear willingness to let the situation take a lawful course, to the jury.

Besides, multiple burglars/home invaders should ALWAYS be considered assailants: if they are bold enough to break into a stranger's home in America, where statistically, you're almost certain to face an armed homeowner, a large percentage of the the time, statistically speaking, yet STILL did so? You better believe they are equally willing to attack you to get what they want.

Worse, continuing with you as 'if you were Roderick Scott'-scenario arguendo: you've already displayed (aka brandished) your gun as to communicate that you are willing to defend yourself against them. Yet, they STILL attacked you!

I'd say bold and fearless burglars/home(private property)-invaders/assailants indeed.

So, they've already displayed wanton disregard for their own safety by burglarizing your home; all criminals in this country know that your home maybe occupied by an armed homeowner. It is America afterall. Yet, even AFTER you've displayed your willingness to use it, they charged at you. Two of them flanking to your side, TOWARD you, which can only mean that they're fearless enough to sneak up on a clearly armed man, indicating, their intent to disarm you; you don't flank someone to run away!

http://rochester.ynn.com/content/top_stories/490556/roderick...

So you're telling me, if you were Scott, assuming the facts as presented in the case were true (that's all we can go by: evidence, and whether each side's 'story' matches up) against multiple assailants who've already demonstrated that they were fearless enough to break into another man's property in the early morning, and even after you've clearly demonstrated your willingness to defend yourself against them lethally, even while waiting on cops, and they still charged at you...and you still think you could've "knocked the kid out"??

Do you have 100% certainty, as to what the assailant's two other friends would've done, once one of them initiated an attack against you?

Nope.

It's called force disparity.

Scott maybe big, but it was still 3 to 1. Hey, there are even 160lbs Navy SEALs.

Size don't mean shiite in a real life combat: just willpower, be it good or evil.

Also, just because Scott was built like a NFL linebacker does not mean a man's physically aggressive or martially talented enough to subdue all three assailants, nor say even IF he were, he could've easily not been physically 100% (could've been fatigued/psychologically drained due to the argument he had with his girlfriend, as stated in the article), etc.

Plus, you have NO idea whether the assailants were armed with knives, guns, or not.

If someone breaks into your property, at middle of the night, it's prudent to assume that they're armed, not alone, desperate, and under the influence of something, until you can systematically rule every one of those, out.

Even if you're a gunowner, but have not looked into the realities of real-life lethal encounters (you could be a combat vet, yet what you may find in a home invasion in your civilian life, without your usual battalion backup, air and/or ground cover, communication equipment, NV, rest of your platoon, other protective loadout, is wholly different than what you may have faced in the war 'theater'; most combat vets I spoke to who actually have had the unfortunate reality of becoming an armed robbery victim back home, easily testified to such vast differences), I'd highly recommend you look a little deeper into publicly available data, real CCTV video footages of armed encounters. Recognize how fast they happen, how brisk they last, how easily you can miss what one hand is hiding, how quickly someone can or cannot deploy a weapon, etc.

=================================================================

By NO MEANS do I ever claim, or pretend, or would EVER arrogantly proclaim that I'm some super duper tactical or legal master in the realm of self-defense; no siree, I know what I know, and I don't know plenty. I just picked up a few along the way, 'tis all. If some of those help, make you consider things differently? Great! If you disagree, even MORE, after reading or watching it and reconsidering those rebuttals or points? Great!

I leave it all up to you to consider what is or is not relevant to you.

That said, if you're interested in gauging self-defense with a different lens, please consider checking out a few points listed in the following two posts. Thanks:

http://www.dailypaul.com/292669/one-good-guy-1-three-armed-t...

Realities of Dynamic, Lethal, Critical Incidents

Submitted by AnCapMercenary on Tue, 04/30/2013 - 14:00. Permalink

beyond the Constitutionality, 'how many bullets do you NEED? you don't NEED an AR! you're NOT gonna fend off Tyranny when we have drones!'-blah blah blah, one core reality missing?

A real 'sensible adult conversation' on the factual nature of armed encounters.

1. ALL attacks are ambushes, when you're the good guy minding your own business, and someone decides to assault you

2. MOST attacks involve more than one assailants

3. NO ONE is gonna be flying back 50yds from being hit by a round of .22LR, or .380ACP shot out of James Bond's Walther PPK

4. ONLY in TV/films does the bad guy die with a single shot, all the time

5. The number of ammo it takes to stop a threat can range from ZERO (lawful brandishing to PREVENT the situation from even escalating, sometimes), to one good shot placement, to 25rd+/-. There have been documented case of an assailant who was not on ANY narcotics, or even alcohol, who were shot 14+ times with .40S&W and still continued to attack.

6. Just because the assailant is shot does not mean he cannot swing his knife or pull the trigger on his weapon, sometimes even when shot in the head, or the heart, even as he is bleeding out to death.

7. You WANT Jacketed Hollow Points for your defensive ammo because you don't want the bullets penetrating innocent bystanders.

8. You have no idea how you would respond to a real deadly threat, unless you've been in one. Even if you're LE or Mil, no amount of training will guarantee how you'll respond when you're engaged in real life and death combat, but great training sure increases your survivability.

9. NO trained gunowner deludes simply having a gun will guarantee you'll beat the badguy, but it means guaranteeing a CHANCE to defeat the assailant. Without arms, your chance falls way low to nil. At least with a gun, you have a 50:50 chance of survival, guaranteed.

10. YOU will not be able to disarm an armed bad guy whether in or outside of physical striking distance by pulling a Jason Bourne or Steven Seagal, all the time. Most Krav Maga and MMA disarmament techniques are just that, techniques. And, like all techniques, they're only useful, if you've mastered it, and can deploy it during real-life dynamic stress situations. It's just another defensive tool, just like a gun. But without a skilled operator it's as useless.

But, bad guys don't give a shiite about how well you've mastered your KravMaga disarm techniques, your fighting stance, honor, or rules. There are no Ki's, no belts, no 2min round and a bell in the real world. There are no reset buttons, and you get tired, get hyper vigilant, experience tachypsychia, and run out of breath and fatigue out before you'd ever tap-out, quick.

11. MOST gungrabbing liberals/RINOs have NO clue about guns, nor ever been in a real fight, let alone kindergarten slap-fests. Not only that, rarely have ANY gungrabber ever even bothered to research existing documented cases of deadly encounters enough to at least even intellectually attempt to understand what others throughout history have experienced and survived, or not, under similar circumstances. Yet, they presume to know everything and dictate what you can or cannot have or how you'd use a tool to properly defend yourself.

The problem isn't even the 'mechanical' arguments for or against guns. 99% of govt hacks and policy wonks have ZERO understanding of real-life defensive situations. Thus all the arguments are pushpoll data, manipulation of stats, moronic misnomers, idiotic fictitious terms, non sequiturs, Constitution/NaturalRights imbecilic historically amnesic arguments, and base appeal to childish emotional need to satiate innate insecurities.

This also applies to many gunnies.

Most arguments aren't based on the actual reality of armed encounters. It's rarely about the gun as a tool, and what task that said tool is designed to accomplish efficiently.

That, IMO, is the single most important aspect of defensive gun use, not publicly discussed, beyond the tactical course classrooms.

That, is the real discussion about the gun being a tool. Tools are designed to solve problems with efficiency and raise productivity. So shouldn't we discuss more about what that 'problem solving' is??

Sure discussing bleeding out, severing arteries, targeting ocular cavity is crass, but ask ANY cop or servicemen why they 'need' so much ammo, they'll tell you: 'people don't die that easily when shot with 0.22~0.50 inch diameter projectiles.' And how does one ensure you can stop a lethal threat, threatening you and your loved ones? By increasing your odds of puncturing more holes in the right places. THAT is why you NEED more than 10rds.

Sure, it's unpalatable for sheeple morons, but unless such saving-life defensive realities of actual dynamic lethal encounters are discussed, even the armed intelligentsia will continue to dicker over moronic terms and fake stats, moronic statist pseudo-'Constitutional' arguments thrown at us, and be forced to defend the indefensible nonsense on THEIR terms.

Also these morons have no concept of reality: ammo is to guns, what gasoline is to cars. And you always run out of them. Also as a perishable skill, unless you train and practice, practice, practice, you'll lose your skills. Ask anyone serious about self-defense, how quickly one goes through a thousand rounds. And these morons call stored gasoline to fuel your car, "an arsenal."

The thing that always bemuses me the most, though? Everytime a gungrabber says 'why do you NEED such an efficient killing machine like an AR?'

I always rebut, 'so WHEN someone is trying to MURDER you, you mean you actually WANT your gun to jam??' What a F'ng moronic thing to say!

It's like why the hell WOULDN'T I want a superior efficient weapon platform to lawfully, morally, ethically defend my life and of my loved ones?

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

Updated:

UPDATE 1: WTF is it with angry 17year olds??

Here's another case: Roderick Scott (who happens to be black), irrefutably a big dude, the size of an NFL linebacker vs. another 17yo skinny teen assailant half the size, Christopher Cervini (who happens to be white).

No 'white uproar' even though the defendant shot an unarmed white teen to death.

No Skittles.

Just an angry teen armed only with his fists, again.

Rightfully so: the jury of Roderick Scott's peers found him "Not Guilty!" And, to be ENTIRELY in his right to defend himself against an assailant, even if the assailant was an UNARMED 17yo teen, who happened to be white, who was caught burglarizing Scott's private property, yet still had the gall to attack the rightful property owner, after being caught.

Where's MSDNC??

Rightie-o: Inconvenient Reality and all...

The Black George Zimmerman the Media Doesn’t Want You to Know About

LastResistance.com

Originally posted: July 22, 2013
Updated: July 24, 2013
by Onan Coca

Did you notice during the George Zimmerman trial how the media kept repeating the salacious question “What if Trayvon Martin had been white?” They acted as if this question was the perfect response to Zimmerman defenders. They pretended that this was a question without a “safe” answer, but in reality, the question had already been answered.


Roderick Scott, the INNOCENT man, who happens to be black, who had to live through the unfortunate reality of having lawfully, lethally-defended himself against another angry teen, who happened to be white. PHOTO: Uncredited

In April of 2009 Mr. Roderick Scott awoke at 3am to the sounds of three young men breaking into cars on his street. He called the police and went down to the street to make sure the young men did not flee before the police arrived. He shouted at the three to “freeze” and told them that the police were coming soon. The three boys stood before the big man obviously considering what they should do.

That’s when Christopher Cervini (17) rushed at Mr. Scott uttering “I’ll get you” or “I’ll get him.” Roderick Scott fired twice, killing the teenager. The trial that followed was again a case of prosecutorial overreach, as they tried to charge Mr. Scott with manslaughter. Fortunately for Mr. Scott, a jury of his peers agreed with him that he did only what was needed to protect himself.

Afterwards the prosecutor opined, “I just hope it’s not a message to this community… that you have the right to shoot an unarmed 17-year-old kid for breaking into a car.” The problem is that Mr. Scott did not shoot young Christopher Cervini for breaking into his car, but for attacking him. While the Cervini family may now be in much pain over the loss of their son, he brought himself to his tragic end through a series of terrible choices. Roderick Scott had every right to protect himself; he did what he should have… and a jury of his peers agreed.

Oh, and Roderick Scott was a 42 year old black man about the size of an NFL linebacker. Christopher Cervini was a skinny, 17 year old white kid with a little bit of marijuana in his system. Scott was justified in the killing of the younger man not because of the crime that Cervini had committed, but because Scott rightfully feared for his own safety.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

updated

....

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul