You think Martin feared for his life? You think that’s why he supposedly ran from the scene, then doubled back to confront Zimmerman and start an altercation?
Martin didn’t know he was armed. He was out of sight when Zimmerman got out of his car. And I seriously doubt he could hear what Zimmerman was saying about him. It wasn’t his “profile” that Zimmerman suspected, it was his behavior. I think Marin had every right to confront Zimmerman, but when he attacked him he assumed certain risks.
You are either horribly misinformed about what took place or you are just comfortable believing a bunch of exaggerated bullshit. I can’t figure out which it is.
Stat, you’re giving Zimmerman’s account of what his victim did in the dark when no one could see.
Why are you doing that as though you’re sure it’s what happened?
We know Zimmerman followed Martin, and that Martin was running away.
Then all of a sudden Martin is now following Zimmerman? How convenient. Let’s ask some people there if this is true. Oh, only Zimmerman knows. Well let’s ask him. Right.
How do you know that Zimmerman didn’t pull a gun and tell him to wait for the cops to arrive?
I mean wasn’t he following the kid, trying to keep him from getting away? Isn’t that established already?
For the love of god recognize that because you can fabricate a scenario in the dark where Zimmerman might not be technically guilty, that doesn’t mean shit. The truth is, the way this case went, you can now kill people as long as no one sees and you come up with a good story.
Not true. Martin actually followed him in return at one point. Martin ran away to confuse Zimmerman, not get away from him. This is evidenced by the fact that Martin came back after he already lost Zimmerman.
It seems convenient to you because you don’t know what you’re talking about.
I don’t. We have evidence that Martin punched Zimmerman in the face. Would you do that to someone with a gun pointed at you?
If by that you mean he was keeping an eye on Martin, sure.
How is that a new thing? If you can show that your life was in danger, or at least that you had reason to believe it was, you’re allowed to protect yourself by law. This is true for just about any murder case. The problem is finding evidence to support that story.
This guy shot up a car full of teenagers because he didn’t like their music. He harassed them about it, then when they told him to fuck off, he shot up their car and sped off and got caught the next day. He just said they pointed a shotgun and said they were going to kill him. Even thought they didn’t. Let’s see how this one works out.
I would absolutely punch someone in the face if they pointed a gun at me.
What evidence do you have that Martin ran away and came back other than Zimmerman’s account?
Also, Zimmerman’s life was never in danger. His injuries were superficial. Now that’s evidence. A guy says he was getting beaten to death by a kid half his age, and you check his injuries and all he needs is a band aid. That’s evidence that he wasn’t really being beaten to death.
This isn’t something he made up after the fact. Zimmerman told 911 at the time that Martin ran and he lost sight of him.
His nose was fractured and his head was being smashed against pavement. And that’s not even what he pulled the gun for. He pulled the gun because Martin supposedly saw it, made the remark that Zimmerman was going to die, and reached for it. He, nor anyone, ever claimed he was being beaten to death. He said he feared he’d loose consciousness - that’s all. Again, you’re making exaggerated claims that show a real lack of effort on your part to look at the evidence.
Dude you just said that you believe it because ZImmerman said it. When they say evidence is the hardest class in law school. They fucking mean it.
I’d think you were a fool if you let someone hold you at gunpoint when you have the option to overpower them. I’ve snatched a few guns out of a few hands in my time, and I woulda beat the living shit outta Zimmerman if he chased me down the street toward my house. Which is exactly what he did.
Guess what? Martin has a right to run if he wants to. Zimmerman doesn’t have a right to chase him, bait him into a confrontation and kill him.
I know you live in Atlanta, and you’re probably tired of loud music and hoodlums at your local gas station standing around all day selling drugs and women, but if you’re not a cop you can’t arrest them dude. If you try to and they beat you up that’s self defense on their part, and if you shoot them then you’re a murderer.
This isn’t something he made up after the fact. Zimmerman told 911 at the time that Martin ran and he lost sight of him.
So that’s you saying that the word about Martin running came from Zimmerman. Right?
If he didn’t pursue the kid, then what did he do? Why was he out of his car? Why did he comment to the 911 operator about his frustration with “these guys always getting away”? Doesn’t all that indicate he was pursuing him? Or at least that he had a desire to and a frame of mind to?
We don’t have to speculate about who attacked who in the dark, because he already know who the aggressor is. The aggressor is the guy who is out of his car following someone. How is that not crystal clear?
In your last line, you say, “that’s not what happened either”. How do you know that? Who’s story are you buying? What’s your evidence?
Jesus man I respect you and everything, but if you’re just playing the devil’s advocate here, please do a better job. If you actually can’t see yourself buying zimmerman’s story without evidence, then I really don’t know what to tell you. I have to ask why you wouldn’t buy the opposite story with the same lack of evidence?
Correct, it came from Zimmerman. But not after the fact in an attempt to justify his actions. He admitted this beforehand. I’m not saying that makes it true, just far more likely.
You can find the answers to literally every question here by doing just the tiniest bit of research. We’ve already been over most of it.
Watching someone and getting out of your car aren’t acts of aggression, plain and simple.
The only fucking story we have! Which one are you following?
The evidence lines up with Zimmerman’s story. I’m not the only who’s said this. I’m talking about what can be shown by the evidence and determined in a court of law. I’m not claiming to know what happened. I really wish you’d at least get that part straight. Your claim is that he is guilty because you want him to be. It just doesn’t work like that man.
The tiniest bit of research huh? But I can’t get you to answer the question.
So if you go to the gas station, and I creep behind you in my car, and I call 911 and tell them you look like a criminal, and then I get out of the car to find you when you try to get away…that’s not aggression?
I wholly disagree with your, “plain and simple” assessment.
There’s a reason you only have 1 story dude. Please understand that that’s relevant. If I follow you home and kill you because you get pissed and start kicking my ass, then you don’t get to tell your part of the story.
Don’t go with the “court of law” horseshit unless you want me to think that you believe the courts are functioning properly. You think that this case was decided correctly?
I’m not saying I want Zimmerman to be guilty because I just want him to be. I don’t know how you got that impression. I want him to be found guilty because he followed an unarmed kid, got out of his car, ended up in a confrontation where he killed a kid who lived in the neighborhood he was supposed to be protecting. That’s not what I wanted to happen. But that’s what he did. The dead kid, Zimmerman’s gun, the superficial injuries on the back of his head, his comments to the 911 operator that speak to his frame of mind. That’s evidence dude. It’s not my opinion. It’s not because I “just want him to be guilty”.
No, I don’t think it is. It would be offensive to me, I’m sure. But that doesn’t mean he wished to do me harm or encroach on my rights.
Why?
Of course I realize that. I’m just not willing to assume that’s why he killed Martin. You, on the other hand. do feel comfortable assuming that for some reason.
Yeah, I think they probably decided correctly.
I get that impression because all you have to substantiate your sensational view is a bunch hypotheticals and hyperboles.
Even if the confrontation wasn’t his doing? You seem to be cherry picking details here.
You’re completely ignoring context here. i could see coming to a similar conclusion so long as I didn’t have access to any additional information.
He was referring to a rash of burglaries when he made the comment about people getting away. He got out of the car to initially look for street signs to guide the cops and see if he could tell which direction Martin ran in. The fact that he was armed was just unfortunate; not grounds for believing he committed murder. I really think you’re looking at this whole thing in the most shallow way possible. And it bothers me to see you buy into the media’s sensationalism.
Well then I think you’re wrong.
What evidence am I ignoring? Again, you’re completely ignoring context, which I can only assume is being done on purpose. You don’t care why he followed, who started the fight, or why shots were fired. All you see is the end result. Thank god lawyers have better sense than to allow jurors like you.
When someone murders someone else, goes on trial, and gets away with it, that is a failure of the law - or a failure of the prosecution, which represents the law.
No of course i can’t, but a juror who says she knows him to be guilty had no choice but to exonerate him, given the law - isnt that a problem with the law? i mean based on the evidence i myself have i am ready to say he is guilty of the ethical equivelent of manslaughter, yet apparently the law is such that said evidence (PLUS whatever other evidence the juror was privy to) is insufficient to punish him in any way. If it is not illegal to do what EVERYONE KNOWS Zimmerman did, ie - profile, follow and kill an innocent person, then the law is lacking, not the evidence. i don’t care if he thought his life was in danger (though i doubt it, given the nature of his injuries), he had no justification for fatally shooting Martin when he brought the situation on himself.
Wait right there. She said she “felt in her heart” that he was guilty. An opinion which was clearly at odds with evidence. I’ve been wrong about what I “felt in my heart” before. You?
Yeah, I may agree with manslaughter, but that wasn’t what he was on trial for.
You have to look at context man. He wasn’t pursuing the kid relentlessly and he likely didn’t intend to get into an altercation with him. I mean, the fact that he didn’t pull the gun immediately is telling. Also, he didn’t profile him in the sense the media would have you believe. What he suspected was Martin’s behavior. If it were as simple as you put it above, I have little doubt that he’d be in prison right now. The story is far more complicated.
It wasn’t his injuries that led him to that conclusion. According to him, Martin reached for his gun and told him he was going to die. If his life was in danger, I think he was justified. If you’re telling me that he should accept his own death just because he did something stupid, I don’t think I can continue this conversation.
Yes i’ve been wrong before. And how. But i don’t think her opinion was at odds with the evidence at all. Legally, there may not have enough evidence to convict, but that’s not the same thing. It’s not as if there was evidence that someone besides Zimmerman shot Martin. The evidence there was pointed in a certain direction, but was legally insufficient, that is all. i didn’t get the impression the juror doubted her own opinion was correct, only that she knew there was not enough evidence to prove it based on the law.
We don’t know either of those things.
We also don’t know when he pulled his gun.
i don’t think that’s accurate. Do you honestly believe that if Martin had been a white kid in a polo shirt and khakis walking around the same neighborhood any of this would have happened?
Which complications are you referring to?
If you really think he can not only legally, but also justifiably shoot someone to death because he was stupid and that’s a good enough excuse, then i don’t know what else i can say anyway. He had no right to kill anyone. If either person in the situation could justifiably kill the other, it was Martin. The irony is, had it gone down that way, we all know Martin would be in jail right now.
In any case, i find it hard to comprehend exactly how Zimmerman managed to fire, only once, a single bullet through Martin’s chest if he were struggling to keep the gun out of Martin’s hands. There was only one gun, after all, and clearly Zimmerman had control over it when he fired the shot. What was the threat to his life in the moment he pulled the trigger?