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?
It’s not an answer your will have, but it is a case that is going to trouble your nation for years to come without one and it’s not just the gun either, it’s more than that.
While I have yet to find an argument to sway me from my agreement with the verdict, somehow what you said - or maybe it’s just because I haven’t talked about the case in a while - has given me an argument as to why Zimmerman is a stupid-fuck as well as being as reckless as all who carry guns in public.
Since he had a gun and if he was following someone who he thought was dangerous - and he knew that Martin was aware that he was following him - and he lost sight of Martin, then he would have to be a stupid-shit for not avoiding any dark corners or bushes and then making use of the safety a gun affords him by keeping his hand on the handle so that if Martin did, as Zimmerman claimed, come upon him suddenly, he would have been able to draw the gun and told Martin to back off. I mean I have to agree that if one has a gun and is following someone they’d have to have previously suffered a specific form of cranial damage to let themselves get into a position of being beaten on the ground.
Let me reiterate, it is always reckless for random people to carry a gun in public, but the majority who do anyway are probably not shit-faced stupid and realize that since it’s there for protection it should be used as such before the only option for protection is to shoot someone on top of them in the chest.
But, let’s not think that logic speaks against the verdict. Apparently, when one gets a permit to carry a gun there’s no test to determine if they don’t suffer from piss-stupidity.
Now all of a sudden you want to talk about facts, ok, ok, haha. But, Smears let’s start small; elephants are mammals, lizards are reptiles. Now you name a couple facts. Maybe same day, with my help, you’ll get so used to the idea of facts that we can start using them in real discussions. Though, I think the notion that you could ever learn to apply facts to a trial may be a lost cause.
As a person who has carried a gun, you get more used to not touching it then touching it, couple that with adrenaline brain farts, you will not think of it at first. Your brain is in overdrive, that gun is not felt hanging off your side. Your brain is busy saying " Oh shit shit shiit" and trying to come up with a solution. Adrenaline fucks your processing up. Except of course in Hollywood.
So yea, I believe Zimmerman would not have pulled his gun out at first because of that and because, getting attacked never happens to us just other people syndrome.
My house won’t catch fire, my house won’t get robbed, I am a great driver, I know how to swim, etetc. Shit happens to others not me. Its that dominant thought that causes hesitation and forgetfulness when adrenaline hits in real life. Not Hollywood.