i agree as to the recklessness. Let’s hope you’re right about the majority not being quite so stupid as Zimmerman.
Stat the fact that he didn’t pull the gun immediately?
Where did you get this fact?
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.
Dude I’ve beat like 6 charges and I’ve never been convicted of a crime. I’ve had probably 20 traffic tickets thrown out. I know facts.
I’m saying that stat says Zimmerman didn’t have his gun out.
I’m asking how he knows that.
What’s w/ the obfuscation?
It’s the only official version of the story we have and it fits with the evidence.
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.
How does it become official? What does that even mean? Appeal to authority? How does it fit more so with the evidence that Martin was the aggressor when the evidence shows that Zimmerman was following him, against the instructions of the 911 operator, with the stated frustration about “these guys always getting away”? There’s Zimmerman’s bloody nose, and small cuts on the back of his head. Those are evidence of a fight for sure. Since Martin didn’t have injuries, you could half-assed infer that maybe he threw the first punch.
But I don’t think that makes Martin the aggressor. I don’t think that means Martin started it. I think it’s clear Zimmerman started it, unless you ignore his pursuit of Martin, and his statements to the 911 operator and just don’t take them for what they are. I think Martin a victim, who tried to defend himself and failed because Zimmerman, the guy who started the confrontation and the fight when he decided to chase after the kid shot and killed him.
Yes, it would be half assed to consider this evidence he threw the first punch. Given blocking, ducking, glancing blows, perhaps a grab or wrestling move started the ball Rolling etc.
I Think the official version is that we don’t know. Who would come up with an official version? No official body has had to weigh in and said ‘this is what happened.’ The jury decided it did not have enough evidence to conclude it was murder. So one potential official version was not approved of by the jury and hence the Court.
Exactly. How does ZImmerman go from a confident, angry, armed 28 year old man who fancies himself law enforcement, and who’s training to be a fighter to a scared, helpless victim of an unarmed 17 year old boy?
Well, this is possible, which is precisely why at the very least what he did was irreponsible, dangerous and reckless. He may have simply followed Martin who may have felt threatened and at some Point snapped and was the stronger and faster fighter. It is possible, which is one of a number of reasons why Z should have stayed in his car and let people actually trained and responsible for dealing with these things deal with it. I don’t Think there is any good way to rule out Z’s main assertions. They may be, in the main, what happened. But we should never consider Z’s version an official one. That he minimized any errors, misjudgements and ethical lapses he made is more than likely. Who wouldn’t?
No, no, no, those aren’t facts, facts have to be virtually indisputable. Most of the above implications are indisputably erroneous.
Yes, now taking your word for it, those are facts, keep them coming.
I can try and scan a copy of my record, but there isn’t one because my charges have all been dismissed.
I don’t think it’s disputable that the 911 operator instructed him not to follow. I think it’s disputable whether he interpreted that person’s words in the way that any reasonable person would who wasn’t trying to get out of a murder charge.
How can it be disputable, it’s like saying, ‘A giant chicken instructed him not eat poultry.’ Your statement is complete nonsense.
Stuart, how is it complete nonsense? The operator asked if he was following him, and then told him he didn’t need him to do that.
This isn’t nonsense:
This is:
Smears, I have to go with Stuart here.
Imagine telling a Child…
I don’t need you to finish all the ice Cream Before dinner.
And see if this works as ‘instructing the Child not to do this’.
The operator, by the way, has no real authority to tell the person not to do something. Which is probably why he or she did not make herself clearer. I am pretty sure a police officer would have told him not to follow the person - unless there was some reason a Citizen should be put at risk, like they know this guy has the trigger for a bomb or something and there are only minutes left Before… But operators are not police.
And a police officer will not say things like
I don’t need you keep running from me.
or
I don’t need you to keep the ignition on.
A police officer will know, intuitively, that the person needs to be told what to do and what not to do in a command form, not about what the police officer does not need.
Yeah but Zimmerman isn’t a dumb impulsive kid. He’s studied in some respect in being a neighborhood watchman. So he thinks of himself as a cop. I don’t think a comparison between a grown man who’s of stable enough mind to be carrying a gun and a kid who can’t resist ice cream really makes a good case.
At best, you’ve got the neighborhood watchman out there with the discipline of a child.
Maybe that’s what we need? A guy who’s so excited about killing the next kid who looks like a “thug”, that he can’t even focus or control himself or even use any kind of judgment and just starts going after kids and shooting them and making excused afterward when we all find out there was no reason to follow the kid in the first place.
Zimmerman, as a wannabe cop, knew good and well that he shouldn’t have followed the kid. He got out of his car ready to fight and maybe kill someone and that’s what he did. If he’s afraid there’s a criminal walking down the street, arming yourself and getting out of the car to expose yourself to the danger is a pretty bold move. I think it takes a certain mind set to do that. I don’t think you guys are giving that enough credit. This wasn’t an innocent guy trying to stop a crime.
Yeah, you don’t know that.
You don’t know that either.
This sort of thing is pretty hypocritical coming from someone who accuses others of talking about the case as if they know what happened.
You assume she had access to information we don’t?
You’re right, we don’t know those things for sure. That’s sloppy on my part.
I really don’t know.
I mean I think there is way more to it than Zimmerman just hunting down and killing some innocent kid. The case clearly isn’t that cut and dry.
I think he was justified if his life was in danger. Again, you seem to be saying that, since he did something stupid, he should accept his own death rather than protect himself. Why?
It’s pretty easy to imagine if you listen to Zimmerman’s account. Martin was supposedly on top of him. All he had to do was draw and pull the trigger.