|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP.
If you make an uninformed post, or one that isn't relevant to the discussion, you will be moderated. If in doubt, don't post. |
On May 31 2013 07:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2013 07:31 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 07:23 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:19 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 07:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:01 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 06:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 06:52 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 06:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 06:34 GwSC wrote:
[quote]
You're still making a mistake in attempting to strengthen your argument by attacking the character of anyone who proposes a different version of what happened. A black kid "randomly attacking" someone is far from the only possible explanation. Maybe Zimmerman followed Trayvon, confronted him, Trayvon got angry because of the manner in which he was confronted (or maybe he just had a bad day?) and things got physical? You dismiss this and any other similar possibility by saying that only a racist could believe that Trayvon started the fight and that Zimmerman acted in self defense.
Technically what you're describing is B) Zman harasses Travyon This would mean that it was Zman who initiated the fight. On a verbal level perhaps, but do you deny that it is possible that Zman said something that made Martin angry, and that Martin then attacked Zman initiating the physical fight? In my opinion, if you anger someone enough to get them to fight then you're the one initiating (or goading) it to happen. If someone followed my for more than a block, someone who at one point was running at me, and then somehow catches up and starts harassing me--I would definitely be upset, especially if I was going home. Which definitely fits into the "Zman harasses Travyon" scenario. And what if whatever Zman said to Trayvon that made him angry was not something that most people, or the law, would see as reason to start a physical fight? It is possible that Trayvon did not act reasonably, yet you choose to dismiss that possibility because of your own bias in favor of Trayvon. Because we don't know what was actually said. The specifics of those words can't be proven. Either Zman initiated (which makes sense since he was following him with a gun) or Zman harassed Martin into it, or the kid randomly attacked someone. It doesn't make sense to me that Martin would attack--because I don't see cause for him to attack. I can see Zman attacking since he was already following the victim around while holding a gun. I can also see Zman harassing the kid in some way to cause the fight to happen. Well what you choose to see as not being a possibility is certainly a possibility to me. You keep mentioning that he was following Martin holding a gun, when as far as I know it has not been established whether or not he had the gun out. If we go with the possibility that the gun was not out, and Martin was angered by something Zman said (whether it was an inflammatory remark or reasonable questions, or anything else), how can you not see a cause for Martin to attack if he had the temperament to do so? The only way I can see for you not believing this is possible is because in your own mind you already see Martin as "the good guy", or at least are choosing to believe specific things about his personality when you really have no idea. I don't think of Martin as a good guy. But I require evidence to believe someone would attack someone. Zman has taped evidence of him chasing/following after Martin even getting a bit peeved that martin was getting away. He is asked not to follow martin, he does so anyway, and Martin ends up dead. That shows that he already had an agenda towards martin, that he was actively pursuing Martin, and then upon meeting up with Martin ends up killing Martin. There is no evidence showing that Martin had any reason to attack Zman. There is evidence that shows why Zman would attack Martin. That's what the facts say, the rest is up for debate. There is evidence that a guy on neighborhood watch had an "agenda" of following someone who he said looked suspicious to him. The fact that you see that as evidence of Zman having a reason to attack Martin is purely based on your own bias, because in reality the altercation could have gone any number of ways, and either man could have been at fault. The fact is that on its own, your own presumptuous opinion that Zman was following Martin with the intent to do harm is not "evidence". It is more evidence than the assumption that Martin would attack Zman--which there is none. What I have is circumstantial. The evidence I have is Martin was seen as a threat, followed, and then shot. Because he Zman said he was a threat, because zman did follow him, and because zman did shoot him. Those are my facts. Most of the other evidence on this case have experts on both sides arguing on it and hence are not facts yet, just evidence up for debate.
That is not "more evidence" that he could attack, it is actually not evidence of that at all.
The fact that we know more about what Zman was doing at the time does not automatically make it any more or less likely that it was his fault that a physical fight started, and that as a result Martin ended up dead. You are again using your own words to twist things around. Zman never said he saw Martin as a "threat" which would imply he already inclined to be defensively aggressive. He simply said he thought Martin was "suspicious", and decided to investigate. My continuing issue with your arguments is your refusal to acknowledge any possibility that Martin may have acted irrationally and started the fight.
|
On May 31 2013 07:44 GwSC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2013 07:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:31 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 07:23 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:19 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 07:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:01 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 06:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 06:52 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 06:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Technically what you're describing is B) Zman harasses Travyon
This would mean that it was Zman who initiated the fight.
On a verbal level perhaps, but do you deny that it is possible that Zman said something that made Martin angry, and that Martin then attacked Zman initiating the physical fight? In my opinion, if you anger someone enough to get them to fight then you're the one initiating (or goading) it to happen. If someone followed my for more than a block, someone who at one point was running at me, and then somehow catches up and starts harassing me--I would definitely be upset, especially if I was going home. Which definitely fits into the "Zman harasses Travyon" scenario. And what if whatever Zman said to Trayvon that made him angry was not something that most people, or the law, would see as reason to start a physical fight? It is possible that Trayvon did not act reasonably, yet you choose to dismiss that possibility because of your own bias in favor of Trayvon. Because we don't know what was actually said. The specifics of those words can't be proven. Either Zman initiated (which makes sense since he was following him with a gun) or Zman harassed Martin into it, or the kid randomly attacked someone. It doesn't make sense to me that Martin would attack--because I don't see cause for him to attack. I can see Zman attacking since he was already following the victim around while holding a gun. I can also see Zman harassing the kid in some way to cause the fight to happen. Well what you choose to see as not being a possibility is certainly a possibility to me. You keep mentioning that he was following Martin holding a gun, when as far as I know it has not been established whether or not he had the gun out. If we go with the possibility that the gun was not out, and Martin was angered by something Zman said (whether it was an inflammatory remark or reasonable questions, or anything else), how can you not see a cause for Martin to attack if he had the temperament to do so? The only way I can see for you not believing this is possible is because in your own mind you already see Martin as "the good guy", or at least are choosing to believe specific things about his personality when you really have no idea. I don't think of Martin as a good guy. But I require evidence to believe someone would attack someone. Zman has taped evidence of him chasing/following after Martin even getting a bit peeved that martin was getting away. He is asked not to follow martin, he does so anyway, and Martin ends up dead. That shows that he already had an agenda towards martin, that he was actively pursuing Martin, and then upon meeting up with Martin ends up killing Martin. There is no evidence showing that Martin had any reason to attack Zman. There is evidence that shows why Zman would attack Martin. That's what the facts say, the rest is up for debate. There is evidence that a guy on neighborhood watch had an "agenda" of following someone who he said looked suspicious to him. The fact that you see that as evidence of Zman having a reason to attack Martin is purely based on your own bias, because in reality the altercation could have gone any number of ways, and either man could have been at fault. The fact is that on its own, your own presumptuous opinion that Zman was following Martin with the intent to do harm is not "evidence". It is more evidence than the assumption that Martin would attack Zman--which there is none. What I have is circumstantial. The evidence I have is Martin was seen as a threat, followed, and then shot. Because he Zman said he was a threat, because zman did follow him, and because zman did shoot him. Those are my facts. Most of the other evidence on this case have experts on both sides arguing on it and hence are not facts yet, just evidence up for debate. The fact that we know more about what Zman was doing at the time does not automatically make it any more or less likely that it was his fault that a physical fight started, and that as a result Martin ended up dead. You are again using your own words to twist things around. Zman never said he saw Martin as a "threat" which would imply he already inclined to be defensively aggressive. He simply said he thought Martin was "suspicious", and decided to investigate. My continuing issue with your arguments is your refusal to acknowledge any possibility that Martin may have acted irrationally and started the fight.
Its not my refusal--it's me not wanting to make accusations against someone without evidence. Us having evidence of Zman calling martin suspicious, high, etc... and then evidence of him following martin and the actual fact of him shooting martin after doing all that is simply what the evidence shows us.
We could either follow the evidence, or we could pretend evidence doesn't matter and pretend that martin was the aggressor.
|
On May 31 2013 07:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2013 07:44 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 07:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:31 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 07:23 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:19 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 07:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:01 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 06:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 06:52 GwSC wrote:
[quote]
On a verbal level perhaps, but do you deny that it is possible that Zman said something that made Martin angry, and that Martin then attacked Zman initiating the physical fight?
In my opinion, if you anger someone enough to get them to fight then you're the one initiating (or goading) it to happen. If someone followed my for more than a block, someone who at one point was running at me, and then somehow catches up and starts harassing me--I would definitely be upset, especially if I was going home. Which definitely fits into the "Zman harasses Travyon" scenario. And what if whatever Zman said to Trayvon that made him angry was not something that most people, or the law, would see as reason to start a physical fight? It is possible that Trayvon did not act reasonably, yet you choose to dismiss that possibility because of your own bias in favor of Trayvon. Because we don't know what was actually said. The specifics of those words can't be proven. Either Zman initiated (which makes sense since he was following him with a gun) or Zman harassed Martin into it, or the kid randomly attacked someone. It doesn't make sense to me that Martin would attack--because I don't see cause for him to attack. I can see Zman attacking since he was already following the victim around while holding a gun. I can also see Zman harassing the kid in some way to cause the fight to happen. Well what you choose to see as not being a possibility is certainly a possibility to me. You keep mentioning that he was following Martin holding a gun, when as far as I know it has not been established whether or not he had the gun out. If we go with the possibility that the gun was not out, and Martin was angered by something Zman said (whether it was an inflammatory remark or reasonable questions, or anything else), how can you not see a cause for Martin to attack if he had the temperament to do so? The only way I can see for you not believing this is possible is because in your own mind you already see Martin as "the good guy", or at least are choosing to believe specific things about his personality when you really have no idea. I don't think of Martin as a good guy. But I require evidence to believe someone would attack someone. Zman has taped evidence of him chasing/following after Martin even getting a bit peeved that martin was getting away. He is asked not to follow martin, he does so anyway, and Martin ends up dead. That shows that he already had an agenda towards martin, that he was actively pursuing Martin, and then upon meeting up with Martin ends up killing Martin. There is no evidence showing that Martin had any reason to attack Zman. There is evidence that shows why Zman would attack Martin. That's what the facts say, the rest is up for debate. There is evidence that a guy on neighborhood watch had an "agenda" of following someone who he said looked suspicious to him. The fact that you see that as evidence of Zman having a reason to attack Martin is purely based on your own bias, because in reality the altercation could have gone any number of ways, and either man could have been at fault. The fact is that on its own, your own presumptuous opinion that Zman was following Martin with the intent to do harm is not "evidence". It is more evidence than the assumption that Martin would attack Zman--which there is none. What I have is circumstantial. The evidence I have is Martin was seen as a threat, followed, and then shot. Because he Zman said he was a threat, because zman did follow him, and because zman did shoot him. Those are my facts. Most of the other evidence on this case have experts on both sides arguing on it and hence are not facts yet, just evidence up for debate. The fact that we know more about what Zman was doing at the time does not automatically make it any more or less likely that it was his fault that a physical fight started, and that as a result Martin ended up dead. You are again using your own words to twist things around. Zman never said he saw Martin as a "threat" which would imply he already inclined to be defensively aggressive. He simply said he thought Martin was "suspicious", and decided to investigate. My continuing issue with your arguments is your refusal to acknowledge any possibility that Martin may have acted irrationally and started the fight. Its not my refusal--it's me not wanting to make accusations against someone without evidence. Us having evidence of Zman calling martin suspicious, high, etc... and then evidence of him following martin and the actual fact of him shooting martin after doing all that is simply what the evidence shows us. We could either follow the evidence, or we could pretend evidence doesn't matter and pretend that martin was the aggressor.
Yet that first part is exactly what you are doing in assuming that Zman shot Martin without having a good reason to do so (i.e., if he was attacked first and was afraid for his life). The facts we have that tell us Zman decided to follow Martin because he thought he looked suspicious are not even close to being evidence of that. We do not know at all what happened when the two men met, or why they got into a fight, but you have already decided it was Zman's fault.
|
On May 31 2013 07:54 GwSC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2013 07:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:44 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 07:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:31 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 07:23 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:19 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 07:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:01 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 06:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
In my opinion, if you anger someone enough to get them to fight then you're the one initiating (or goading) it to happen. If someone followed my for more than a block, someone who at one point was running at me, and then somehow catches up and starts harassing me--I would definitely be upset, especially if I was going home. Which definitely fits into the "Zman harasses Travyon" scenario.
And what if whatever Zman said to Trayvon that made him angry was not something that most people, or the law, would see as reason to start a physical fight? It is possible that Trayvon did not act reasonably, yet you choose to dismiss that possibility because of your own bias in favor of Trayvon. Because we don't know what was actually said. The specifics of those words can't be proven. Either Zman initiated (which makes sense since he was following him with a gun) or Zman harassed Martin into it, or the kid randomly attacked someone. It doesn't make sense to me that Martin would attack--because I don't see cause for him to attack. I can see Zman attacking since he was already following the victim around while holding a gun. I can also see Zman harassing the kid in some way to cause the fight to happen. Well what you choose to see as not being a possibility is certainly a possibility to me. You keep mentioning that he was following Martin holding a gun, when as far as I know it has not been established whether or not he had the gun out. If we go with the possibility that the gun was not out, and Martin was angered by something Zman said (whether it was an inflammatory remark or reasonable questions, or anything else), how can you not see a cause for Martin to attack if he had the temperament to do so? The only way I can see for you not believing this is possible is because in your own mind you already see Martin as "the good guy", or at least are choosing to believe specific things about his personality when you really have no idea. I don't think of Martin as a good guy. But I require evidence to believe someone would attack someone. Zman has taped evidence of him chasing/following after Martin even getting a bit peeved that martin was getting away. He is asked not to follow martin, he does so anyway, and Martin ends up dead. That shows that he already had an agenda towards martin, that he was actively pursuing Martin, and then upon meeting up with Martin ends up killing Martin. There is no evidence showing that Martin had any reason to attack Zman. There is evidence that shows why Zman would attack Martin. That's what the facts say, the rest is up for debate. There is evidence that a guy on neighborhood watch had an "agenda" of following someone who he said looked suspicious to him. The fact that you see that as evidence of Zman having a reason to attack Martin is purely based on your own bias, because in reality the altercation could have gone any number of ways, and either man could have been at fault. The fact is that on its own, your own presumptuous opinion that Zman was following Martin with the intent to do harm is not "evidence". It is more evidence than the assumption that Martin would attack Zman--which there is none. What I have is circumstantial. The evidence I have is Martin was seen as a threat, followed, and then shot. Because he Zman said he was a threat, because zman did follow him, and because zman did shoot him. Those are my facts. Most of the other evidence on this case have experts on both sides arguing on it and hence are not facts yet, just evidence up for debate. The fact that we know more about what Zman was doing at the time does not automatically make it any more or less likely that it was his fault that a physical fight started, and that as a result Martin ended up dead. You are again using your own words to twist things around. Zman never said he saw Martin as a "threat" which would imply he already inclined to be defensively aggressive. He simply said he thought Martin was "suspicious", and decided to investigate. My continuing issue with your arguments is your refusal to acknowledge any possibility that Martin may have acted irrationally and started the fight. Its not my refusal--it's me not wanting to make accusations against someone without evidence. Us having evidence of Zman calling martin suspicious, high, etc... and then evidence of him following martin and the actual fact of him shooting martin after doing all that is simply what the evidence shows us. We could either follow the evidence, or we could pretend evidence doesn't matter and pretend that martin was the aggressor. Yet that first part is exactly what you are doing in assuming that Zman shot Martin without having a good reason to do so (i.e., if he was attacked first and was afraid for his life). The facts we have that tell us Zman decided to follow Martin because he thought he looked suspicious are not even close to being evidence of that. We do not know at all what happened when the two men met, or why they got into a fight, but you have already decided it was Zman's fault.
Actually all Magpie said was that Zman shot Martin, which is a fact. He made no claim about Zman's reasons or lack thereof, but it's illogical to assume that he had a legitimate reason without any evidence. It's up to Zman to show that he did, in fact, have a good reason to shoot Martine.
|
On May 31 2013 07:54 GwSC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2013 07:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:44 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 07:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:31 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 07:23 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:19 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 07:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:01 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 06:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
In my opinion, if you anger someone enough to get them to fight then you're the one initiating (or goading) it to happen. If someone followed my for more than a block, someone who at one point was running at me, and then somehow catches up and starts harassing me--I would definitely be upset, especially if I was going home. Which definitely fits into the "Zman harasses Travyon" scenario.
And what if whatever Zman said to Trayvon that made him angry was not something that most people, or the law, would see as reason to start a physical fight? It is possible that Trayvon did not act reasonably, yet you choose to dismiss that possibility because of your own bias in favor of Trayvon. Because we don't know what was actually said. The specifics of those words can't be proven. Either Zman initiated (which makes sense since he was following him with a gun) or Zman harassed Martin into it, or the kid randomly attacked someone. It doesn't make sense to me that Martin would attack--because I don't see cause for him to attack. I can see Zman attacking since he was already following the victim around while holding a gun. I can also see Zman harassing the kid in some way to cause the fight to happen. Well what you choose to see as not being a possibility is certainly a possibility to me. You keep mentioning that he was following Martin holding a gun, when as far as I know it has not been established whether or not he had the gun out. If we go with the possibility that the gun was not out, and Martin was angered by something Zman said (whether it was an inflammatory remark or reasonable questions, or anything else), how can you not see a cause for Martin to attack if he had the temperament to do so? The only way I can see for you not believing this is possible is because in your own mind you already see Martin as "the good guy", or at least are choosing to believe specific things about his personality when you really have no idea. I don't think of Martin as a good guy. But I require evidence to believe someone would attack someone. Zman has taped evidence of him chasing/following after Martin even getting a bit peeved that martin was getting away. He is asked not to follow martin, he does so anyway, and Martin ends up dead. That shows that he already had an agenda towards martin, that he was actively pursuing Martin, and then upon meeting up with Martin ends up killing Martin. There is no evidence showing that Martin had any reason to attack Zman. There is evidence that shows why Zman would attack Martin. That's what the facts say, the rest is up for debate. There is evidence that a guy on neighborhood watch had an "agenda" of following someone who he said looked suspicious to him. The fact that you see that as evidence of Zman having a reason to attack Martin is purely based on your own bias, because in reality the altercation could have gone any number of ways, and either man could have been at fault. The fact is that on its own, your own presumptuous opinion that Zman was following Martin with the intent to do harm is not "evidence". It is more evidence than the assumption that Martin would attack Zman--which there is none. What I have is circumstantial. The evidence I have is Martin was seen as a threat, followed, and then shot. Because he Zman said he was a threat, because zman did follow him, and because zman did shoot him. Those are my facts. Most of the other evidence on this case have experts on both sides arguing on it and hence are not facts yet, just evidence up for debate. The fact that we know more about what Zman was doing at the time does not automatically make it any more or less likely that it was his fault that a physical fight started, and that as a result Martin ended up dead. You are again using your own words to twist things around. Zman never said he saw Martin as a "threat" which would imply he already inclined to be defensively aggressive. He simply said he thought Martin was "suspicious", and decided to investigate. My continuing issue with your arguments is your refusal to acknowledge any possibility that Martin may have acted irrationally and started the fight. Its not my refusal--it's me not wanting to make accusations against someone without evidence. Us having evidence of Zman calling martin suspicious, high, etc... and then evidence of him following martin and the actual fact of him shooting martin after doing all that is simply what the evidence shows us. We could either follow the evidence, or we could pretend evidence doesn't matter and pretend that martin was the aggressor. Yet that first part is exactly what you are doing in assuming that Zman shot Martin without having a good reason to do so (i.e., if he was attacked first and was afraid for his life). The facts we have that tell us Zman decided to follow Martin because he thought he looked suspicious are not even close to being evidence of that. We do not know at all what happened when the two men met, or why they got into a fight, but you have already decided it was Zman's fault.
Do we have evidence that Martin started anything? No.
Do we have evidence that Zman was suspicious of Martin? Yes. Because he called the police.
Do we have evidence of Zman chasing Martin? Yes. Because he was running at the time of the phone call.
Do we have evidence of Zman following martin after he was told "you don't have to do that"? Yes. Because he didn't go back to his car and was now near the victim's house.
Do we have evidence that when Zman reached his victim that in 1-2 minutes the victim was shot? Yes. Because of a fucking gun shot a minute or two after Zmann reached Martin.
Did Zman stalk his prey like a serial killer? Possibly not, we don't have evidence for that.
Did Zman go after someone he felt suspicious about and then shot him? Yes. That we can prove.
Do you have to be a serial killer to kill people? Hell no.
Did Zman kill someone? Yes.
|
On May 31 2013 07:59 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2013 07:54 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 07:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:44 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 07:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:31 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 07:23 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:19 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 07:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:01 GwSC wrote:
[quote]
And what if whatever Zman said to Trayvon that made him angry was not something that most people, or the law, would see as reason to start a physical fight? It is possible that Trayvon did not act reasonably, yet you choose to dismiss that possibility because of your own bias in favor of Trayvon.
Because we don't know what was actually said. The specifics of those words can't be proven. Either Zman initiated (which makes sense since he was following him with a gun) or Zman harassed Martin into it, or the kid randomly attacked someone. It doesn't make sense to me that Martin would attack--because I don't see cause for him to attack. I can see Zman attacking since he was already following the victim around while holding a gun. I can also see Zman harassing the kid in some way to cause the fight to happen. Well what you choose to see as not being a possibility is certainly a possibility to me. You keep mentioning that he was following Martin holding a gun, when as far as I know it has not been established whether or not he had the gun out. If we go with the possibility that the gun was not out, and Martin was angered by something Zman said (whether it was an inflammatory remark or reasonable questions, or anything else), how can you not see a cause for Martin to attack if he had the temperament to do so? The only way I can see for you not believing this is possible is because in your own mind you already see Martin as "the good guy", or at least are choosing to believe specific things about his personality when you really have no idea. I don't think of Martin as a good guy. But I require evidence to believe someone would attack someone. Zman has taped evidence of him chasing/following after Martin even getting a bit peeved that martin was getting away. He is asked not to follow martin, he does so anyway, and Martin ends up dead. That shows that he already had an agenda towards martin, that he was actively pursuing Martin, and then upon meeting up with Martin ends up killing Martin. There is no evidence showing that Martin had any reason to attack Zman. There is evidence that shows why Zman would attack Martin. That's what the facts say, the rest is up for debate. There is evidence that a guy on neighborhood watch had an "agenda" of following someone who he said looked suspicious to him. The fact that you see that as evidence of Zman having a reason to attack Martin is purely based on your own bias, because in reality the altercation could have gone any number of ways, and either man could have been at fault. The fact is that on its own, your own presumptuous opinion that Zman was following Martin with the intent to do harm is not "evidence". It is more evidence than the assumption that Martin would attack Zman--which there is none. What I have is circumstantial. The evidence I have is Martin was seen as a threat, followed, and then shot. Because he Zman said he was a threat, because zman did follow him, and because zman did shoot him. Those are my facts. Most of the other evidence on this case have experts on both sides arguing on it and hence are not facts yet, just evidence up for debate. The fact that we know more about what Zman was doing at the time does not automatically make it any more or less likely that it was his fault that a physical fight started, and that as a result Martin ended up dead. You are again using your own words to twist things around. Zman never said he saw Martin as a "threat" which would imply he already inclined to be defensively aggressive. He simply said he thought Martin was "suspicious", and decided to investigate. My continuing issue with your arguments is your refusal to acknowledge any possibility that Martin may have acted irrationally and started the fight. Its not my refusal--it's me not wanting to make accusations against someone without evidence. Us having evidence of Zman calling martin suspicious, high, etc... and then evidence of him following martin and the actual fact of him shooting martin after doing all that is simply what the evidence shows us. We could either follow the evidence, or we could pretend evidence doesn't matter and pretend that martin was the aggressor. Yet that first part is exactly what you are doing in assuming that Zman shot Martin without having a good reason to do so (i.e., if he was attacked first and was afraid for his life). The facts we have that tell us Zman decided to follow Martin because he thought he looked suspicious are not even close to being evidence of that. We do not know at all what happened when the two men met, or why they got into a fight, but you have already decided it was Zman's fault. Actually all Magpie said was that Zman shot Martin, which is a fact. He made no claim about Zman's reasons or lack thereof, but it's illogical to assume that he had a legitimate reason without any evidence. It's up to Zman to show that he did, in fact, have a good reason to shoot Martine.
Well, legally speaking the prosecution needs to prove that Zimmerman initiated the fight. Considering the large body of evidence that there was an altercation and multiple witnesses saying Zimmerman was on the ground, getting punched, and calling for help, this is really the only way the prosecution can prove their case.
|
On May 31 2013 08:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2013 07:54 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 07:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:44 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 07:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:31 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 07:23 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:19 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 07:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:01 GwSC wrote:
[quote]
And what if whatever Zman said to Trayvon that made him angry was not something that most people, or the law, would see as reason to start a physical fight? It is possible that Trayvon did not act reasonably, yet you choose to dismiss that possibility because of your own bias in favor of Trayvon.
Because we don't know what was actually said. The specifics of those words can't be proven. Either Zman initiated (which makes sense since he was following him with a gun) or Zman harassed Martin into it, or the kid randomly attacked someone. It doesn't make sense to me that Martin would attack--because I don't see cause for him to attack. I can see Zman attacking since he was already following the victim around while holding a gun. I can also see Zman harassing the kid in some way to cause the fight to happen. Well what you choose to see as not being a possibility is certainly a possibility to me. You keep mentioning that he was following Martin holding a gun, when as far as I know it has not been established whether or not he had the gun out. If we go with the possibility that the gun was not out, and Martin was angered by something Zman said (whether it was an inflammatory remark or reasonable questions, or anything else), how can you not see a cause for Martin to attack if he had the temperament to do so? The only way I can see for you not believing this is possible is because in your own mind you already see Martin as "the good guy", or at least are choosing to believe specific things about his personality when you really have no idea. I don't think of Martin as a good guy. But I require evidence to believe someone would attack someone. Zman has taped evidence of him chasing/following after Martin even getting a bit peeved that martin was getting away. He is asked not to follow martin, he does so anyway, and Martin ends up dead. That shows that he already had an agenda towards martin, that he was actively pursuing Martin, and then upon meeting up with Martin ends up killing Martin. There is no evidence showing that Martin had any reason to attack Zman. There is evidence that shows why Zman would attack Martin. That's what the facts say, the rest is up for debate. There is evidence that a guy on neighborhood watch had an "agenda" of following someone who he said looked suspicious to him. The fact that you see that as evidence of Zman having a reason to attack Martin is purely based on your own bias, because in reality the altercation could have gone any number of ways, and either man could have been at fault. The fact is that on its own, your own presumptuous opinion that Zman was following Martin with the intent to do harm is not "evidence". It is more evidence than the assumption that Martin would attack Zman--which there is none. What I have is circumstantial. The evidence I have is Martin was seen as a threat, followed, and then shot. Because he Zman said he was a threat, because zman did follow him, and because zman did shoot him. Those are my facts. Most of the other evidence on this case have experts on both sides arguing on it and hence are not facts yet, just evidence up for debate. The fact that we know more about what Zman was doing at the time does not automatically make it any more or less likely that it was his fault that a physical fight started, and that as a result Martin ended up dead. You are again using your own words to twist things around. Zman never said he saw Martin as a "threat" which would imply he already inclined to be defensively aggressive. He simply said he thought Martin was "suspicious", and decided to investigate. My continuing issue with your arguments is your refusal to acknowledge any possibility that Martin may have acted irrationally and started the fight. Its not my refusal--it's me not wanting to make accusations against someone without evidence. Us having evidence of Zman calling martin suspicious, high, etc... and then evidence of him following martin and the actual fact of him shooting martin after doing all that is simply what the evidence shows us. We could either follow the evidence, or we could pretend evidence doesn't matter and pretend that martin was the aggressor. Yet that first part is exactly what you are doing in assuming that Zman shot Martin without having a good reason to do so (i.e., if he was attacked first and was afraid for his life). The facts we have that tell us Zman decided to follow Martin because he thought he looked suspicious are not even close to being evidence of that. We do not know at all what happened when the two men met, or why they got into a fight, but you have already decided it was Zman's fault. Do we have evidence that Martin started anything? No. Do we have evidence that Zman was suspicious of Martin? Yes. Because he called the police. Do we have evidence of Zman chasing Martin? Yes. Because he was running at the time of the phone call. Do we have evidence of Zman following martin after he was told "you don't have to do that"? Yes. Because he didn't go back to his car and was now near the victim's house. Do we have evidence that when Zman reached his victim that in 1-2 minutes the victim was shot? Yes. Because of a fucking gun shot a minute or two after Zmann reached Martin. Did Zman stalk his prey like a serial killer? Possibly not, we don't have evidence for that. Did Zman go after someone he felt suspicious about and then shot him? Yes. That we can prove. Do you have to be a serial killer to kill people? Hell no. Did Zman kill someone? Yes.
You can point all this stuff out, but none of it matters if Trayvon initiated the fight. Following someone is legal. Asking someone what they're up to is legal. It doesn't give anyone the right to assault you. The only thing that matters is who initiated the fight.
|
On May 31 2013 07:59 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2013 07:54 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 07:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:44 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 07:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:31 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 07:23 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:19 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 07:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:01 GwSC wrote:
[quote]
And what if whatever Zman said to Trayvon that made him angry was not something that most people, or the law, would see as reason to start a physical fight? It is possible that Trayvon did not act reasonably, yet you choose to dismiss that possibility because of your own bias in favor of Trayvon.
Because we don't know what was actually said. The specifics of those words can't be proven. Either Zman initiated (which makes sense since he was following him with a gun) or Zman harassed Martin into it, or the kid randomly attacked someone. It doesn't make sense to me that Martin would attack--because I don't see cause for him to attack. I can see Zman attacking since he was already following the victim around while holding a gun. I can also see Zman harassing the kid in some way to cause the fight to happen. Well what you choose to see as not being a possibility is certainly a possibility to me. You keep mentioning that he was following Martin holding a gun, when as far as I know it has not been established whether or not he had the gun out. If we go with the possibility that the gun was not out, and Martin was angered by something Zman said (whether it was an inflammatory remark or reasonable questions, or anything else), how can you not see a cause for Martin to attack if he had the temperament to do so? The only way I can see for you not believing this is possible is because in your own mind you already see Martin as "the good guy", or at least are choosing to believe specific things about his personality when you really have no idea. I don't think of Martin as a good guy. But I require evidence to believe someone would attack someone. Zman has taped evidence of him chasing/following after Martin even getting a bit peeved that martin was getting away. He is asked not to follow martin, he does so anyway, and Martin ends up dead. That shows that he already had an agenda towards martin, that he was actively pursuing Martin, and then upon meeting up with Martin ends up killing Martin. There is no evidence showing that Martin had any reason to attack Zman. There is evidence that shows why Zman would attack Martin. That's what the facts say, the rest is up for debate. There is evidence that a guy on neighborhood watch had an "agenda" of following someone who he said looked suspicious to him. The fact that you see that as evidence of Zman having a reason to attack Martin is purely based on your own bias, because in reality the altercation could have gone any number of ways, and either man could have been at fault. The fact is that on its own, your own presumptuous opinion that Zman was following Martin with the intent to do harm is not "evidence". It is more evidence than the assumption that Martin would attack Zman--which there is none. What I have is circumstantial. The evidence I have is Martin was seen as a threat, followed, and then shot. Because he Zman said he was a threat, because zman did follow him, and because zman did shoot him. Those are my facts. Most of the other evidence on this case have experts on both sides arguing on it and hence are not facts yet, just evidence up for debate. The fact that we know more about what Zman was doing at the time does not automatically make it any more or less likely that it was his fault that a physical fight started, and that as a result Martin ended up dead. You are again using your own words to twist things around. Zman never said he saw Martin as a "threat" which would imply he already inclined to be defensively aggressive. He simply said he thought Martin was "suspicious", and decided to investigate. My continuing issue with your arguments is your refusal to acknowledge any possibility that Martin may have acted irrationally and started the fight. Its not my refusal--it's me not wanting to make accusations against someone without evidence. Us having evidence of Zman calling martin suspicious, high, etc... and then evidence of him following martin and the actual fact of him shooting martin after doing all that is simply what the evidence shows us. We could either follow the evidence, or we could pretend evidence doesn't matter and pretend that martin was the aggressor. Yet that first part is exactly what you are doing in assuming that Zman shot Martin without having a good reason to do so (i.e., if he was attacked first and was afraid for his life). The facts we have that tell us Zman decided to follow Martin because he thought he looked suspicious are not even close to being evidence of that. We do not know at all what happened when the two men met, or why they got into a fight, but you have already decided it was Zman's fault. Actually all Magpie said was that Zman shot Martin, which is a fact. He made no claim about Zman's reasons or lack thereof, but it's illogical to assume that he had a legitimate reason without any evidence. It's up to Zman to show that he did, in fact, have a good reason to shoot Martine.
If you read back in the discussion (further than the line of quotes in this post) he did exactly that. And I agree that it is illogical to make that assumption. It is also illogical to ignore as a possibility, which is where this argument originates.
|
On May 31 2013 08:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2013 07:54 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 07:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:44 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 07:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:31 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 07:23 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:19 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 07:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:01 GwSC wrote:
[quote]
And what if whatever Zman said to Trayvon that made him angry was not something that most people, or the law, would see as reason to start a physical fight? It is possible that Trayvon did not act reasonably, yet you choose to dismiss that possibility because of your own bias in favor of Trayvon.
Because we don't know what was actually said. The specifics of those words can't be proven. Either Zman initiated (which makes sense since he was following him with a gun) or Zman harassed Martin into it, or the kid randomly attacked someone. It doesn't make sense to me that Martin would attack--because I don't see cause for him to attack. I can see Zman attacking since he was already following the victim around while holding a gun. I can also see Zman harassing the kid in some way to cause the fight to happen. Well what you choose to see as not being a possibility is certainly a possibility to me. You keep mentioning that he was following Martin holding a gun, when as far as I know it has not been established whether or not he had the gun out. If we go with the possibility that the gun was not out, and Martin was angered by something Zman said (whether it was an inflammatory remark or reasonable questions, or anything else), how can you not see a cause for Martin to attack if he had the temperament to do so? The only way I can see for you not believing this is possible is because in your own mind you already see Martin as "the good guy", or at least are choosing to believe specific things about his personality when you really have no idea. I don't think of Martin as a good guy. But I require evidence to believe someone would attack someone. Zman has taped evidence of him chasing/following after Martin even getting a bit peeved that martin was getting away. He is asked not to follow martin, he does so anyway, and Martin ends up dead. That shows that he already had an agenda towards martin, that he was actively pursuing Martin, and then upon meeting up with Martin ends up killing Martin. There is no evidence showing that Martin had any reason to attack Zman. There is evidence that shows why Zman would attack Martin. That's what the facts say, the rest is up for debate. There is evidence that a guy on neighborhood watch had an "agenda" of following someone who he said looked suspicious to him. The fact that you see that as evidence of Zman having a reason to attack Martin is purely based on your own bias, because in reality the altercation could have gone any number of ways, and either man could have been at fault. The fact is that on its own, your own presumptuous opinion that Zman was following Martin with the intent to do harm is not "evidence". It is more evidence than the assumption that Martin would attack Zman--which there is none. What I have is circumstantial. The evidence I have is Martin was seen as a threat, followed, and then shot. Because he Zman said he was a threat, because zman did follow him, and because zman did shoot him. Those are my facts. Most of the other evidence on this case have experts on both sides arguing on it and hence are not facts yet, just evidence up for debate. The fact that we know more about what Zman was doing at the time does not automatically make it any more or less likely that it was his fault that a physical fight started, and that as a result Martin ended up dead. You are again using your own words to twist things around. Zman never said he saw Martin as a "threat" which would imply he already inclined to be defensively aggressive. He simply said he thought Martin was "suspicious", and decided to investigate. My continuing issue with your arguments is your refusal to acknowledge any possibility that Martin may have acted irrationally and started the fight. Its not my refusal--it's me not wanting to make accusations against someone without evidence. Us having evidence of Zman calling martin suspicious, high, etc... and then evidence of him following martin and the actual fact of him shooting martin after doing all that is simply what the evidence shows us. We could either follow the evidence, or we could pretend evidence doesn't matter and pretend that martin was the aggressor. Yet that first part is exactly what you are doing in assuming that Zman shot Martin without having a good reason to do so (i.e., if he was attacked first and was afraid for his life). The facts we have that tell us Zman decided to follow Martin because he thought he looked suspicious are not even close to being evidence of that. We do not know at all what happened when the two men met, or why they got into a fight, but you have already decided it was Zman's fault. Do we have evidence that Martin started anything? No. Do we have evidence that Zman was suspicious of Martin? Yes. Because he called the police. Do we have evidence of Zman chasing Martin? Yes. Because he was running at the time of the phone call. Do we have evidence of Zman following martin after he was told "you don't have to do that"? Yes. Because he didn't go back to his car and was now near the victim's house. Do we have evidence that when Zman reached his victim that in 1-2 minutes the victim was shot? Yes. Because of a fucking gun shot a minute or two after Zmann reached Martin. Did Zman stalk his prey like a serial killer? Possibly not, we don't have evidence for that. Did Zman go after someone he felt suspicious about and then shot him? Yes. That we can prove. Do you have to be a serial killer to kill people? Hell no. Did Zman kill someone? Yes.
And despite everything in this post, there is still no evidence that Zman shot Martin without a good reason.
|
On May 31 2013 08:12 GwSC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2013 08:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:54 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 07:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:44 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 07:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:31 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 07:23 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:19 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 07:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Because we don't know what was actually said. The specifics of those words can't be proven. Either Zman initiated (which makes sense since he was following him with a gun) or Zman harassed Martin into it, or the kid randomly attacked someone.
It doesn't make sense to me that Martin would attack--because I don't see cause for him to attack.
I can see Zman attacking since he was already following the victim around while holding a gun.
I can also see Zman harassing the kid in some way to cause the fight to happen.
Well what you choose to see as not being a possibility is certainly a possibility to me. You keep mentioning that he was following Martin holding a gun, when as far as I know it has not been established whether or not he had the gun out. If we go with the possibility that the gun was not out, and Martin was angered by something Zman said (whether it was an inflammatory remark or reasonable questions, or anything else), how can you not see a cause for Martin to attack if he had the temperament to do so? The only way I can see for you not believing this is possible is because in your own mind you already see Martin as "the good guy", or at least are choosing to believe specific things about his personality when you really have no idea. I don't think of Martin as a good guy. But I require evidence to believe someone would attack someone. Zman has taped evidence of him chasing/following after Martin even getting a bit peeved that martin was getting away. He is asked not to follow martin, he does so anyway, and Martin ends up dead. That shows that he already had an agenda towards martin, that he was actively pursuing Martin, and then upon meeting up with Martin ends up killing Martin. There is no evidence showing that Martin had any reason to attack Zman. There is evidence that shows why Zman would attack Martin. That's what the facts say, the rest is up for debate. There is evidence that a guy on neighborhood watch had an "agenda" of following someone who he said looked suspicious to him. The fact that you see that as evidence of Zman having a reason to attack Martin is purely based on your own bias, because in reality the altercation could have gone any number of ways, and either man could have been at fault. The fact is that on its own, your own presumptuous opinion that Zman was following Martin with the intent to do harm is not "evidence". It is more evidence than the assumption that Martin would attack Zman--which there is none. What I have is circumstantial. The evidence I have is Martin was seen as a threat, followed, and then shot. Because he Zman said he was a threat, because zman did follow him, and because zman did shoot him. Those are my facts. Most of the other evidence on this case have experts on both sides arguing on it and hence are not facts yet, just evidence up for debate. The fact that we know more about what Zman was doing at the time does not automatically make it any more or less likely that it was his fault that a physical fight started, and that as a result Martin ended up dead. You are again using your own words to twist things around. Zman never said he saw Martin as a "threat" which would imply he already inclined to be defensively aggressive. He simply said he thought Martin was "suspicious", and decided to investigate. My continuing issue with your arguments is your refusal to acknowledge any possibility that Martin may have acted irrationally and started the fight. Its not my refusal--it's me not wanting to make accusations against someone without evidence. Us having evidence of Zman calling martin suspicious, high, etc... and then evidence of him following martin and the actual fact of him shooting martin after doing all that is simply what the evidence shows us. We could either follow the evidence, or we could pretend evidence doesn't matter and pretend that martin was the aggressor. Yet that first part is exactly what you are doing in assuming that Zman shot Martin without having a good reason to do so (i.e., if he was attacked first and was afraid for his life). The facts we have that tell us Zman decided to follow Martin because he thought he looked suspicious are not even close to being evidence of that. We do not know at all what happened when the two men met, or why they got into a fight, but you have already decided it was Zman's fault. Do we have evidence that Martin started anything? No. Do we have evidence that Zman was suspicious of Martin? Yes. Because he called the police. Do we have evidence of Zman chasing Martin? Yes. Because he was running at the time of the phone call. Do we have evidence of Zman following martin after he was told "you don't have to do that"? Yes. Because he didn't go back to his car and was now near the victim's house. Do we have evidence that when Zman reached his victim that in 1-2 minutes the victim was shot? Yes. Because of a fucking gun shot a minute or two after Zmann reached Martin. Did Zman stalk his prey like a serial killer? Possibly not, we don't have evidence for that. Did Zman go after someone he felt suspicious about and then shot him? Yes. That we can prove. Do you have to be a serial killer to kill people? Hell no. Did Zman kill someone? Yes. And despite everything in this post, there is still no evidence that Zman shot Martin without a good reason.
And what good reason is that? He's claiming self defense when no one can prove who initiated the attack. You can't self defense something you initiate. If he can't prove self defense, then all he has is he was told he didn't have to follow, he followed anyway, and now a random kid the neighborhood is shot.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On May 31 2013 08:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2013 07:54 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 07:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:44 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 07:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:31 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 07:23 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:19 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 07:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:01 GwSC wrote:
[quote]
And what if whatever Zman said to Trayvon that made him angry was not something that most people, or the law, would see as reason to start a physical fight? It is possible that Trayvon did not act reasonably, yet you choose to dismiss that possibility because of your own bias in favor of Trayvon.
Because we don't know what was actually said. The specifics of those words can't be proven. Either Zman initiated (which makes sense since he was following him with a gun) or Zman harassed Martin into it, or the kid randomly attacked someone. It doesn't make sense to me that Martin would attack--because I don't see cause for him to attack. I can see Zman attacking since he was already following the victim around while holding a gun. I can also see Zman harassing the kid in some way to cause the fight to happen. Well what you choose to see as not being a possibility is certainly a possibility to me. You keep mentioning that he was following Martin holding a gun, when as far as I know it has not been established whether or not he had the gun out. If we go with the possibility that the gun was not out, and Martin was angered by something Zman said (whether it was an inflammatory remark or reasonable questions, or anything else), how can you not see a cause for Martin to attack if he had the temperament to do so? The only way I can see for you not believing this is possible is because in your own mind you already see Martin as "the good guy", or at least are choosing to believe specific things about his personality when you really have no idea. I don't think of Martin as a good guy. But I require evidence to believe someone would attack someone. Zman has taped evidence of him chasing/following after Martin even getting a bit peeved that martin was getting away. He is asked not to follow martin, he does so anyway, and Martin ends up dead. That shows that he already had an agenda towards martin, that he was actively pursuing Martin, and then upon meeting up with Martin ends up killing Martin. There is no evidence showing that Martin had any reason to attack Zman. There is evidence that shows why Zman would attack Martin. That's what the facts say, the rest is up for debate. There is evidence that a guy on neighborhood watch had an "agenda" of following someone who he said looked suspicious to him. The fact that you see that as evidence of Zman having a reason to attack Martin is purely based on your own bias, because in reality the altercation could have gone any number of ways, and either man could have been at fault. The fact is that on its own, your own presumptuous opinion that Zman was following Martin with the intent to do harm is not "evidence". It is more evidence than the assumption that Martin would attack Zman--which there is none. What I have is circumstantial. The evidence I have is Martin was seen as a threat, followed, and then shot. Because he Zman said he was a threat, because zman did follow him, and because zman did shoot him. Those are my facts. Most of the other evidence on this case have experts on both sides arguing on it and hence are not facts yet, just evidence up for debate. The fact that we know more about what Zman was doing at the time does not automatically make it any more or less likely that it was his fault that a physical fight started, and that as a result Martin ended up dead. You are again using your own words to twist things around. Zman never said he saw Martin as a "threat" which would imply he already inclined to be defensively aggressive. He simply said he thought Martin was "suspicious", and decided to investigate. My continuing issue with your arguments is your refusal to acknowledge any possibility that Martin may have acted irrationally and started the fight. Its not my refusal--it's me not wanting to make accusations against someone without evidence. Us having evidence of Zman calling martin suspicious, high, etc... and then evidence of him following martin and the actual fact of him shooting martin after doing all that is simply what the evidence shows us. We could either follow the evidence, or we could pretend evidence doesn't matter and pretend that martin was the aggressor. Yet that first part is exactly what you are doing in assuming that Zman shot Martin without having a good reason to do so (i.e., if he was attacked first and was afraid for his life). The facts we have that tell us Zman decided to follow Martin because he thought he looked suspicious are not even close to being evidence of that. We do not know at all what happened when the two men met, or why they got into a fight, but you have already decided it was Zman's fault. Do we have evidence that Martin started anything? No. Do we have evidence that Zman was suspicious of Martin? Yes. Because he called the police. Do we have evidence of Zman chasing Martin? Yes. Because he was running at the time of the phone call. Do we have evidence of Zman following martin after he was told "you don't have to do that"? Yes. Because he didn't go back to his car and was now near the victim's house. Do we have evidence that when Zman reached his victim that in 1-2 minutes the victim was shot? Yes. Because of a fucking gun shot a minute or two after Zmann reached Martin. Did Zman stalk his prey like a serial killer? Possibly not, we don't have evidence for that. Did Zman go after someone he felt suspicious about and then shot him? Yes. That we can prove. Do you have to be a serial killer to kill people? Hell no. Did Zman kill someone? Yes.
These exact points got discussed to death in all the previous pages. I should know since I read everything and all the articles on the subject lol. The OP who is a lawyer got tired of correcting people on all the different points, whether it was stalking or more. To clarify, Martin was the one who initiated the conversation with Zimmerman by asking him,"why are you following me?" and then Zimmerman says, "what are you doing here?". After that, phone went dead. Also, it was explained somewhere in the thread that listening to the phone call, you'll hear the rustling stop once the police operator told him he doesn't have to follow so it was concluded that Zimmerman stopped running. In terms of who screamed, at first Trayvon's dad thought it wasn't his son while Zimmerman's family all thought it was him. Trayvon's dad eventually changed his stance on the voice. On top of that, audio 'experts' are split on who it was screaming. Finally, let's not forget all of Zimmerman's witnesses suddenly deciding to change their stories which was very reminiscent of coaching. If you guys are going to keep this argument going for more pages lol, I suggest reading the articles (again if already read) in the OP just to make sure you have all the facts and drop all your biases otherwise this argument will stay as circular as its been for the last 5+ pages or so.
What I think happened:
+ Show Spoiler +Well, I finally read through this whole thread and a bit of the closed one lol. It was amazing to see how opinions changed as the case progressed. I have to say that this case is a tough one though. Originally, when I started reading the case, I was convinced that Zimmerman is guilty as charged. I mean, he got out of his car, chased Trayvon, got into a conflict and then murdered him. I didn't think it was intended so it wasn't first degree for sure but just the act of not taking the advice of the police dispatcher and following Trayvon was enough for me. I think the media and how they twisted the whole case was the real catalyst and I'm sure most would agree. They were showing pictures of Zimmerman in a jumpsuit and a younger picture of Trayvon where you wouldn't believe he would hurt a fly(I dunno if he would this day or not). The way everything was presented including the racism angle just piled up and I found it hard to believe that Trayvon was in any way or form responsible for the final outcome and that it was Zimmerman who did everything. Hearing the 911 calls of someone screaming for help figuring it must've been Trayvon(never heard either of their voices at this point) and seeing how the police didn't arrest him(figured that maybe his dad had a hand, conspiracy right?  ) also strengthened my thoughts that Zimmerman should be put away. Let's also not forget that NBC messed around with the audio recording for the police dispatcher and removed that whole question the police dispatcher asked about race which only fuelled the fire. As more stuff got released, my opinion slowly started to change. The tapes after his arrest were released by ABC and were debated for pages on end on here. Some claimed that they hid their logo on top of the head wounds including a website (DN? or ND?) zoomed in and enhanced the image that shows something on his head. Others, myself included couldn't see anything in the video since it was poor quality and figured that maybe the injuries were possibly made up(no evidence so far as it was). We eventually got the pictures 8 months or so after it happened but they fit into his story. The witnesses at the scene, most describing something that was either neutral or in Zimmerman's favour(he was on the bottom getting punched MMA style by Trayvon etc...) also had a role. Then we heard their histories. Zimmerman's history of trying to help the community and succeeded in some cases leading to him becoming the neighbourhood watch captain to his anger management classes that he took after he pushed a cop around that wanted to arrest his friend to his problems with his ex-wife and the restraining orders they got against each other. It seemed like he was in general, a guy that was trying to help as much as he could but he could be hot headed at times(he told the cop he didn't care that he was one when he found out about it). Trayvon's history of a young adult(incase kid insults anyone lol) going to school, doing career aptitude tests, SAT tests but also possibly dealing and using drugs. Overall though, some suspensions, some mishaps but it wasn't anything that was unexpected for someone his age(I don't condone drugs for the record lol). Overall, they both had their ups and downs so far and none seemed to have the upper hand although I did find Zimmerman's history of trying to do good in his community maybe slightly more touching seeing as how the community was terrorized by the constant robbers etc... Fast forward, then we have all these odds stuff happening. He gets charged with second degree murder but there are a lot of holes in that charge. We hear about the witnesses changing their statement that weakened Zimmerman's original case. Then just recently, the important witness of the prosecutor is caught lying which imo is going to hit their already weak case very hard considering that can come into play when she is being questioned. I mean, if she lied about her age and where she was on his funeral day, why can't she lie to boost his story? As it stands, it's hard for anyone to know what happened in the confrontation aside from what Zimmerman and Trayvon's girlfriend implied happened. What I think happened: From my understanding, Zimmerman felt responsible for the neighbourhood. It must've given him pride to be able to catch the robbers and be a watchful eye. He respected law enforcement as long as they were fair(he bashed them hard when some police officer's son beat a black homeless guy) and he probably took it upon himself to watch the community to make sure its safe since the police were always getting there late for robberies and such. For anyone that missed it, he originally bought his gun because some dog kept on hounding his wife and it was based on a recommendation by a police man(he originally opted for pepper spray as I recall). That night, when he went to Target, he was in his car when he saw Trayvon leave the convenience store. Seeing him walking a little wobbly, slowly in the rain checking houses out and not recognizing him in the community made him suspicious so he called the non-emergency line to inform the police. He didn't want him to get away so he followed him against the advice of the emergency personnel then he stopped as is evident by his breathing returning to normal. From Trayvor's side, he said that he saw Zimmerman stare at him in the car then get out and follow him. According to his girlfriend's account, he ran until he couldn't anymore. He eventually lost Zimmerman and that may have been due to Zimmerman stopping the pursuit so at this point, they are separate. What happens next is the unknown part and most confusing. According to Zimmerman's account, Trayvon saw him, went into a dark sidewalk then came back circling his car then left again. From reading his account, he didn't say he was scared but I think it was talked about that he said he was terrified so I find it a bit hard to swallow that he left his vehicle to find out what street he was on(not disagreeing with finding street name, just leaving safety of car). I disagree with this since from the call, we can see that he chased him and this corroborates with Trayvon's girlfriend's account. I think he chased him then he stopped close to the area of the shooting. Trayvon ran then got tired and walked. I think Zimmerman just walked around after he stopped talking with the dispatcher and ended up bumping into Trayvon in that area. Why Trayvon didn't just run back home when he had something like 2-3 minutes is beyond me but he tells his gf that he sees Zimmerman again, that he doesn't plan on running because he's tired(implied, girlfriend also says this) and that Zimmerman is getting closer to him. At this point, he asks Zimmerman, "why are you following me?" and Zimmerman responds with "what are you doing here?". After this, it gets even more blurry. His girlfriend says that she believes there was some struggle before the phone disconnected. Personally, I think the conversation got heated. Maybe Trayvon told him that it's not his concern or something and Zimmerman mentioned that he called the police on him so if he doesn't tell him anything, he'll have to tell them. Maybe Zimmerman tried to use a citizen arrest while the police arrived and Trayvon resisted for obvious reasons. Either way, from Zimmerman's injuries and Trayvon's knuckle wound, I think that Trayvon beat up on Zimmerman. I guess for me, I think it's quite possible that after words were exchanged, Zimmerman said what he wanted to say and decided to walk to his car then Trayvon jumped him or maybe it happened before he even turned out. Eventually, Zimmerman was getting beaten up, called for help and then fired his gun when he panicked since no one was responding and he felt that his life was threatened. Sorry for the really long text, but I wanted to see if anyone sees it from my perspective based on the evidence we have and I didn't think a small summary on how things unfolded even though the order isn't perfectly timed would be a bad idea lol
|
On May 31 2013 08:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2013 08:12 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 08:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:54 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 07:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:44 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 07:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:31 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 07:23 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:19 GwSC wrote:
[quote]
Well what you choose to see as not being a possibility is certainly a possibility to me. You keep mentioning that he was following Martin holding a gun, when as far as I know it has not been established whether or not he had the gun out. If we go with the possibility that the gun was not out, and Martin was angered by something Zman said (whether it was an inflammatory remark or reasonable questions, or anything else), how can you not see a cause for Martin to attack if he had the temperament to do so? The only way I can see for you not believing this is possible is because in your own mind you already see Martin as "the good guy", or at least are choosing to believe specific things about his personality when you really have no idea.
I don't think of Martin as a good guy. But I require evidence to believe someone would attack someone. Zman has taped evidence of him chasing/following after Martin even getting a bit peeved that martin was getting away. He is asked not to follow martin, he does so anyway, and Martin ends up dead. That shows that he already had an agenda towards martin, that he was actively pursuing Martin, and then upon meeting up with Martin ends up killing Martin. There is no evidence showing that Martin had any reason to attack Zman. There is evidence that shows why Zman would attack Martin. That's what the facts say, the rest is up for debate. There is evidence that a guy on neighborhood watch had an "agenda" of following someone who he said looked suspicious to him. The fact that you see that as evidence of Zman having a reason to attack Martin is purely based on your own bias, because in reality the altercation could have gone any number of ways, and either man could have been at fault. The fact is that on its own, your own presumptuous opinion that Zman was following Martin with the intent to do harm is not "evidence". It is more evidence than the assumption that Martin would attack Zman--which there is none. What I have is circumstantial. The evidence I have is Martin was seen as a threat, followed, and then shot. Because he Zman said he was a threat, because zman did follow him, and because zman did shoot him. Those are my facts. Most of the other evidence on this case have experts on both sides arguing on it and hence are not facts yet, just evidence up for debate. The fact that we know more about what Zman was doing at the time does not automatically make it any more or less likely that it was his fault that a physical fight started, and that as a result Martin ended up dead. You are again using your own words to twist things around. Zman never said he saw Martin as a "threat" which would imply he already inclined to be defensively aggressive. He simply said he thought Martin was "suspicious", and decided to investigate. My continuing issue with your arguments is your refusal to acknowledge any possibility that Martin may have acted irrationally and started the fight. Its not my refusal--it's me not wanting to make accusations against someone without evidence. Us having evidence of Zman calling martin suspicious, high, etc... and then evidence of him following martin and the actual fact of him shooting martin after doing all that is simply what the evidence shows us. We could either follow the evidence, or we could pretend evidence doesn't matter and pretend that martin was the aggressor. Yet that first part is exactly what you are doing in assuming that Zman shot Martin without having a good reason to do so (i.e., if he was attacked first and was afraid for his life). The facts we have that tell us Zman decided to follow Martin because he thought he looked suspicious are not even close to being evidence of that. We do not know at all what happened when the two men met, or why they got into a fight, but you have already decided it was Zman's fault. Do we have evidence that Martin started anything? No. Do we have evidence that Zman was suspicious of Martin? Yes. Because he called the police. Do we have evidence of Zman chasing Martin? Yes. Because he was running at the time of the phone call. Do we have evidence of Zman following martin after he was told "you don't have to do that"? Yes. Because he didn't go back to his car and was now near the victim's house. Do we have evidence that when Zman reached his victim that in 1-2 minutes the victim was shot? Yes. Because of a fucking gun shot a minute or two after Zmann reached Martin. Did Zman stalk his prey like a serial killer? Possibly not, we don't have evidence for that. Did Zman go after someone he felt suspicious about and then shot him? Yes. That we can prove. Do you have to be a serial killer to kill people? Hell no. Did Zman kill someone? Yes. And despite everything in this post, there is still no evidence that Zman shot Martin without a good reason. And what good reason is that? He's claiming self defense when no one can prove who initiated the attack. You can't self defense something you initiate. If he can't prove self defense, then all he has is he was told he didn't have to follow, he followed anyway, and now a random kid the neighborhood is shot.
I'll just repeat that Zman following Martin is by no means evidence that he committed murder. If it can't be proved that he committed murder, and it also can't be proved that it was self defense, you are prepared to call a man guilty based on your bias. A young man is dead and we are not sure why, but that does not mean we have to toss someone in prison for life just because. That is where my problem with your argument lies.
|
On May 31 2013 08:15 BigFan wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2013 08:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:54 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 07:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:44 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 07:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:31 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 07:23 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:19 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 07:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Because we don't know what was actually said. The specifics of those words can't be proven. Either Zman initiated (which makes sense since he was following him with a gun) or Zman harassed Martin into it, or the kid randomly attacked someone.
It doesn't make sense to me that Martin would attack--because I don't see cause for him to attack.
I can see Zman attacking since he was already following the victim around while holding a gun.
I can also see Zman harassing the kid in some way to cause the fight to happen.
Well what you choose to see as not being a possibility is certainly a possibility to me. You keep mentioning that he was following Martin holding a gun, when as far as I know it has not been established whether or not he had the gun out. If we go with the possibility that the gun was not out, and Martin was angered by something Zman said (whether it was an inflammatory remark or reasonable questions, or anything else), how can you not see a cause for Martin to attack if he had the temperament to do so? The only way I can see for you not believing this is possible is because in your own mind you already see Martin as "the good guy", or at least are choosing to believe specific things about his personality when you really have no idea. I don't think of Martin as a good guy. But I require evidence to believe someone would attack someone. Zman has taped evidence of him chasing/following after Martin even getting a bit peeved that martin was getting away. He is asked not to follow martin, he does so anyway, and Martin ends up dead. That shows that he already had an agenda towards martin, that he was actively pursuing Martin, and then upon meeting up with Martin ends up killing Martin. There is no evidence showing that Martin had any reason to attack Zman. There is evidence that shows why Zman would attack Martin. That's what the facts say, the rest is up for debate. There is evidence that a guy on neighborhood watch had an "agenda" of following someone who he said looked suspicious to him. The fact that you see that as evidence of Zman having a reason to attack Martin is purely based on your own bias, because in reality the altercation could have gone any number of ways, and either man could have been at fault. The fact is that on its own, your own presumptuous opinion that Zman was following Martin with the intent to do harm is not "evidence". It is more evidence than the assumption that Martin would attack Zman--which there is none. What I have is circumstantial. The evidence I have is Martin was seen as a threat, followed, and then shot. Because he Zman said he was a threat, because zman did follow him, and because zman did shoot him. Those are my facts. Most of the other evidence on this case have experts on both sides arguing on it and hence are not facts yet, just evidence up for debate. The fact that we know more about what Zman was doing at the time does not automatically make it any more or less likely that it was his fault that a physical fight started, and that as a result Martin ended up dead. You are again using your own words to twist things around. Zman never said he saw Martin as a "threat" which would imply he already inclined to be defensively aggressive. He simply said he thought Martin was "suspicious", and decided to investigate. My continuing issue with your arguments is your refusal to acknowledge any possibility that Martin may have acted irrationally and started the fight. Its not my refusal--it's me not wanting to make accusations against someone without evidence. Us having evidence of Zman calling martin suspicious, high, etc... and then evidence of him following martin and the actual fact of him shooting martin after doing all that is simply what the evidence shows us. We could either follow the evidence, or we could pretend evidence doesn't matter and pretend that martin was the aggressor. Yet that first part is exactly what you are doing in assuming that Zman shot Martin without having a good reason to do so (i.e., if he was attacked first and was afraid for his life). The facts we have that tell us Zman decided to follow Martin because he thought he looked suspicious are not even close to being evidence of that. We do not know at all what happened when the two men met, or why they got into a fight, but you have already decided it was Zman's fault. Do we have evidence that Martin started anything? No. Do we have evidence that Zman was suspicious of Martin? Yes. Because he called the police. Do we have evidence of Zman chasing Martin? Yes. Because he was running at the time of the phone call. Do we have evidence of Zman following martin after he was told "you don't have to do that"? Yes. Because he didn't go back to his car and was now near the victim's house. Do we have evidence that when Zman reached his victim that in 1-2 minutes the victim was shot? Yes. Because of a fucking gun shot a minute or two after Zmann reached Martin. Did Zman stalk his prey like a serial killer? Possibly not, we don't have evidence for that. Did Zman go after someone he felt suspicious about and then shot him? Yes. That we can prove. Do you have to be a serial killer to kill people? Hell no. Did Zman kill someone? Yes. These exact points got discussed to death in all the previous pages. I should know since I read everything and all the articles on the subject lol. The OP who is a lawyer got tired of correcting people on all the different points, whether it was stalking or more. To clarify, Martin was the one who initiated the conversation with Zimmerman by asking him,"why are you following me?" and then Zimmerman says, "what are you doing here?". After that, phone went dead. Also, it was explained somewhere in the thread that listening to the phone call, you'll hear the rustling stop once the police operator told him he doesn't have to follow so it was concluded that Zimmerman stopped running. In terms of who screamed, at first Trayvon's dad thought it wasn't his son while Zimmerman's family all thought it was him. Trayvon's dad eventually changed his stance on the voice. On top of that, audio 'experts' are split on who it was screaming. Finally, let's not forget all of Zimmerman's witnesses suddenly deciding to change their stories which was very reminiscent of coaching. If you guys are going to keep this argument going for more pages lol, I suggest reading the articles (again if already read) in the OP just to make sure you have all the facts and drop all your biases otherwise this argument will stay as circular as its been for the last 5+ pages or so.
Wait--so the counter evidence is that the dad is lying and the witness are being coached? That just because Zman stopped running he wasn't still following? I mean, his car was right there, but instead he randomly just walks towards Martin?
The scream is up to debate.
The bloody nose doesn't prove who initiated the attack.
The only thing we have is someone who said he was following someone, that person not returning to his car, ending up where the person he was following was, and the person he was following getting shot.
That's all we have. Witnesses changing stories, experts disagreeing, etc... all that shows is that a lot is still up for debate. The only thing not up for debate is an armed man following an unarmed kid and that kid getting shot.
EDIT:
Just saw your edit, and I have to say that its definitely a possible interpretation. The only portion I really disagree with is the phone randomly cutting off. If he was wearing a headset as it has been suggested at one point (I forget) then the only thing I can imagine is that it got knocked off his head. If it was a phone, I can only imagine that it got knocked off his hands. Its hard for me to imagine a kid breaking his own phone for no reason, so it seems to me that Zman might have been the one to knock it off which tells me that it definitely was Zman who initiated the argument. And somewhere between bravery and fear the gun just got used.
Yes, Zman does sound like a guy who cares about his community. I think he has all the traits a vigilante would have. A sense of responsibility, distrust in the full use of police, etc... Give him a gun and suddenly a kid gets shot.
Thank you for your interpretation of the narrative.
|
On May 31 2013 07:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2013 07:29 kmillz wrote:On May 31 2013 07:23 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:19 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 07:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:01 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 06:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 06:52 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 06:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 06:34 GwSC wrote:
[quote]
You're still making a mistake in attempting to strengthen your argument by attacking the character of anyone who proposes a different version of what happened. A black kid "randomly attacking" someone is far from the only possible explanation. Maybe Zimmerman followed Trayvon, confronted him, Trayvon got angry because of the manner in which he was confronted (or maybe he just had a bad day?) and things got physical? You dismiss this and any other similar possibility by saying that only a racist could believe that Trayvon started the fight and that Zimmerman acted in self defense.
Technically what you're describing is B) Zman harasses Travyon This would mean that it was Zman who initiated the fight. On a verbal level perhaps, but do you deny that it is possible that Zman said something that made Martin angry, and that Martin then attacked Zman initiating the physical fight? In my opinion, if you anger someone enough to get them to fight then you're the one initiating (or goading) it to happen. If someone followed my for more than a block, someone who at one point was running at me, and then somehow catches up and starts harassing me--I would definitely be upset, especially if I was going home. Which definitely fits into the "Zman harasses Travyon" scenario. And what if whatever Zman said to Trayvon that made him angry was not something that most people, or the law, would see as reason to start a physical fight? It is possible that Trayvon did not act reasonably, yet you choose to dismiss that possibility because of your own bias in favor of Trayvon. Because we don't know what was actually said. The specifics of those words can't be proven. Either Zman initiated (which makes sense since he was following him with a gun) or Zman harassed Martin into it, or the kid randomly attacked someone. It doesn't make sense to me that Martin would attack--because I don't see cause for him to attack. I can see Zman attacking since he was already following the victim around while holding a gun. I can also see Zman harassing the kid in some way to cause the fight to happen. Well what you choose to see as not being a possibility is certainly a possibility to me. You keep mentioning that he was following Martin holding a gun, when as far as I know it has not been established whether or not he had the gun out. If we go with the possibility that the gun was not out, and Martin was angered by something Zman said (whether it was an inflammatory remark or reasonable questions, or anything else), how can you not see a cause for Martin to attack if he had the temperament to do so? The only way I can see for you not believing this is possible is because in your own mind you already see Martin as "the good guy", or at least are choosing to believe specific things about his personality when you really have no idea. I don't think of Martin as a good guy. But I require evidence to believe someone would attack someone. Zman has taped evidence of him chasing/following after Martin even getting a bit peeved that martin was getting away. He is asked not to follow martin, he does so anyway, and Martin ends up dead. That shows that he already had an agenda towards martin, that he was actively pursuing Martin, and then upon meeting up with Martin ends up killing Martin. There is no evidence showing that Martin had any reason to attack Zman. There is evidence that shows why Zman would attack Martin. That's what the facts say, the rest is up for debate. How many times do I have to tell you he was not asked to do anything? He said "we don't need you to do that" and you keep alleging that he was told "Do not do that". He didn't have an agenda against Martin, he felt he had a duty to stop criminals and Martin looked like a suspect to him. There isn't any evidence that showed Martin had a reason to attack Zman...just as there isn't any evidence that showed Zman had a reason to start a fight with Martin. On May 31 2013 07:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:21 kmillz wrote:On May 31 2013 07:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:01 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 06:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 06:52 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 06:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 06:34 GwSC wrote:
[quote]
You're still making a mistake in attempting to strengthen your argument by attacking the character of anyone who proposes a different version of what happened. A black kid "randomly attacking" someone is far from the only possible explanation. Maybe Zimmerman followed Trayvon, confronted him, Trayvon got angry because of the manner in which he was confronted (or maybe he just had a bad day?) and things got physical? You dismiss this and any other similar possibility by saying that only a racist could believe that Trayvon started the fight and that Zimmerman acted in self defense.
Technically what you're describing is B) Zman harasses Travyon This would mean that it was Zman who initiated the fight. On a verbal level perhaps, but do you deny that it is possible that Zman said something that made Martin angry, and that Martin then attacked Zman initiating the physical fight? In my opinion, if you anger someone enough to get them to fight then you're the one initiating (or goading) it to happen. If someone followed my for more than a block, someone who at one point was running at me, and then somehow catches up and starts harassing me--I would definitely be upset, especially if I was going home. Which definitely fits into the "Zman harasses Travyon" scenario. And what if whatever Zman said to Trayvon that made him angry was not something that most people, or the law, would see as reason to start a physical fight? It is possible that Trayvon did not act reasonably, yet you choose to dismiss that possibility because of your own bias in favor of Trayvon. Because we don't know what was actually said. The specifics of those words can't be proven. Either Zman initiated (which makes sense since he was following him with a gun) or Zman harassed Martin into it, or the kid randomly attacked someone. It doesn't make sense to me that Martin would attack--because I don't see cause for him to attack. I can see Zman attacking since he was already following the victim around while holding a gun. I can also see Zman harassing the kid in some way to cause the fight to happen. Maybe he thought he was being stalked and decided to teach Zimmerman a lesson for following him? Who knows, there are certainly a large number of reasons. Maybe he just wanted to fight and thought that he could kick Zimmerman's ass because he looked at him the wrong way? I'm guessing you don't mean holding the gun in his hand, but you mean on his person. Either way, why does having a gun on you make you more likely to attack someone? Also, if he attacked Trayvon how come Trayvon had no injuries aside from the gunshot wound and the abrasion on his knuckle? I could just as easily see the kid harassing Zman in some way to cause the fight to happen. Regardless, there is no evidence of George punching Trayvon. None. So how can you even begin to argue that George threw the first punch when there wasn't any evidence he even threw one? because I said "initiated" and not "threw the first punch" because if you initiate by pulling a gun and trying to shoot someone you are not very likely to punch them because, you know, you're trying to shoot them. So you're saying George had a reason to point a gun at Trayvon? Yes, because he assumed Martin was up to no good. Because he was following martin. because after he was told he didn't have to do that, he ended up not going back to his car and put a bullet on a kid walking home instead. You wanting to place the emphasis on "you don't have to do that" instead of the fact that he followed someone walking home and shot him is very disturbing--but its not out of character based on how you defended the NRA in the gun thread.
Thinking somebody might be up to no good isn't a reason to point a gun at them. Following someone isn't a reason to point a gun at them. Your attacking my character won't fix your logic either.
On May 31 2013 08:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2013 07:54 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 07:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:44 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 07:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:31 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 07:23 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:19 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 07:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:01 GwSC wrote:
[quote]
And what if whatever Zman said to Trayvon that made him angry was not something that most people, or the law, would see as reason to start a physical fight? It is possible that Trayvon did not act reasonably, yet you choose to dismiss that possibility because of your own bias in favor of Trayvon.
Because we don't know what was actually said. The specifics of those words can't be proven. Either Zman initiated (which makes sense since he was following him with a gun) or Zman harassed Martin into it, or the kid randomly attacked someone. It doesn't make sense to me that Martin would attack--because I don't see cause for him to attack. I can see Zman attacking since he was already following the victim around while holding a gun. I can also see Zman harassing the kid in some way to cause the fight to happen. Well what you choose to see as not being a possibility is certainly a possibility to me. You keep mentioning that he was following Martin holding a gun, when as far as I know it has not been established whether or not he had the gun out. If we go with the possibility that the gun was not out, and Martin was angered by something Zman said (whether it was an inflammatory remark or reasonable questions, or anything else), how can you not see a cause for Martin to attack if he had the temperament to do so? The only way I can see for you not believing this is possible is because in your own mind you already see Martin as "the good guy", or at least are choosing to believe specific things about his personality when you really have no idea. I don't think of Martin as a good guy. But I require evidence to believe someone would attack someone. Zman has taped evidence of him chasing/following after Martin even getting a bit peeved that martin was getting away. He is asked not to follow martin, he does so anyway, and Martin ends up dead. That shows that he already had an agenda towards martin, that he was actively pursuing Martin, and then upon meeting up with Martin ends up killing Martin. There is no evidence showing that Martin had any reason to attack Zman. There is evidence that shows why Zman would attack Martin. That's what the facts say, the rest is up for debate. There is evidence that a guy on neighborhood watch had an "agenda" of following someone who he said looked suspicious to him. The fact that you see that as evidence of Zman having a reason to attack Martin is purely based on your own bias, because in reality the altercation could have gone any number of ways, and either man could have been at fault. The fact is that on its own, your own presumptuous opinion that Zman was following Martin with the intent to do harm is not "evidence". It is more evidence than the assumption that Martin would attack Zman--which there is none. What I have is circumstantial. The evidence I have is Martin was seen as a threat, followed, and then shot. Because he Zman said he was a threat, because zman did follow him, and because zman did shoot him. Those are my facts. Most of the other evidence on this case have experts on both sides arguing on it and hence are not facts yet, just evidence up for debate. The fact that we know more about what Zman was doing at the time does not automatically make it any more or less likely that it was his fault that a physical fight started, and that as a result Martin ended up dead. You are again using your own words to twist things around. Zman never said he saw Martin as a "threat" which would imply he already inclined to be defensively aggressive. He simply said he thought Martin was "suspicious", and decided to investigate. My continuing issue with your arguments is your refusal to acknowledge any possibility that Martin may have acted irrationally and started the fight. Its not my refusal--it's me not wanting to make accusations against someone without evidence. Us having evidence of Zman calling martin suspicious, high, etc... and then evidence of him following martin and the actual fact of him shooting martin after doing all that is simply what the evidence shows us. We could either follow the evidence, or we could pretend evidence doesn't matter and pretend that martin was the aggressor. Yet that first part is exactly what you are doing in assuming that Zman shot Martin without having a good reason to do so (i.e., if he was attacked first and was afraid for his life). The facts we have that tell us Zman decided to follow Martin because he thought he looked suspicious are not even close to being evidence of that. We do not know at all what happened when the two men met, or why they got into a fight, but you have already decided it was Zman's fault. Do we have evidence that Martin started anything? No. Do we have evidence that Zman was suspicious of Martin? Yes. Because he called the police. Do we have evidence of Zman chasing Martin? Yes. Because he was running at the time of the phone call. Do we have evidence of Zman following martin after he was told "you don't have to do that"? Yes. Because he didn't go back to his car and was now near the victim's house. Do we have evidence that when Zman reached his victim that in 1-2 minutes the victim was shot? Yes. Because of a fucking gun shot a minute or two after Zmann reached Martin. Did Zman stalk his prey like a serial killer? Possibly not, we don't have evidence for that. Did Zman go after someone he felt suspicious about and then shot him? Yes. That we can prove. Do you have to be a serial killer to kill people? Hell no. Did Zman kill someone? Yes.
Do we have evidence that Zimmerman was the one who initiated? No.
Innocent until proven guilty.
|
On May 31 2013 09:08 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2013 08:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:54 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 07:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:44 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 07:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:31 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 07:23 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:19 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 07:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Because we don't know what was actually said. The specifics of those words can't be proven. Either Zman initiated (which makes sense since he was following him with a gun) or Zman harassed Martin into it, or the kid randomly attacked someone.
It doesn't make sense to me that Martin would attack--because I don't see cause for him to attack.
I can see Zman attacking since he was already following the victim around while holding a gun.
I can also see Zman harassing the kid in some way to cause the fight to happen.
Well what you choose to see as not being a possibility is certainly a possibility to me. You keep mentioning that he was following Martin holding a gun, when as far as I know it has not been established whether or not he had the gun out. If we go with the possibility that the gun was not out, and Martin was angered by something Zman said (whether it was an inflammatory remark or reasonable questions, or anything else), how can you not see a cause for Martin to attack if he had the temperament to do so? The only way I can see for you not believing this is possible is because in your own mind you already see Martin as "the good guy", or at least are choosing to believe specific things about his personality when you really have no idea. I don't think of Martin as a good guy. But I require evidence to believe someone would attack someone. Zman has taped evidence of him chasing/following after Martin even getting a bit peeved that martin was getting away. He is asked not to follow martin, he does so anyway, and Martin ends up dead. That shows that he already had an agenda towards martin, that he was actively pursuing Martin, and then upon meeting up with Martin ends up killing Martin. There is no evidence showing that Martin had any reason to attack Zman. There is evidence that shows why Zman would attack Martin. That's what the facts say, the rest is up for debate. There is evidence that a guy on neighborhood watch had an "agenda" of following someone who he said looked suspicious to him. The fact that you see that as evidence of Zman having a reason to attack Martin is purely based on your own bias, because in reality the altercation could have gone any number of ways, and either man could have been at fault. The fact is that on its own, your own presumptuous opinion that Zman was following Martin with the intent to do harm is not "evidence". It is more evidence than the assumption that Martin would attack Zman--which there is none. What I have is circumstantial. The evidence I have is Martin was seen as a threat, followed, and then shot. Because he Zman said he was a threat, because zman did follow him, and because zman did shoot him. Those are my facts. Most of the other evidence on this case have experts on both sides arguing on it and hence are not facts yet, just evidence up for debate. The fact that we know more about what Zman was doing at the time does not automatically make it any more or less likely that it was his fault that a physical fight started, and that as a result Martin ended up dead. You are again using your own words to twist things around. Zman never said he saw Martin as a "threat" which would imply he already inclined to be defensively aggressive. He simply said he thought Martin was "suspicious", and decided to investigate. My continuing issue with your arguments is your refusal to acknowledge any possibility that Martin may have acted irrationally and started the fight. Its not my refusal--it's me not wanting to make accusations against someone without evidence. Us having evidence of Zman calling martin suspicious, high, etc... and then evidence of him following martin and the actual fact of him shooting martin after doing all that is simply what the evidence shows us. We could either follow the evidence, or we could pretend evidence doesn't matter and pretend that martin was the aggressor. Yet that first part is exactly what you are doing in assuming that Zman shot Martin without having a good reason to do so (i.e., if he was attacked first and was afraid for his life). The facts we have that tell us Zman decided to follow Martin because he thought he looked suspicious are not even close to being evidence of that. We do not know at all what happened when the two men met, or why they got into a fight, but you have already decided it was Zman's fault. Do we have evidence that Martin started anything? No. Do we have evidence that Zman was suspicious of Martin? Yes. Because he called the police. Do we have evidence of Zman chasing Martin? Yes. Because he was running at the time of the phone call. Do we have evidence of Zman following martin after he was told "you don't have to do that"? Yes. Because he didn't go back to his car and was now near the victim's house. Do we have evidence that when Zman reached his victim that in 1-2 minutes the victim was shot? Yes. Because of a fucking gun shot a minute or two after Zmann reached Martin. Did Zman stalk his prey like a serial killer? Possibly not, we don't have evidence for that. Did Zman go after someone he felt suspicious about and then shot him? Yes. That we can prove. Do you have to be a serial killer to kill people? Hell no. Did Zman kill someone? Yes. Do we have evidence that Zimmerman was the one who initiated? No. Innocent until proven guilty.
We only have proof than at armed man tracked, followed, and shot a kid who was walking home. That is all.
|
On May 31 2013 09:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2013 09:08 kmillz wrote:On May 31 2013 08:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:54 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 07:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:44 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 07:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:31 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 07:23 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:19 GwSC wrote:
[quote]
Well what you choose to see as not being a possibility is certainly a possibility to me. You keep mentioning that he was following Martin holding a gun, when as far as I know it has not been established whether or not he had the gun out. If we go with the possibility that the gun was not out, and Martin was angered by something Zman said (whether it was an inflammatory remark or reasonable questions, or anything else), how can you not see a cause for Martin to attack if he had the temperament to do so? The only way I can see for you not believing this is possible is because in your own mind you already see Martin as "the good guy", or at least are choosing to believe specific things about his personality when you really have no idea.
I don't think of Martin as a good guy. But I require evidence to believe someone would attack someone. Zman has taped evidence of him chasing/following after Martin even getting a bit peeved that martin was getting away. He is asked not to follow martin, he does so anyway, and Martin ends up dead. That shows that he already had an agenda towards martin, that he was actively pursuing Martin, and then upon meeting up with Martin ends up killing Martin. There is no evidence showing that Martin had any reason to attack Zman. There is evidence that shows why Zman would attack Martin. That's what the facts say, the rest is up for debate. There is evidence that a guy on neighborhood watch had an "agenda" of following someone who he said looked suspicious to him. The fact that you see that as evidence of Zman having a reason to attack Martin is purely based on your own bias, because in reality the altercation could have gone any number of ways, and either man could have been at fault. The fact is that on its own, your own presumptuous opinion that Zman was following Martin with the intent to do harm is not "evidence". It is more evidence than the assumption that Martin would attack Zman--which there is none. What I have is circumstantial. The evidence I have is Martin was seen as a threat, followed, and then shot. Because he Zman said he was a threat, because zman did follow him, and because zman did shoot him. Those are my facts. Most of the other evidence on this case have experts on both sides arguing on it and hence are not facts yet, just evidence up for debate. The fact that we know more about what Zman was doing at the time does not automatically make it any more or less likely that it was his fault that a physical fight started, and that as a result Martin ended up dead. You are again using your own words to twist things around. Zman never said he saw Martin as a "threat" which would imply he already inclined to be defensively aggressive. He simply said he thought Martin was "suspicious", and decided to investigate. My continuing issue with your arguments is your refusal to acknowledge any possibility that Martin may have acted irrationally and started the fight. Its not my refusal--it's me not wanting to make accusations against someone without evidence. Us having evidence of Zman calling martin suspicious, high, etc... and then evidence of him following martin and the actual fact of him shooting martin after doing all that is simply what the evidence shows us. We could either follow the evidence, or we could pretend evidence doesn't matter and pretend that martin was the aggressor. Yet that first part is exactly what you are doing in assuming that Zman shot Martin without having a good reason to do so (i.e., if he was attacked first and was afraid for his life). The facts we have that tell us Zman decided to follow Martin because he thought he looked suspicious are not even close to being evidence of that. We do not know at all what happened when the two men met, or why they got into a fight, but you have already decided it was Zman's fault. Do we have evidence that Martin started anything? No. Do we have evidence that Zman was suspicious of Martin? Yes. Because he called the police. Do we have evidence of Zman chasing Martin? Yes. Because he was running at the time of the phone call. Do we have evidence of Zman following martin after he was told "you don't have to do that"? Yes. Because he didn't go back to his car and was now near the victim's house. Do we have evidence that when Zman reached his victim that in 1-2 minutes the victim was shot? Yes. Because of a fucking gun shot a minute or two after Zmann reached Martin. Did Zman stalk his prey like a serial killer? Possibly not, we don't have evidence for that. Did Zman go after someone he felt suspicious about and then shot him? Yes. That we can prove. Do you have to be a serial killer to kill people? Hell no. Did Zman kill someone? Yes. Do we have evidence that Zimmerman was the one who initiated? No. Innocent until proven guilty. We only have proof than at armed man tracked, followed, and shot a kid who was walking home. That is all.
That's rather contradictory of your previous post where you named like 5 things we have "evidence" of where you conveniently left out the detail of the photographic evidence of the destruction he laid out on Zimmerman's face.
If it doesn't fit your story or help your case obviously it's not evidence right?
|
On May 31 2013 09:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2013 09:08 kmillz wrote:On May 31 2013 08:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:54 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 07:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:44 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 07:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:31 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 07:23 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:19 GwSC wrote:
[quote]
Well what you choose to see as not being a possibility is certainly a possibility to me. You keep mentioning that he was following Martin holding a gun, when as far as I know it has not been established whether or not he had the gun out. If we go with the possibility that the gun was not out, and Martin was angered by something Zman said (whether it was an inflammatory remark or reasonable questions, or anything else), how can you not see a cause for Martin to attack if he had the temperament to do so? The only way I can see for you not believing this is possible is because in your own mind you already see Martin as "the good guy", or at least are choosing to believe specific things about his personality when you really have no idea.
I don't think of Martin as a good guy. But I require evidence to believe someone would attack someone. Zman has taped evidence of him chasing/following after Martin even getting a bit peeved that martin was getting away. He is asked not to follow martin, he does so anyway, and Martin ends up dead. That shows that he already had an agenda towards martin, that he was actively pursuing Martin, and then upon meeting up with Martin ends up killing Martin. There is no evidence showing that Martin had any reason to attack Zman. There is evidence that shows why Zman would attack Martin. That's what the facts say, the rest is up for debate. There is evidence that a guy on neighborhood watch had an "agenda" of following someone who he said looked suspicious to him. The fact that you see that as evidence of Zman having a reason to attack Martin is purely based on your own bias, because in reality the altercation could have gone any number of ways, and either man could have been at fault. The fact is that on its own, your own presumptuous opinion that Zman was following Martin with the intent to do harm is not "evidence". It is more evidence than the assumption that Martin would attack Zman--which there is none. What I have is circumstantial. The evidence I have is Martin was seen as a threat, followed, and then shot. Because he Zman said he was a threat, because zman did follow him, and because zman did shoot him. Those are my facts. Most of the other evidence on this case have experts on both sides arguing on it and hence are not facts yet, just evidence up for debate. The fact that we know more about what Zman was doing at the time does not automatically make it any more or less likely that it was his fault that a physical fight started, and that as a result Martin ended up dead. You are again using your own words to twist things around. Zman never said he saw Martin as a "threat" which would imply he already inclined to be defensively aggressive. He simply said he thought Martin was "suspicious", and decided to investigate. My continuing issue with your arguments is your refusal to acknowledge any possibility that Martin may have acted irrationally and started the fight. Its not my refusal--it's me not wanting to make accusations against someone without evidence. Us having evidence of Zman calling martin suspicious, high, etc... and then evidence of him following martin and the actual fact of him shooting martin after doing all that is simply what the evidence shows us. We could either follow the evidence, or we could pretend evidence doesn't matter and pretend that martin was the aggressor. Yet that first part is exactly what you are doing in assuming that Zman shot Martin without having a good reason to do so (i.e., if he was attacked first and was afraid for his life). The facts we have that tell us Zman decided to follow Martin because he thought he looked suspicious are not even close to being evidence of that. We do not know at all what happened when the two men met, or why they got into a fight, but you have already decided it was Zman's fault. Do we have evidence that Martin started anything? No. Do we have evidence that Zman was suspicious of Martin? Yes. Because he called the police. Do we have evidence of Zman chasing Martin? Yes. Because he was running at the time of the phone call. Do we have evidence of Zman following martin after he was told "you don't have to do that"? Yes. Because he didn't go back to his car and was now near the victim's house. Do we have evidence that when Zman reached his victim that in 1-2 minutes the victim was shot? Yes. Because of a fucking gun shot a minute or two after Zmann reached Martin. Did Zman stalk his prey like a serial killer? Possibly not, we don't have evidence for that. Did Zman go after someone he felt suspicious about and then shot him? Yes. That we can prove. Do you have to be a serial killer to kill people? Hell no. Did Zman kill someone? Yes. Do we have evidence that Zimmerman was the one who initiated? No. Innocent until proven guilty. We only have proof than at armed man tracked, followed, and shot a kid who was walking home. That is all.
We also have proof that Zimmerman received one hell of a beating from this "kid".
|
On May 31 2013 08:05 Tewks44 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2013 08:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:54 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 07:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:44 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 07:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:31 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 07:23 Thieving Magpie wrote:On May 31 2013 07:19 GwSC wrote:On May 31 2013 07:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Because we don't know what was actually said. The specifics of those words can't be proven. Either Zman initiated (which makes sense since he was following him with a gun) or Zman harassed Martin into it, or the kid randomly attacked someone.
It doesn't make sense to me that Martin would attack--because I don't see cause for him to attack.
I can see Zman attacking since he was already following the victim around while holding a gun.
I can also see Zman harassing the kid in some way to cause the fight to happen.
Well what you choose to see as not being a possibility is certainly a possibility to me. You keep mentioning that he was following Martin holding a gun, when as far as I know it has not been established whether or not he had the gun out. If we go with the possibility that the gun was not out, and Martin was angered by something Zman said (whether it was an inflammatory remark or reasonable questions, or anything else), how can you not see a cause for Martin to attack if he had the temperament to do so? The only way I can see for you not believing this is possible is because in your own mind you already see Martin as "the good guy", or at least are choosing to believe specific things about his personality when you really have no idea. I don't think of Martin as a good guy. But I require evidence to believe someone would attack someone. Zman has taped evidence of him chasing/following after Martin even getting a bit peeved that martin was getting away. He is asked not to follow martin, he does so anyway, and Martin ends up dead. That shows that he already had an agenda towards martin, that he was actively pursuing Martin, and then upon meeting up with Martin ends up killing Martin. There is no evidence showing that Martin had any reason to attack Zman. There is evidence that shows why Zman would attack Martin. That's what the facts say, the rest is up for debate. There is evidence that a guy on neighborhood watch had an "agenda" of following someone who he said looked suspicious to him. The fact that you see that as evidence of Zman having a reason to attack Martin is purely based on your own bias, because in reality the altercation could have gone any number of ways, and either man could have been at fault. The fact is that on its own, your own presumptuous opinion that Zman was following Martin with the intent to do harm is not "evidence". It is more evidence than the assumption that Martin would attack Zman--which there is none. What I have is circumstantial. The evidence I have is Martin was seen as a threat, followed, and then shot. Because he Zman said he was a threat, because zman did follow him, and because zman did shoot him. Those are my facts. Most of the other evidence on this case have experts on both sides arguing on it and hence are not facts yet, just evidence up for debate. The fact that we know more about what Zman was doing at the time does not automatically make it any more or less likely that it was his fault that a physical fight started, and that as a result Martin ended up dead. You are again using your own words to twist things around. Zman never said he saw Martin as a "threat" which would imply he already inclined to be defensively aggressive. He simply said he thought Martin was "suspicious", and decided to investigate. My continuing issue with your arguments is your refusal to acknowledge any possibility that Martin may have acted irrationally and started the fight. Its not my refusal--it's me not wanting to make accusations against someone without evidence. Us having evidence of Zman calling martin suspicious, high, etc... and then evidence of him following martin and the actual fact of him shooting martin after doing all that is simply what the evidence shows us. We could either follow the evidence, or we could pretend evidence doesn't matter and pretend that martin was the aggressor. Yet that first part is exactly what you are doing in assuming that Zman shot Martin without having a good reason to do so (i.e., if he was attacked first and was afraid for his life). The facts we have that tell us Zman decided to follow Martin because he thought he looked suspicious are not even close to being evidence of that. We do not know at all what happened when the two men met, or why they got into a fight, but you have already decided it was Zman's fault. Do we have evidence that Martin started anything? No. Do we have evidence that Zman was suspicious of Martin? Yes. Because he called the police. Do we have evidence of Zman chasing Martin? Yes. Because he was running at the time of the phone call. Do we have evidence of Zman following martin after he was told "you don't have to do that"? Yes. Because he didn't go back to his car and was now near the victim's house. Do we have evidence that when Zman reached his victim that in 1-2 minutes the victim was shot? Yes. Because of a fucking gun shot a minute or two after Zmann reached Martin. Did Zman stalk his prey like a serial killer? Possibly not, we don't have evidence for that. Did Zman go after someone he felt suspicious about and then shot him? Yes. That we can prove. Do you have to be a serial killer to kill people? Hell no. Did Zman kill someone? Yes. You can point all this stuff out, but none of it matters if Trayvon initiated the fight. Following someone is legal. Asking someone what they're up to is legal. It doesn't give anyone the right to assault you. The only thing that matters is who initiated the fight.
Actually, no one has to prove anything about who initiated the fight. It technically doesn't matter who initiated the fight. That notion was settled before this new thread even began. The relevant legal issues are even in the OP. The deadly force can still be justified under self defense even if the the person who shot his opponent started/provoked the fight. This aspect has already been discussed to death. If you want to argue about who escalated the fight and whether or not Zimmerman had a reasonable right to fear for his life in that one minute beating, that's far more pertinent, but which one of them initiated the fight is largely irrelevant.
|
For those of you who are not fans of Zimmerman and think that he did something wrong, do you really think that there is a snowball's chance in hell that the prosecution has enough evidence to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt?
|
Not for murder but manslaughter or some kind of reckless endangerment thing? Yes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
