Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old 12-06-2018, 03:46 PM
Babale Babale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainFireBob View Post
See Steophen's remark: Not clear Martin said it.

Look, I got into a fight in HS that was:

1) A guy slammed my locker on my hand in an empty hall and ran down the hall laughing and saying "Suck on that"
2) I chased him down, tackled him, held him down, and told him to never do that again.
I received detention, because I escalated it to assault and he didn't necessarily mean to "slam it that hard" (my hand was bleeding) whereas I certainly did intend to tackle him. I was 14 years old.

Slamming someone's head into the ground, or doing anything deliberately that will result in permanent injury, is frankly over the line in our society. Full stop. It's not always right- Will left me alone after that, and even apologized when he saw how hard my hand was bleeding (caught on the locking mechanism), he just thought it was funny and I assume, since we got on after that, that my response was understandable- but it was over the line.
Did he try to pull a gun on You? Because if someone is pulling a gun on you then slamming his head into the pavement until he stops pulling a gun on you sounds like an appropriate response.
  #202  
Old 12-06-2018, 03:55 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
Did he try to pull a gun on You? Because if someone is pulling a gun on you then slamming his head into the pavement until he stops pulling a gun on you sounds like an appropriate response.
Earlier you seemed to be of the opinion that Zimmerman did not draw his gun prior to the physical altercation. Have you changed your opinion?
  #203  
Old 12-06-2018, 03:57 PM
doorhinge doorhinge is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 9,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
None of this counters anything I said. "Right by my father's house" does not prove anything, let alone that he doubled back to go find and attack Zimmerman. The exact spot the shooting occurred is also "right by my father's house". Your side is using that phrase as rock solid proof that Martin was all the way home then doubled back with intent to attack. That phrase proves no such thing. The differing standards of doubt you have for the two sides are stark and very telling.
"Your side"? Martin's not-girlfriend testified as to what Martin's location was before Martin chose to return and confront Zimmerman. Dee Dee also testified that Martin used several racial slurs to describe the person who was following him. Meanwhile, Zimmerman was waiting near the "T" for the police to arrive. Unfortunately, Martin arrived before the police did.
  #204  
Old 12-06-2018, 04:02 PM
Babale Babale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Earlier you seemed to be of the opinion that Zimmerman did not draw his gun prior to the physical altercation. Have you changed your opinion?
No, because if we require Trayvon to wait until the gun is drawn, then as you have pointed out numerous times, it would be ludicrous to expect Zimmerman to have suffered so many injuries, because he wouldn't have allowed himself to be killed. So Trayvon would be justified in attacking Zimmerman with deadly force as soon as Zimmerman went for his gun. See also: every police shooting thread.

What likely happened is that Zimmerman and Trayvon got into an altercation. At this point Trayvon (or if you insist, Zimmerman) yelled "Get off!". Then Zimmerman went for his gun, Trayvon tried to defend himself, but was killed.
  #205  
Old 12-06-2018, 04:05 PM
Babale Babale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by doorhinge View Post
"Your side"? Martin's not-girlfriend testified as to what Martin's location was before Martin chose to return and confront Zimmerman. Dee Dee also testified that Martin used several racial slurs to describe the person who was following him. Meanwhile, Zimmerman was waiting near the "T" for the police to arrive. Unfortunately, Martin arrived before the police did.
When my wife is stuck in traffic on the way home from work, she'll call me sometimes, because my hours are earlier than hers and I'm already home. When she reaches our street she'll usually say, "I'm right by the house" despite the fact that she's almost a mile away.
  #206  
Old 12-06-2018, 04:36 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
No, because if we require Trayvon to wait until the gun is drawn, then as you have pointed out numerous times, it would be ludicrous to expect Zimmerman to have suffered so many injuries, because he wouldn't have allowed himself to be killed. ...
Excellent! (Do you think you could explain this concept to ElvisL1ves?)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
... What likely happened is that Zimmerman and Trayvon got into an altercation. At this point Trayvon (or if you insist, Zimmerman) yelled "Get off!". Then Zimmerman went for his gun, Trayvon tried to defend himself, but was killed.
Whether Martin was 'defending himself' or 'attacking' hinges on who started the physical altercation. Merely seeing a holstered gun does not justify assault (see open-carriers, for example).
  #207  
Old 12-06-2018, 04:39 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
No, there are probably numerous exceptions / caveats to that general principle.
Cool, then you probably shouldn't say it as though it were an adage that holds true in all circumstances then.
  #208  
Old 12-06-2018, 04:42 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Excellent! (Do you think you could explain this concept to ElvisL1ves?)



Whether Martin was 'defending himself' or 'attacking' hinges on who started the physical altercation. Merely seeing a holstered gun does not justify assault (see open-carriers, for example).
So, if someone says "What are you doing here?" while they pull back their jacket to show off their gun, that's merely seeing?

Do you consider brandishing to actually be a thing, or no?

One last question, if someone was following you to your home, and when confronted, they let you "merely see" that they are armed, what would your reaction be?
  #209  
Old 12-06-2018, 04:44 PM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 37,935
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
Nobody ever seems to to acknowledge that Martin said "get off!" right before the confrontation, which is something a person would say if they were grabbed, perhaps by attempting to restrain while waiting for the police? None of the Zimmerman defenders ever acknowledge that. Probably because it's inconvenient for the narrative of the violent attacker bumrushing the poor neighborhood defender.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-shooting.html
It is by no means clear that Martin said it. Therefore -

There is an eyewitness who saw Martin on top of Zimmerman. There was moisture and grass stains on the back of Zimmerman's jacket. There was moisture and grass stains on Martin's knees. There was no moisture or grass stains on Martin's back. What does the balance of the evidence indicate about who was on top of whom, and therefore was likely to be the one saying "get off"?

Regards,
Shodan
  #210  
Old 12-06-2018, 04:48 PM
BrainFireBob BrainFireBob is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 267
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
So, if someone says "What are you doing here?" while they pull back their jacket to show off their gun, that's merely seeing?

Do you consider brandishing to actually be a thing, or no?

One last question, if someone was following you to your home, and when confronted, they let you "merely see" that they are armed, what would your reaction be?
Not physical assault, because that's bringing fists to a gun fight. Not unless they were actively threatening me with it. Revealing it, especially when it's hidden, would communicate to me that they don't want to escalate but are prepared to. Drawing it and beginning shooting at me, I might try to jump them if there was no way to flee. Short of doing that, it's a declaration of being armed, not a threat.

Then again, I grew up in the country; guns aren't inherently terrifying.
  #211  
Old 12-06-2018, 04:56 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
So, if someone says "What are you doing here?" while they pull back their jacket to show off their gun, that's merely seeing?

Do you consider brandishing to actually be a thing, or no? ...
Yes. Florida has a statute (790.10) which says:
Quote:
Improper exhibition of dangerous weapons or firearms.—If any person having or carrying any dirk, sword, sword cane, firearm, electric weapon or device, or other weapon shall, in the presence of one or more persons, exhibit the same in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense, the person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
We don't have any evidence that Zimmerman exhibited his firearm in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense.

I'd put "merely seeing" under the heading of "careless". It wouldn't justify an assault, even though it might be a violation of 790.10 (Florida is, oddly enough, one of the relatively few states that prohibit open-carry). Your scenario (someone says "What are you doing here?" while they pull back their jacket to show off their gun) strikes me as rude, again probably a violation of 790.10, and again, probably not rising to the level of "imminent use of unlawful force" that triggers justified self-defense. There are certainly ways one could exhibit a firearm in angry or threatening manners that would justify self-defense (for example, pointing a gun at someone while shouting "I'm going to kill you"), but we don't have any evidence that Zimmerman did anything like that. For that matter, we don't have any evidence that suggests he violated 790.10 at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
... One last question, if someone was following you to your home, and when confronted, they let you "merely see" that they are armed, what would your reaction be?
My response would probably depend on too many variables that you haven't given me. "Punch him in the face" is probably a low-probability outcome though.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 12-06-2018 at 04:58 PM.
  #212  
Old 12-06-2018, 04:59 PM
Babale Babale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,446
As you have said though, if Zimmerman gets to the point where he is pointing a gun at Martin, then it's too late for Martin to defend himself. So either you're saying that self defense is a right only gun owners have, or Trayvon should be able to defend himself when sufficiently threatened BEFORE a gun is pointed directly at him.
  #213  
Old 12-06-2018, 05:13 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
As you have said though, if Zimmerman gets to the point where he is pointing a gun at Martin, then it's too late for Martin to defend himself. So either you're saying that self defense is a right only gun owners have, or Trayvon should be able to defend himself when sufficiently threatened BEFORE a gun is pointed directly at him.
Regardless of what you think Trayvon "should be able to" do, the law says that the threatened use of unlawful force must be "imminent". Given the rather extensive case law on the subject, I don't believe the proposed scenario (someone says "What are you doing here?" while they pull back their jacket to show off their gun) would generally qualify.

There are certainly some scenarios short of "gun pointed at me" that would qualify, but again, we don't have any evidence that Martin was in one of those scenarios.

I agree that it's unfortunate when a person does not have adequate warning of an impending criminal assault to defend themselves, but I don't think you really want to relax the legal requirements for lawful self-defense, do you?
  #214  
Old 12-06-2018, 05:48 PM
MaxTheVool MaxTheVool is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 11,779
Man, I hate to even be in the neighborhood of agreeing with HurricaneDitka (who I have zero respect for) or Shodan (who is a nice enough poster in some contexts but has a long history of saying stupid things for stupid reasons), but I feel like a lot of posters in this thread are bending over backward to assign 100% of the blame for everything that happened entirely on Zimmerman. Which is nearly as ridiculous as assigning 100% of the blame for everything that happened entirely on Trayvon.

I think the overwhelming likelihood is that something approximately like this happened:
-Zimmerman was (and is) a horrible person, a self-fancying vigilante type and almost certainly fairly racist
-He sees Trayvon "acting suspicious", and lurks around him for a while
-Trayvon gets pissed off (justifiably) and escalates things rather than just walking away, because teenage boys aren't super-noted for self control
-A confrontation ensues and escalates to violence
-Trayvon is "winning" the violence, being on top and pounding Zimmerman's head into the ground
-Zimmerman then kills Trayvon

The main thing we will never really know is exactly how the "A confrontation ensues and escalates to violence" step really went. It's certainly possible that Zimmerman was the instigator of every single escalatory step, he was the one responsible for keeping the encounter going, he was the first one to throw a punch, etc. Or even more cynically, it's possible that he cold-bloodedly and deliberately (or even subconsciously) goaded Trayvon step by step so as to have an excuse to kill him, because he'd always wanted to actually kill a bad guy; and he only erred by waiting long enough that Trayvon actually came close to doing him serious permanent harm. But far more likely is the Occam's Razor explanation that it was two men with egos who got in each other's faces, both of them feeling justified, and things escalated. As has tragically happened over and over again since the dawn of time.

I think the vast, VAST majority of the responsibility for the situation existing in the first place falls squarely at the feet of Zimmerman. WTF was he even doing there in the first place? Why did the interaction even happen? But that doesn't mean that we can deduce with certainty how the micro-level details of the confrontation played out.


I absolutely assign a huge degree of moral culpability to Zimmerman for Trayvon's tragically avoidable death. But I can't make a logical leap from there to "Zimmerman must have been the one to start the actual physical confrontation" or "Zimmerman must have menaced Trayvon with his gun in such a threatening fashion that Trayvon was legally acting in self defense". I don't know it _didn't_ play out that way. But I certainly don't know it did.
__________________
This post is merely corroborative detail, intended to add artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative
  #215  
Old 12-06-2018, 05:54 PM
Babale Babale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxTheVool View Post
Man, I hate to even be in the neighborhood of agreeing with HurricaneDitka (who I have zero respect for) or Shodan (who is a nice enough poster in some contexts but has a long history of saying stupid things for stupid reasons), but I feel like a lot of posters in this thread are bending over backward to assign 100% of the blame for everything that happened entirely on Zimmerman. Which is nearly as ridiculous as assigning 100% of the blame for everything that happened entirely on Trayvon.

I think the overwhelming likelihood is that something approximately like this happened:
-Zimmerman was (and is) a horrible person, a self-fancying vigilante type and almost certainly fairly racist
-He sees Trayvon "acting suspicious", and lurks around him for a while
-Trayvon gets pissed off (justifiably) and escalates things rather than just walking away, because teenage boys aren't super-noted for self control
-A confrontation ensues and escalates to violence
-Trayvon is "winning" the violence, being on top and pounding Zimmerman's head into the ground
-Zimmerman then kills Trayvon

The main thing we will never really know is exactly how the "A confrontation ensues and escalates to violence" step really went. It's certainly possible that Zimmerman was the instigator of every single escalatory step, he was the one responsible for keeping the encounter going, he was the first one to throw a punch, etc. Or even more cynically, it's possible that he cold-bloodedly and deliberately (or even subconsciously) goaded Trayvon step by step so as to have an excuse to kill him, because he'd always wanted to actually kill a bad guy; and he only erred by waiting long enough that Trayvon actually came close to doing him serious permanent harm. But far more likely is the Occam's Razor explanation that it was two men with egos who got in each other's faces, both of them feeling justified, and things escalated. As has tragically happened over and over again since the dawn of time.

I think the vast, VAST majority of the responsibility for the situation existing in the first place falls squarely at the feet of Zimmerman. WTF was he even doing there in the first place? Why did the interaction even happen? But that doesn't mean that we can deduce with certainty how the micro-level details of the confrontation played out.


I absolutely assign a huge degree of moral culpability to Zimmerman for Trayvon's tragically avoidable death. But I can't make a logical leap from there to "Zimmerman must have been the one to start the actual physical confrontation" or "Zimmerman must have menaced Trayvon with his gun in such a threatening fashion that Trayvon was legally acting in self defense". I don't know it _didn't_ play out that way. But I certainly don't know it did.
See, honestly, I agree with you, Trayvon isn't blameless. But like you say, the situation was entirely created by Zimmerman, and the death of Trayvon Martin should fall squarely at his feet. Murder 2 or 3 would do it nicely.

But when you're arguing with those two, for whom Trayvon's marijuana use makes him a dangerous thug, it's hard to show nuance.
  #216  
Old 12-06-2018, 05:56 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
... But when you're arguing with those two, for whom Trayvon's marijuana use makes him a dangerous thug, it's hard to show nuance.
As has already been pointed out, it wasn't his marijuana use that made him a dangerous thug, it was his beating up George Zimmerman.
  #217  
Old 12-06-2018, 07:18 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxTheVool View Post
Man, I hate to even be in the neighborhood of agreeing with HurricaneDitka (who I have zero respect for) or Shodan (who is a nice enough poster in some contexts but has a long history of saying stupid things for stupid reasons), but I feel like a lot of posters in this thread are bending over backward to assign 100% of the blame for everything that happened entirely on Zimmerman. Which is nearly as ridiculous as assigning 100% of the blame for everything that happened entirely on Trayvon.

I think the overwhelming likelihood is that something approximately like this happened:
-Zimmerman was (and is) a horrible person, a self-fancying vigilante type and almost certainly fairly racist
-He sees Trayvon "acting suspicious", and lurks around him for a while
-Trayvon gets pissed off (justifiably) and escalates things rather than just walking away, because teenage boys aren't super-noted for self control
-A confrontation ensues and escalates to violence
-Trayvon is "winning" the violence, being on top and pounding Zimmerman's head into the ground
-Zimmerman then kills Trayvon

The main thing we will never really know is exactly how the "A confrontation ensues and escalates to violence" step really went. It's certainly possible that Zimmerman was the instigator of every single escalatory step, he was the one responsible for keeping the encounter going, he was the first one to throw a punch, etc. Or even more cynically, it's possible that he cold-bloodedly and deliberately (or even subconsciously) goaded Trayvon step by step so as to have an excuse to kill him, because he'd always wanted to actually kill a bad guy; and he only erred by waiting long enough that Trayvon actually came close to doing him serious permanent harm. But far more likely is the Occam's Razor explanation that it was two men with egos who got in each other's faces, both of them feeling justified, and things escalated. As has tragically happened over and over again since the dawn of time.

I think the vast, VAST majority of the responsibility for the situation existing in the first place falls squarely at the feet of Zimmerman. WTF was he even doing there in the first place? Why did the interaction even happen? But that doesn't mean that we can deduce with certainty how the micro-level details of the confrontation played out.


I absolutely assign a huge degree of moral culpability to Zimmerman for Trayvon's tragically avoidable death. But I can't make a logical leap from there to "Zimmerman must have been the one to start the actual physical confrontation" or "Zimmerman must have menaced Trayvon with his gun in such a threatening fashion that Trayvon was legally acting in self defense". I don't know it _didn't_ play out that way. But I certainly don't know it did.
Sure, but the question became "why did Martin get into this confrontation?" which calls for speculation, which does come from opinions as to motivations.

IMHO, Martin was scared of this guy prowling his neighborhood and following him at night. He was concerned for not only his own, but also his family's safety. I see no reason why he would not have seen that Zimmerman was armed, and I see no reason why Zimmerman would not have shown off that he was armed while confronting Martin. Even if Martin threw the first punch, I see it as him defending himself from someone who is acting as a serious threat.

What happened, we can never really know, as we only have the word of someone who has motivation to make things in as good a light as possible for himself.

However, the speculation on the other side of the aisle is that Martin was just a violent thug who saw someone out in the dark and decided to assault him for no reason that they are willing to articulate.

I ask of HD and Shodan, if someone is following you, and you see that they are armed, what do *you* do? Then after you have come up with the scenario of what a white middle age middle class man would do, then consider what you would do it you were black, of a more modest income, 17 year old.

Did Martin make a mistake here? Well sure, no matter whether Zimmerman went free or went to jail for life, Martin still ended up dead. The question is not did Martin not act perfectly and make every decision with perfect knowledge and rationality, it is whether making a fairly reasonable mistake of believing that an armed stranger following you in the dark was a threat means you should die.

And ultimately, the question of the thread is, was this a Positive Gun News of the day story?
  #218  
Old 12-06-2018, 07:39 PM
andros andros is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Dejagore
Posts: 10,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
As has already been pointed out, it wasn't his marijuana use that made him a dangerous thug, it was his beating up George Zimmerman.
So he was neither dangerous nor a thug before the altercation? Good to know.
  #219  
Old 12-06-2018, 07:43 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
... I ask of HD and Shodan, if someone is following you, and you see that they are armed, what do *you* do? ...
I already responded:

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
... My response would probably depend on too many variables that you haven't given me. "Punch him in the face" is probably a low-probability outcome though.


Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
... The question is not did Martin not act perfectly and make every decision with perfect knowledge and rationality, it is whether making a fairly reasonable mistake of believing that an armed stranger following you in the dark was a threat means you should die. ...
The "reasonable mistake" you describe isn't what got Martin killed. It was his decision to attack Zimmerman. One might "make a fairly reasonably mistake of believing that an armed stranger following you in the dark was a threat" and choose to respond in a different manner: calling the police oneself, running away, hiding, calling out for help, trying to talk to the supposed-threat to see if you might be able to calm them down (or at least stall for time), etc. The response he chose (punching Zimmerman in the face, climbing on top of him, and bashing his head on the concrete) is what got him killed.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 12-06-2018 at 07:43 PM.
  #220  
Old 12-06-2018, 07:46 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,662
Moderating

Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxTheVool View Post
Man, I hate to even be in the neighborhood of agreeing with HurricaneDitka (who I have zero respect for) or Shodan (who is a nice enough poster in some contexts but has a long history of saying stupid things for stupid reasons), ...
I'm not sure why you felt the need to add the parentheticals. Next time, don't.

[/moderating]
  #221  
Old 12-06-2018, 07:51 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by andros View Post
So he was neither dangerous nor a thug before the altercation? Good to know.
I have no idea. Some of the things we know about his past that I'm aware of (apparent marijuana use, possession of stolen property and a "burglary tool", vandalism, writing things like "HELL NAW FUK DA SKOOL, FUK DA LUNCH, ND MOST OF ALL FUK DA FACULTY", etc) don't exactly reflect well on his character, but they're mostly crimes / mistakes of a fairly minor nature. Thug-like? Perhaps, but not, in and of themselves, what I would consider particularly "dangerous". What does it matter if he was or was not dangerous prior to his encounter with Zimmerman? He was dangerous that night, and it got him killed.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 12-06-2018 at 07:52 PM.
  #222  
Old 12-06-2018, 08:32 PM
MaxTheVool MaxTheVool is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 11,779
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
it is whether making a fairly reasonable mistake of believing that an armed stranger following you in the dark was a threat means you should die.
I feel like you're assuming facts not in evidence. How do we know that Trayvon's primary motivation for the actions that led to his tragic death was active fear for his life?

That is, there was probably some key turning point where Trayvon could have acted in a way that did not lead to his death, vs the way things actually played out. (Putting aside the I-think-unlikely possibility that Zimmerman, in addition to being a jackass and a racist, was such a cold-hearted serial killer Terminator that he would have executed Trayvon absolutely no matter what with no possible escape.) At that key moment, what was Trayvon's mindset? What was he thinking?

A lot of people in this thread want to believe that it was "this guy is literally about to kill me, he is absolutely an imminent threat, it is his life or mine, I will therefore resort to violence" or "oh shit, I thought I could get away from him, but he just keeps coming!!!" or something like that.

But far more likely, imho, just based on Occam's Razor and on the fact that we have no reason to think that Trayvon was a saintly pacifistic teenage male; is that it was something like "wtf was that guy's problem? He thinks he's such a big man?" or "no, fuck YOU you racist fuck" or something along those lines.


(Note that this is a difficult type of post to write, because by saying that there are actions Trayvon could have taken that would have not resulted in his death, it sounds like I'm laying the blame for his death squarely on his own shoulders. That is certainly not my intent. As I've said, I hold Zimmerman overwhelmingly responsible for Trayvon's death, and there were certainly plenty of ways that Zimmerman could (and should) have acted that would have prevented the tragedy. I'm discussing Trayvon's actions and motivations because the thread of argument I disagree with concerns his actions.)
__________________
This post is merely corroborative detail, intended to add artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative
  #223  
Old 12-06-2018, 08:50 PM
Isamu Isamu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Osaka
Posts: 5,885
Florida's laws have set up a rube goldberg machine where, if luck doesn't go against you, you can chase someone down in the night and shoot them dead and get away with it because if there are no other witnesses alive then there is only your story that matters. That's the real problem. We don't know what really happened and that infuriates us because no one wants to trust the word of an obvious sleezeball like Zimmerman.
  #224  
Old 12-06-2018, 09:16 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isamu View Post
Florida's laws have set up a rube goldberg machine where, if luck doesn't go against you, you can chase someone down in the night and shoot them dead and get away with it because if there are no other witnesses alive then there is only your story that matters. That's the real problem. ....
You think Zimmerman would have been acquitted even without the evidence that favored him (abrasions on Martin's knuckles, wounds on his face and head, grass stains on his back and Martin's knees, etc)? I don't.
  #225  
Old 12-06-2018, 09:35 PM
Isamu Isamu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Osaka
Posts: 5,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
You think Zimmerman would have been acquitted even without the evidence that favored him (abrasions on Martin's knuckles, wounds on his face and head, grass stains on his back and Martin's knees, etc)? I don't.
I believe a scuffle probably happened.
  #226  
Old 12-06-2018, 09:45 PM
Isamu Isamu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Osaka
Posts: 5,885
But that scuffle was pre-meditated and planned for by Zimmerman (i.e., he had the gun). In the event of a fight, he would use the gun. It was a bit like an ambush. That's my opinion.
  #227  
Old 12-06-2018, 10:42 PM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,464
I think you've missed the point. Zimmerman only "got away with it" because of the evidence that Martin attacked him. Absent that, the jury would not have looked so favorably on Zimmerman's account. One cannot realistically expect to be able to just "chase someone down in the night and shoot them dead and get away with it because if there are no other witnesses alive then there is only your story that matters." You'd also need some strong corroborating evidence that you feared for your life. Zimmerman had that, courtesy of Martin.
  #228  
Old 12-06-2018, 10:57 PM
Isamu Isamu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Osaka
Posts: 5,885
I didn't miss the point. The point is it all played out how Zimmerman had planned it. He was the instigator of the shooting, by having the gun, by not following police instructions, by being a vigilante. What is unknown is how much he racially baited Martin but you would be a fool to believe there was no racial element to the whole event. I understand you view it differently, and I can see that point of view. Legally you can carry a gun and ask questions and defend yourself. But I see it as Zimmerman being the instigator of a murder over nothing.
  #229  
Old 12-06-2018, 11:44 PM
sps49sd sps49sd is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 154
I am astounded at posters assuming things that are not in the evidence at all or are even contradicted by the evidence- Zimmerman 'did not follow police instructions', Martin was not by his father's home, Martin somehow saw the concealed pistol but did not mention that fact over the phone.

I find it plausible that Martin was scoping out possible burglary targets, as he had been found with suspicious items in Miami. I also have not heard of other Black residents of the apartment complex say Zimmerman had been harassing or following them because of their race.

And insisting that another poster provide a motive for Martin attacking Zimmerman should realize there is no evidence or testimony that could answer that.

Zimmerman has shown since the tragedy that he is not particularly smart nor nice. This is not evidence of criminal actions in this case.

Opinions that Zimmerman committed murder or manslaughter are not based on the evidence.
  #230  
Old 12-06-2018, 11:48 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal eschereal is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 15,054
Does who Zimmerman is have any bearing on how we feel about his actions that night? Because he sure seems like a detestable kind of guy.
  #231  
Old 12-07-2018, 12:16 AM
Ashtura Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,554
My reaction to an armed person following me around on foot would likely be similar to someone exhibiting road rage towards me, which has happened a few times in my life: Get the hell away from them as quickly as possible using every evasion technique I can think of until I shook them. If that was impossible i would call the cops and inform them of the situation. The LAST thing I would do is stop, get out of my car, and see happens next. I might get shot, as that has been the documented end result of multiple road rage incidents.
  #232  
Old 12-07-2018, 12:52 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 35,251
Quote:
Originally Posted by sps49sd View Post
I find it plausible that Martin was scoping out possible burglary targets, as he had been found with suspicious items in Miami. I also have not heard of other Black residents of the apartment complex say Zimmerman had been harassing or following them because of their race.
You can't complain about a lack of evidence and then bring up this crap. Not only is there no evidence that any of this was happening, but no one even tried to argue it. And we have the fucking phone call he was on, where he was talking, and we know that he was currently staying in the area.

Not even Zimmerman tried this excuse. What made Marten seem suspicious to him were 3 other black people who had been up to something bad previously, and possibly the fact he had his hoodie up. Nothing about any behaviors showing he was stalking anything. His claim was that he was suspicious because he hadn't ever seen him in the area before.

For someone complaining about speculation, you sure seem to have no problem with it yourself.


That said, what I'm saying at least isn't speculation. He clearly felt threatened because we could hear it in the phone call before he drops it. He clearly feels threatened by Zimmerman following him.

From there, we know the conflict escalated. We don't know what precipitated Martin's attempt to beat up Zimmerman, exactly. But we do know what started the entire confrontation: Zimmerman choosing to follow Martin.

And, I allege, following someone is threatening. Throw in that the guy carries a gun and has a hot temper (as shown by other encounters), and it become likely that Zimmerman escalated the encounter.

Because Trayvon Martin is dead, we can't know if he was just standing his ground against Zimmerman. And we do know that Zimmerman should have never been following Martin in the first place.

So it is definitely bad gun news, not an example of a good guy with a gun.

Last edited by BigT; 12-07-2018 at 12:53 AM.
  #233  
Old 12-07-2018, 01:37 AM
Steophan Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 8,696
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
From my cite:

"before hearing her friend shout: "Get off! Get off!", she said."
Watch or read the trial footage, and the follow up questions to that.

Quote:
Yes because he's dead, so that's pretty convenient for Zimmerman.
He'd still have the benefit of the doubt if Martin was alive.

Let's make something very clear here. The victim in this case is George Zimmerman, who was brutally assaulted and had to defend himself. What is happening when people try to deny his right to self defence, his right to the presumption of innocence, and so is victim blaming, nothing more.
  #234  
Old 12-07-2018, 01:46 AM
Steophan Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 8,696
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isamu View Post
Florida's laws have set up a rube goldberg machine where, if luck doesn't go against you, you can chase someone down in the night and shoot them dead and get away with it because if there are no other witnesses alive then there is only your story that matters. That's the real problem. We don't know what really happened and that infuriates us because no one wants to trust the word of an obvious sleezeball like Zimmerman.
That's not a problem, it's a necessary consequence of the presumption of innocence. Do you really not think victims of crime who are forced to defend themselves deserve that presumption?
  #235  
Old 12-07-2018, 01:51 AM
Steophan Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 8,696
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
And, I allege, following someone is threatening.
It's not a threat of imminent harm, so mot one you're allowed to take violent action against. And, it's worth noting here, that following someone is in almost all circumstances entirely legal. And I would allege, following an unknown person in a private place to find out what they're up to is not only legal but moral.
  #236  
Old 12-07-2018, 06:15 AM
Gyrate Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 21,996
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Which question? About Martin's history? I think it unlikely that his encounter with Zimmerman was the first time Martin had ever thrown a punch,
And yet another piece of unsubstantiated character assassination.

Are you ever going to explain why you left out significant details from the phonecall in your original narrative of events?
Quote:
but even if it was, "this is the first time we have a record of that he ever beat the shit out of someone" does not mean he gets a pass for it. He was still on top of Zimmerman, bashing his head on the concrete, when he was shot. That makes the shooting justified.
Unless he was defending himself. Of course, if Martin had had a gun he could have just shot Zimmerman first and claimed he was standing his ground (which I'm sure Florida courts consider an entirely valid argument when the perpetrator is a young black male).

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I don't feel the need to make "a convincing argument as to why". I don't care nearly as much why he attacked Zimmerman as that he did. You seem to think his motive is the make-or-break point here. It's largely irrelevant in my eyes. Unless there's some evidence that he did so in response to an imminent threat (and there's not) then it was unjustified.
Right. So Martin's motive for attacking Zimmerman doesn't matter but Zimmerman's motive for attacking Martin does. Got it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
If you want to focus on the morality of it, the moral of this story is "don't punch people in the face and bash their head into concrete. It might get you killed (and your killer off scot-free)"
Of course, if you don't attack the aggressive and armed person who followed you home and then confronted you, you might still be dead.

Quote:
Another moral of the story could be "don't follow suspicious people. It could get you into a heap of trouble and cause major repercussions throughout the rest of your life (nutjob trying to murder you, scrutiny of your past and future decisions, etc) even if you are fortunate enough to survive.
My heart bleeds for him. As did Martin's.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I have no idea. Some of the things we know about his past that I'm aware of (apparent marijuana use, possession of stolen property and a "burglary tool", vandalism, writing things like "HELL NAW FUK DA SKOOL, FUK DA LUNCH, ND MOST OF ALL FUK DA FACULTY", etc) don't exactly reflect well on his character, but they're mostly crimes / mistakes of a fairly minor nature. Thug-like? Perhaps, but not, in and of themselves, what I would consider particularly "dangerous". What does it matter if he was or was not dangerous prior to his encounter with Zimmerman? He was dangerous that night, and it got him killed.
Zimmerman was "dangerous that night" too. And it got Martin killed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxTheVool View Post
I feel like you're assuming facts not in evidence. How do we know that Trayvon's primary motivation for the actions that led to his tragic death was active fear for his life?

That is, there was probably some key turning point where Trayvon could have acted in a way that did not lead to his death, vs the way things actually played out. (Putting aside the I-think-unlikely possibility that Zimmerman, in addition to being a jackass and a racist, was such a cold-hearted serial killer Terminator that he would have executed Trayvon absolutely no matter what with no possible escape.) At that key moment, what was Trayvon's mindset? What was he thinking?

A lot of people in this thread want to believe that it was "this guy is literally about to kill me, he is absolutely an imminent threat, it is his life or mine, I will therefore resort to violence" or "oh shit, I thought I could get away from him, but he just keeps coming!!!" or something like that.

But far more likely, imho, just based on Occam's Razor and on the fact that we have no reason to think that Trayvon was a saintly pacifistic teenage male; is that it was something like "wtf was that guy's problem? He thinks he's such a big man?" or "no, fuck YOU you racist fuck" or something along those lines.
Literally nobody thinks Martin was a "saintly pacifistic teenage male". But your version ignores the phonecall evidence, in which he was described as scared and merely demands to know why Zimmerman is following him rather than engaging in the sort of puffery you describe. So Occam's Razor - and the available evidence - supports the "oh shit, I thought I could get away from him, but he just keeps coming!!!" narratives more than the "wtf was that guy's problem? He thinks he's such a big man?" or "no, fuck YOU you racist fuck" ones.

Being a teenaged delinquent does not mean you also can't be genuinely fearful for your life; indeed, it likely increases the probability.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
That's not a problem, it's a necessary consequence of the presumption of innocence. Do you really not think victims of crime who are forced to defend themselves deserve that presumption?
Are you applying that to Martin as well?
  #237  
Old 12-07-2018, 06:16 AM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
You can't complain about a lack of evidence and then bring up this crap. Not only is there no evidence that any of this was happening, but no one even tried to argue it. And we have the fucking phone call he was on, where he was talking, and we know that he was currently staying in the area.

Not even Zimmerman tried this excuse. What made Marten seem suspicious to him were 3 other black people who had been up to something bad previously, and possibly the fact he had his hoodie up. Nothing about any behaviors showing he was stalking anything. His claim was that he was suspicious because he hadn't ever seen him in the area before.

For someone complaining about speculation, you sure seem to have no problem with it yourself.


That said, what I'm saying at least isn't speculation. He clearly felt threatened because we could hear it in the phone call before he drops it. He clearly feels threatened by Zimmerman following him.

From there, we know the conflict escalated. We don't know what precipitated Martin's attempt to beat up Zimmerman, exactly. But we do know what started the entire confrontation: Zimmerman choosing to follow Martin.

And, I allege, following someone is threatening. Throw in that the guy carries a gun and has a hot temper (as shown by other encounters), and it become likely that Zimmerman escalated the encounter.

Because Trayvon Martin is dead, we can't know if he was just standing his ground against Zimmerman. And we do know that Zimmerman should have never been following Martin in the first place.

So it is definitely bad gun news, not an example of a good guy with a gun.
We most certainly do not "have the fucking phone call he was on" and we can't "hear" shit on it. We have Dee Dee's barely-intelligible recounting of the phone call, with her own (not-unbiased) feelings, suppositions, and emotions layered on top.
  #238  
Old 12-07-2018, 07:50 AM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 37,935
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxTheVool View Post
I feel like you're assuming facts not in evidence. How do we know that Trayvon's primary motivation for the actions that led to his tragic death was active fear for his life?
I feel like you are assuming facts not in evidence - what evidence is there that Zimmerman was almost certainly racist?
Quote:
That is, there was probably some key turning point where Trayvon could have acted in a way that did not lead to his death, vs the way things actually played out.
There was. Martin could have stepped into his own living room, instead of going back and seeking out Zimmerman and attacking him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
IMHO, Martin was scared of this guy prowling his neighborhood and following him at night. He was concerned for not only his own, but also his family's safety.
If Martin was so scared, why did he go back and seek Zimmerman out?
Quote:
I see no reason why he would not have seen that Zimmerman was armed, and I see no reason why Zimmerman would not have shown off that he was armed while confronting Martin.
There is no evidence of this.
Quote:
What happened, we can never really know, as we only have the word of someone who has motivation to make things in as good a light as possible for himself.
This is a false statement. We have considerable evidence apart from Zimmerman's word.
Quote:
I ask of HD and Shodan, if someone is following you, and you see that they are armed, what do *you* do? Then after you have come up with the scenario of what a white middle age middle class man would do, then consider what you would do it you were black, of a more modest income, 17 year old.
There is no evidence that Martin knew Zimmerman was armed, and there is circumstantial evidence that he did not.

If I were being followed, and I was right by a place of safety, and had lost sight of the person following me, I would step into my own living room. I see no reason why that should be any different if I were black, 17 years old, or did not have a job.

Someone is being followed. They are close to a place of safety. They have lost contact with their follower. If I am an old white guy, I step into my own living room; if I am a 17 year old black kid, I go back and start a fight. This makes sense to you?

Regards,
Shodan
  #239  
Old 12-07-2018, 07:51 AM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
... Are you ever going to explain why you left out significant details from the phonecall in your original narrative of events? ...
I'm the one that provided the link to the transcript so people could read the whole testimony if they wanted. I quoted the bits that were relevant to the point I was making. I'm certainly not going to quote the whole thing, so yes, that necessitates leaving most of it out. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, and I don't understand why you're having such a hard time grasping the concept.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
... Unless he was defending himself. Of course, if Martin had had a gun he could have just shot Zimmerman first and claimed he was standing his ground (which I'm sure Florida courts consider an entirely valid argument when the perpetrator is a young black male). ...
If he had shot Zimmerman, or succeeded in bashing his head into the concrete until Zimmerman was dead / maimed, he would have had to explain why he felt he was threatened with an imminent use of unlawful force. What would he have said? "He followed me, and asked me what I was doing"? "He had a gun"? Neither of those is indicative of an imminent use of unlawful force.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
... Right. So Martin's motive for attacking Zimmerman doesn't matter but Zimmerman's motive for attacking Martin does. Got it. ...
As I said, if there was some evidence that Martin's attack on Zimmerman was in response to an imminent use of unlawful force, that would be something, but there is not such evidence.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
... Of course, if you don't attack the aggressive and armed person who followed you home and then confronted you, you might still be dead. ...
I suppose in the wide world of possibilities, it's possible that Zimmerman intended to murder Martin regardless of what he did. That seems extremely unlikely to me, but we don't yet have the technology to explore alternate timelines where Martin did not provide Zimmerman a convenient justification for his use of force. I guess we'll never know for certain, but I trust that most people who think it over will conclude, as I have, that if Zimmerman intended to murder Martin even if he were running away / surrendering, he probably wouldn't start that project by requesting the police be sent to his location. YMMV.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 12-07-2018 at 07:55 AM.
  #240  
Old 12-07-2018, 08:05 AM
HurricaneDitka HurricaneDitka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 11,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
And yet another piece of unsubstantiated character assassination. ...
BTW, what are you talking about "unsubstantiated"? Here is a Miami Herald article titled "Weed, fights and guns: Trayvon Martin’s text messages released". It starts with this:

Quote:
In the months and days before his shooting death, Trayvon Martin was getting into fights, getting high on marijuana, getting suspended from school and talking with friends about getting a gun, according to cellphone text messages that defense lawyers for shooter George Zimmerman released Thursday.
  #241  
Old 12-07-2018, 08:54 AM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal eschereal is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 15,054
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
If I were being followed, and I was right by a place of safety, and had lost sight of the person following me, I would step into my own living room. I see no reason why that should be any different if I were black, 17 years old, or did not have a job.

Someone is being followed. They are close to a place of safety. They have lost contact with their follower. If I am an old white guy, I step into my own living room; if I am a 17 year old black kid, I go back and start a fight. This makes sense to you?
You accuse others of assuming facts not in evidence. Martin was shot about 200' from his door, which does not suggest that he went back to confront Zimmerman. His girlfriend's testimony about the conversation is unreliable, so to say that he went back is an unfounded assumption. If I was being followed at night, there is a fair chance that I would pause before approaching my door, to determine where my stalker was.

Then, why did he not hie into the safe place? What he knew about his stalker and his stalker's intentions is unclear. The bird's nest instinct does exist in humans to some extent: if I perceive a potential threat, leading that threat right to where I live is often not the best choice – a choice that one must make in the moment.

So claiming that Martin backtracked is not only an unfounded assumption, if it were true, it would be entirely understandable.
  #242  
Old 12-07-2018, 09:07 AM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 37,935
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
You accuse others of assuming facts not in evidence. Martin was shot about 200' from his door, which does not suggest that he went back to confront Zimmerman. His girlfriend's testimony about the conversation is unreliable, so to say that he went back is an unfounded assumption. If I was being followed at night, there is a fair chance that I would pause before approaching my door, to determine where my stalker was.

Then, why did he not hie into the safe place? What he knew about his stalker and his stalker's intentions is unclear. The bird's nest instinct does exist in humans to some extent: if I perceive a potential threat, leading that threat right to where I live is often not the best choice – a choice that one must make in the moment.

So claiming that Martin backtracked is not only an unfounded assumption, if it were true, it would be entirely understandable.
We've done this already. Based on where the fight happened, AND Dee Dee's testimony, AND Zimmerman's statements, the balance of the available evidence indicates that Martin and Zimmerman lost sight of each other, Martin was right by his house, Zimmerman was looking for a street address or house number to be able to give a precise location so he could meet up with the police, and Martin went back and confronted and attacked Zimmerman.

You don't have to worry about leading someone to your nest if they can't see you.

Regards,
Shodan
  #243  
Old 12-07-2018, 09:15 AM
Isamu Isamu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Osaka
Posts: 5,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
That's not a problem, it's a necessary consequence of the presumption of innocence. Do you really not think victims of crime who are forced to defend themselves deserve that presumption?
You are talking in terms of generalities, I'm talking about this particular case. I won't be distracted by your attempt to pin me with something I've never said.
  #244  
Old 12-07-2018, 10:35 AM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I already responded:
Okay, so you say that there are too many variables for you to say how you would respond in Martin's situation.

Yet, you say you know enough about the case to say exactly why Martin did what you say he did.
Quote:



The "reasonable mistake" you describe isn't what got Martin killed. It was his decision to attack Zimmerman. One might "make a fairly reasonably mistake of believing that an armed stranger following you in the dark was a threat" and choose to respond in a different manner: calling the police oneself, running away, hiding, calling out for help, trying to talk to the supposed-threat to see if you might be able to calm them down (or at least stall for time), etc. The response he chose (punching Zimmerman in the face, climbing on top of him, and bashing his head on the concrete) is what got him killed.
And why do you think he made that decision? He was just a thug looking to beat someone up that night, or that he was concerned for his safety from this stranger who was following him at night?

It was Zimmerman's decision to pursue Martin through a neighborhood in the dark that got Martin killed. Unfortunately, Martin did not have perfect knowledge of why this person was following him in the dark. You seem to think that there is no way that he could have possibly perceived this as a threat, but have no problem with Zimmerman considering Martin to be suspicious because he as walking down the street.

Double standard much?
  #245  
Old 12-07-2018, 10:41 AM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
We've done this already. Based on where the fight happened, AND Dee Dee's testimony, AND Zimmerman's statements, the balance of the available evidence indicates that Martin and Zimmerman lost sight of each other, Martin was right by his house, Zimmerman was looking for a street address or house number to be able to give a precise location so he could meet up with the police, and Martin went back and confronted and attacked Zimmerman.
We've been over this already that you have made these unsupported assertions, even though they contradict facts.

In any case, if you claim that Zimmerman was looking for a street address or house number, why was he not on the street, where street addresses and house numbers are, and instead, behind the houses, where street addresses and house numbers are not? If he were looking to meet up with the police, then why was he not on the street, where the police would be coming, and instead, behind the houses, where they would not?

Sounds to me like he was following and looking for Martin. No other explanation as to why he was following Martin behind houses makes any sense.

And as he was actively looking for Martin, your assertion that it was Martin that then circled back to confront Zimmerman makes even less.

You know, this could have turned into a controversial encounters post. Zimmerman calls the cops on some kid walking down the street, the cops show up, and shoot the guy acting suspicious, the armed guy going around behind houses and following residents.
Quote:
You don't have to worry about leading someone to your nest if they can't see you.
And because you can't see them, that means that they can't see you, right?

Last edited by k9bfriender; 12-07-2018 at 10:43 AM.
  #246  
Old 12-07-2018, 10:45 AM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal eschereal is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 15,054
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
We've done this already.
apparently, incorrectly

Quote:
... Zimmerman was looking for a street address or house number to be able to give a precise location ...
The encounter took place in the area between the units. Explain how Zimmerman was looking for an address on the back sides of the buildings.

Quote:
... evidence indicates that Martin and Zimmerman lost sight of each other ... You don't have to worry about leading someone to your nest if they can't see you.
They lost sight of each other: explain how Martin could know that Zimmerman could not see him if he could not see Zimmerman.
  #247  
Old 12-07-2018, 11:12 AM
Gyrate Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 21,996
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
If Martin was so scared, why did he go back and seek Zimmerman out?
Simple. He didn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
We've done this already. Based on where the fight happened, AND Dee Dee's testimony, AND Zimmerman's statements, the balance of the available evidence indicates that Martin and Zimmerman lost sight of each other, Martin was right by his house, Zimmerman was looking for a street address or house number to be able to give a precise location so he could meet up with the police, and Martin went back and confronted and attacked Zimmerman.

You don't have to worry about leading someone to your nest if they can't see you.

Regards,
Shodan
Except that Dee Dee's testimony also says that after they lost sight of each other Zimmerman found Martin again and came right up close to him, not that Martin went back to find him. Zimmerman could see him just fine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I'm the one that provided the link to the transcript so people could read the whole testimony if they wanted. I quoted the bits that were relevant to the point I was making. I'm certainly not going to quote the whole thing, so yes, that necessitates leaving most of it out. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, and I don't understand why you're having such a hard time grasping the concept.
No, I understand that you excluded the bits that contradicted your chosen narrative. I have no difficulty in grasping that.
Quote:
If he had shot Zimmerman, or succeeded in bashing his head into the concrete until Zimmerman was dead / maimed, he would have had to explain why he felt he was threatened with an imminent use of unlawful force. What would he have said? "He followed me, and asked me what I was doing"? "He had a gun"? Neither of those is indicative of an imminent use of unlawful force.
How about "He followed me home, confronted me angrily and put his hand on his weapon"? That's more than enough excuse for the police to shoot people; in fact often they don't even have to touch the weapon to get shot. And we know Zimmerman followed and confronted Martin angrily and that he had a weapon, and that in other instances he waved a gun at other people in anger. It's not a remotely implausible scenario.

Quote:
As I said, if there was some evidence that Martin's attack on Zimmerman was in response to an imminent use of unlawful force, that would be something, but there is not such evidence.
Would there? What would that evidence look like? Bear in mind that we only have Zimmerman's account of the altercation itself.
Quote:
I suppose in the wide world of possibilities, it's possible that Zimmerman intended to murder Martin regardless of what he did. That seems extremely unlikely to me, but we don't yet have the technology to explore alternate timelines where Martin did not provide Zimmerman a convenient justification for his use of force. I guess we'll never know for certain, but I trust that most people who think it over will conclude, as I have, that if Zimmerman intended to murder Martin even if he were running away / surrendering, he probably wouldn't start that project by requesting the police be sent to his location. YMMV.
Is anyone asserting that Zimmerman's original intent was to seek out and murder Martin? Zimmerman's intent was likely to confront Martin, and took the gun along for his own protection. Zimmerman then confronted Martin and the whole thing escalated. The question is whether Martin had sufficient reason to believe that Zimmerman was an imminent threat to attack him in self-defense. You say he didn't. I say it is entirely plausible that he did, particularly as alternative theories presented are considerably less so.

And sure, maybe Martin flew off the handle and attacked Zimmerman just for following him and for being a dick. But neither you nor Shodan are making that case by changing the story of what we do know happened.
  #248  
Old 12-07-2018, 11:24 AM
Wolf333 Wolf333 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,041
Ultimately, if Zimmerman has stayed in his vehicle, we would not be having this conversation.

No matter who through the first punch, Zimmerman’s decision to play hero is what set everything in motion.
  #249  
Old 12-07-2018, 11:31 AM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal eschereal is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 15,054
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
How about "He followed me home, confronted me angrily and put his hand on his weapon"?
From what I have read, Zimmerman did confront Martin angrily per se. Martin demanded to know why Zimmerman was following him (angrily, we would assume). Zimmerman did not answer (e.g., “I'm doing neighborhood watch and you look unfamiliar”), he asked Martin what he was doing there. So one cannot literally say he confronted him angrily, just that he was very undiplomatic.

As far as the gun goes, some testimony seems to indicate that Martin was not aware of it until moments before he was shot.
  #250  
Old 12-07-2018, 11:38 AM
Steophan Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 8,696
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
Are you applying that to Martin as well?
Martin is not accused of any crime, so it's irrelevant. But I certainly don't think someone who's dead should be posthumously convicted of a crime, so to the extent it matters, of course I do.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:47 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017