That’s reasonable. However, all that means is that you have basically no evidence of what happened, and therefore can’t form an opinion on what did - and *certainly *not a strong enough opinion to claim someone is a murderer.
Your failure of imagination is not evidence of anything, and even if he did perceive him as a threat that’s not enough to allow him to attack, the threat must have been reasonable. We have, quite literally, no evidence that he was a threat, as following someone and asking them questions is not a threat.
One possibility is that Martin was angry, not scared, about being followed and questioned, and quite possibly thought there was a racial motive. Plenty of people have become violent for that reason, or less. Doesn’t make it justified.
Reasonable fear of death or serious injury. Are you really that incapable of reading that you’ve missed the literally hundreds of posts where I’ve said that?
We have no evidence that Martin was in that state of mind, and even if we did it’s not particularly relevant as Martin is not accused of anything. It’s Zimmerman’s actions and state of mind that matter, and we have evidence (not proof) that he may have been the victim of an unjustified attack, and been in reasonable fear of death or serious injury. The latter is reasonably certain, as he’d already received a potentially serious injury.
You believe, without evidence, that Zimmerman threatened Martin. I don’t.
The trial is the cite for the evidence, and my arguments are basically those that prevailed at said trial, so are demonstrably true. Zimmerman was found not guilty therefore, as a matter of fact, he did not commit murder.
No justification for imminent fear, based on the testimony she (or Zimmerman) gave. Zimmerman followed him, and asked what he was doing. That’s all. No threat. Look up the case and all the surrounding discussions if you don’t believe that following someone isn’t a threat of violence, but it’s not a debatable legal issue. If you really believe otherwise, work on changing the law rather than pretending it says something other than it does.
Or perhaps, don’t, and allow people to try to protect their homes and neighbourhood.
…you don’t think being followed by a creepy potential rapist isn’t justification enough for “imminent fear?”
This was the witness testimony **you **told me to look up. It shows that yes: he had every reason to be in fear.
That isn’t what the “the person he was talking to on the phone at the time was a major witness at the trial” said happened though. So we have two major witnesses giving two different stories.
This is an opinion based on your subjective view of the evidence. I’m looking at the exact same evidence and I’ve come to a different conclusion. Threat. Thats all.
Every time I look up the case and the “surrounding discussions” I find information that proves you absolutely fucking wrong.
So I’m not going to accept your word on any fucking thing. If you want to assert something: then cite it.
Do you not understand how the justice system works?
The law works perfectly fine where I live thank you very much. And apparently it works fine where you live as well. But you’ve told us you aren’t happy with the law where you live: so feel free to work on changing that law instead of pretending in this thread that it says something other than it does. Good luck with that.
You’ve already stated that if you tried to “protect your home and neighbourhood” in the same manner as Zimmerman you would be rotting in jail right now. Please don’t do that. Killing people is bad. Don’t do it. If you see someone acting in a way that you think is suspicious then call the police and let them sort it out. When Zimmerman didn’t do that it meant a young man who was doing nothing more than trying to get “home” lost his life. Don’t be Zimmerman.
According to her, Martin was heard to say “get off”. In most dialects of English, in that context, that strongly suggests that Zimmerman was making uninvited physical contact on Martin. If that is accurate, the entire encounter was initiated by Zimmerman. He started the fight (if a stranger tries to grab me, I will do what I can to fight them off), then found himself overmatched and in trouble, so he pulled his gun to end it.
To me, that is not self defense. Zimmerman was advised by the police to sit tight. He should have done that. Theft is annoying; death is irreversible.
That us factually wrong. It’s not even a matter of opinion, it’s simply not true. Being followed by someone, and asked what you are doing, is simply, factually, not reason to be in fear for your life.
It’s astonishing to me that people here will argue that actually being threatened with a gun, if it’s not being directly pointed at you, is not a threat, but someone walking near you and talking to you is. And then I’m accused of having fucked up priorities… I genuinely wonder if you actually read what you post.
The evidence simply doesn’t support the opinion that Zimmerman was a threat to Martin before Martin attacked him. There is literally nothing you can point to that says Zimmerman did anything more than follow Martin and ask him where he was going. Nothing at all. Doing that is not a threat of violence.
Please explain what, exactly, you think Zimmerman did that would make a reasonable person fear imminent death or serious injury.
She heard *someone *say “get off”, but was unable to say it was definitely Martin. Also, even were it to gave been him that said it, it doesn’t prove that Martin hadn’t done something violent before he was grabbed. Zimmerman may have started the fight, but Zimmerman’s statement, and his injuries, say otherwise, whilst the evidence that he did is astonishingly weak, nowhere near strong enough that a reasonable person could convict him based on it.
Now, if you are right that he started it, it’s not self defence. The problem is, the evidence simply doesn’t show that to any standard of proof, let alone that of criminal conviction.
I genuinely don’t know why people are still arguing about this. It was settled in court years ago now.
Oh, forgot to add this. The law where I live doesn’t allow me to slam someone’s head into the ground for the “crime” of following me and asking what I’m doing. I’m quite content with the law saying that, it’s you that thinks Martin was justified in doing so, you who wants to redefine what “threat” means.
Zimmerman doesn’t really defend himself, he INSTIGATES confrontations and THEN claims he was the victim. It’s been documented. I’m surprised no one has put him out of our misery already. He’s a shit stirrer and a killer.
… Zimmerman can barely go more than a few months without making the news again – for more brushes with the law, for his artwork or – most recently – for getting shot at on a Florida road. …
A few weeks after his acquittal, Zimmerman was pulled over for speeding in Forney, Texas.
Zimmerman was apparently traveling with a gun. Dashcam video showed him and a police officer talking briefly before the officer told him to shut his glove compartment
“Don’t play with your firearm, OK?” the officer said. Zimmerman was given a warning. … George Zimmerman was charged with felony aggravated assault after allegedly pointing a shotgun at his girlfriend. He was also charged with two misdemeanors – domestic violence battery and criminal mischief – in connection with the same incident.
Samantha Scheibe said that after an argument, Zimmerman broke a table with a shotgun, then pointed the gun at her “for a minute.”
On a 911 call recording, a woman tells authorities: “He’s inside my house breaking all my (things) because I asked him to leave.” …
Zimmerman allegedly threw a wine bottle at a girlfriend, his lawyer Don West said.
Police first learned about the allegation after coming “in contact with the (alleged) victim at a traffic stop,” Lake Mary, Florida, police spokeswoman Bianca Gillett said.
Gillett said the woman was not the same girlfriend who accused Zimmerman of assault in 2013, Samantha Scheibe.
“It’s clear he hasn’t been very lucky with the ladies the last few months,” West said of his client. …
But thanks to Florida’s incredible sunshine laws, we know a few relevant things about Zimmerman.
In July 2005, he was arrested for “resisting officer with violence.” The neighborhood watch volunteer who wanted to be a cop got into a scuffle with cops who were questioning a friend for alleged underage drinking. The charges were reduced and then waived after he entered an alcohol education program. Then in August 2005, Zimmerman’s former fiance sought a restraining order against him because of domestic violence. Zimmerman sought a restraining order against her in return. Both were granted. Meanwhile, over the course of eight years, Zimmerman made at least 46 calls to the Sanford (Fla.) Police Department reporting suspicious activity involving black males. …
We also know that Witness No. 9 accused Zimmerman of molesting her when they were children. The relative’s revelation is appalling but irrelevant. What most folks don’t know is that Witness No. 9 made an explosive allegation against her cousin. “I know George. And I know that he does not like black people,” she told a Sanford police officer during a telephone call in which she pleaded for anonymity. “He would start something. He’s a very confrontational person. It’s in his blood. … That phone call was significant because it was placed two days after Zimmerman killed Trayvon and a couple of weeks before the case drew national attention. Witness No. 9 wasn’t seeking attention. “I’m a mom,” she told police. “I can’t stand seeing that some kid got shot and killed over a stupid fight, especially one that my [redacted] … because I know who he is.”
George Zimmerman is the one who stands accused of second-degree murder. He, not Trayvon Martin, is the one on trial starting June 10. And who Zimmerman is more relevant to the proceedings than who Trayvon was.
A list of George Zimmerman’s past run-ins with the law.
— July 2005, Zimmerman was arrested and accused of resisting an officer with violence near the University of Central Florida campus after a scuffle with police. The charges were eventually dropped after Zimmerman entered an alcohol education program.
— August 2005, Zimmerman’s former fiancee filed for a restraining order against him, alleging domestic violence. Zimmerman responded by requesting a restraining order against her. Both requests were granted. No criminal charges were filed.
— February 2012, Zimmerman fatally shot 17-year-old Trayvon Martin during a confrontation in the community where Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch volunteer. Zimmerman was charged with second-degree murder but acquitted after a trial in July 2013.
— July 2013, police in Foley, Texas, stop Zimmerman for speeding in a 60 mph zone. Zimmerman is let go with just a warning.
— September 2013, Zimmerman is stopped by police in Lake Mary, Fla., and given a ticket for doing 60 mph in a 45 mph zone.
— September 2013, Zimmerman’s estranged wife, Shellie, dials 911 and tells a police dispatcher that her punched her father and threatened her with a gun. She later decides against pressing charges and authorities announce in November they are dropping the case.
— September 2013, a Florida Highway Patrol trooper stops Zimmerman along Interstate 95 and issues a warning because the vehicle’s tag cover and windows were too darkly tinted.
— November 2013, Zimmerman is arrested by Seminole County authorities after a disturbance at a home in Apopka.
So, nothing beyond the words of a man who has every reason to lie and no reason to tell the truth? If you don’t have a cite, just admit it.
Zimmerman was found not guilty because there was reasonable doubt whether he committed murder. That doesn’t mean he didn’t do it, but that our justice system is designed in such a way that a guilty man may go free, but with a strong assurance that most innocent men will as well.
As it stands, your consistent assertion is that Trayvon Martin, a teenager who repeatedly told someone that he was afraid of someone following him (with a firearm), got out of sight, and then turned around to attack that person for no reason, and thus all blame for his death lies with Mr. Martin.
We’ve got a guy in a car with a gun on the phone to the police. We’ve got a black kid, wandering through a predominately white neighborhood that he is largely unfamiliar with, being followed by “a creepy ass cracker” whom was described by the person on the phone as maybe a “rapist”.
I don’t think you know what the word “Factually wrong” means.
To be factually wrong: you would have to be 100% certain that Martin felt no fear. As Martin is dead: how the fuck would you know how he was feeling?
You are talking shit. You don’t have a fucking clue what was going on in his head. You can’t fucking tell me that he “factually was not fearful.” Your full of shit.
Of course its a matter of “opinion.”
Zimmerman had a fucking gun. Martin fucking well did not.
Its astonishing that you can claim that the guy without the gun had no reason to fear the guy with the gun, even if it “wasn’t pointed at him.”
The guy “walking near you” had a fucking gun. It may or may not have “been pointing at him”: but you do realize you are arguing against yourself, don’t you?
Thats because you have fucked up priorities.
Of course I do. Have you read the ridiculous things that you post here?
You don’t understand what the word “evidence” means. You don’t understand what “threat” means, you don’t understand what “fear” means, you don’t understand what “strawman” means.
The evidence does support the proposition that Martin had a reasonable fear that Zimmerman was up to no good. But under the “stand your ground” laws that reasonable fear didn’t matter. I actually have no problem with Zimmerman’s acquittal. I think he was over-charged, the prosecution put on a poor case, and that under “stand your ground” laws getting a conviction would have been a huge ask. I also think that Zimmerman is a colossal arsehole, a dangerous arsehole, and if he had just have stayed in the car Martin would still be alive.
I already have you stupid idiot. Of course it was reasonable for somebody to be fearful in this situation. And as relayed by Rachel Jeantel, it appears that Martin was fearful. Rachel says Martin was going to “run home.” Would you run home if you didn’t have anything to fear? Why do you think he was running?
And if he did fear serious injury or death, then as shown by subsequent facts, that fear was completely and entirely reasonable, because in case you had forgotten, Martin ended up dead.
You can walk around your neighbourhood with a concealed handgun? Thats a thing you are allowed to do?
Do you have a four-dimensional brain? Because you keep missing the rest of the story. You start at the end, every single time. With Martin magically “slamming someones head into the ground”, somehow ignoring everything that lead up to that point.
If you are being stalked, and if someone confronts you, and if someone pulls a handgun on you, then yes: in most places in the world slamming the other person’s head onto the ground might be a reasonable degree of self defense. But we don’t have Martin’s side of the story. I’m content with the verdict. But there is no good reason why Martin had to die that day. Its a tragic fucking loss of life.
And I think we are done with this hijack. 3 pages is enough of your inane nonsense on this topic. Lets go back to what started this off in the first place:
No: to do anything else is not “unacceptable victim blaming”. Zimmerman, as we’ve discussed, is a good example of this. Zimmerman isn’t a victim. Everything that happened, even if it didn’t result in a conviction, is his fault. It is acceptable to blame him for Martin’s death. Zimmerman stalked Martin, confronted Martin, then shot him. All Zimmerman’s responsibility.
Hey you fucking idiot. You know what Zimmerman had? A gun.
If you are going to try to make the claim that a person who does not have a gun is a threat because they may have one, then you need to acknowledge that someone that does actually have a gun is a threat too.
So what? Being in fear of someone being “up to no good” doesn’t justify slamming their head into the ground.
There is nothing at all that suggests that Martin had reason to fear death or serious injury before he injured Zimmerman. Claiming otherwise necessarily involves guessing what happened.
Martin managed to injure Zimmerman without having a gun, despite Zimmerman (who had a gun) being no threat to him before that. You can attempt to twist things to create a “gotcha”, but it won’t work.
Legally carrying a gun is not a threat.
Following someone is not a threat.
Asking someone what they are doing is not a threat.
However, bashing someone’s head against the head is not just a threat, it’s an attack. (Martin)
Reaching for a gun when you’ve been told by the police not to is a threat. (Rice, and many others)
Fighting the police when they’re trying to arrest you is a threat. (Garner, and many others)
All of that is false except for the fact that he shot him. Zimmerman has never encounterd Martin before that day, so it is impossible that he stalked him. You are, again, using that word to mean “harassed”, and even that is not true.
It is utterly wrong to blame Zimmerman for Martin’s death. Zimmerman was the victim of a serious, unprovoked attack, and you want to blame him because he somehow lead Martin on? Try that with a rape victim, you fucking victim blaming scumbag.
You are a disgusting human being. You are the reason people in many areas are scared to leave their houses, you are the reason people can get away with repeated sexual assaults because “they deserve it” based on their previouis actions. You are the reason people gte laughed at rather than sympathised with when they get scammed. Zimmerman belongs in the category with all of them, not being blamed for anything.
But being followed by a person with a gun cannot be perceived as a threat?
I am not saying that Zimmerman threatened Martin, I am saying that Martin felt threatened by Zimmerman. Isn’t that your standard for when self defense comes into play?
Let’s put it this way, if Martin had had a gun that night, and he had shot Zimmerman dead for fearing for his life, would you now be on Martin’s side?
Yes, because as you have many times pointed out if you are afraid you must kill. You are obsessed with killing the other person.
Also are you saying it is impossible that Martin did not attack first ? Cause I can easily see a scenario where he didn’t attack at all. How many times a murderer has hurt himself to make it seem like it was self-defense. This thread has a lot of cases where evidence is planted.