Exactly, although saying so will get you crucified here. White people like to think of their justice system and their laws as unbiased and fair; it’s delusional and doesn’t dove-tail with both present-day or history.
- Honesty
You are assuming facts that you don’t have.
It is also quite plausible that while being chased Martin hid under something and gave Zimmerman the slip. It would be understandable that Martin may have perceived Zimmerman’s return to his car as an attempt to find Martin.
The original aggressor was Zimmerman, assuming Martin was at fault without all the facts is victim blaming.
Zimmerman was watching his neighborhood. There’s nothing to hand wave about this. The confrontation begins with Martin stopping and engaging Zimmerman. He then goes on to beat him. These are 3 separate actions that Martin took. He stopped, he confronted Zimmerman in conversation, and then he beat him. He went out of his way to do this. The victim at this point is someone who was watching out for his neighbors who have been subjected to a series of burglaries and one home invasion.
This doesn’t make sense at all. It absolutely worked for Martin to get away from Zimmerman. He wasn’t shooting at him or threatening him in any manor yet putting distance between them should have alleviated any personal fear he may have had. He chose to confront him which is the exact opposite of what was working for him.
The guy had persistently been chasing him in the dark.
Why do you give Zimmerman a pass when he ignores the dispatcher and continues to chase down a boy in the dark?
How do you know Martin was not trying to get home but may have though Zimmerman had found him again.
Why is Martin under a duty to retreat and not the original aggressor Zimmerman?
Zimmerman’s actual statements to police have not been released. Last I heard, they will be released to the public at the end of this month. In the meantime, we have this from the Orlando Sentinel:
Um…no what you are doing is 100% hand waving, you ignore the entire run up and Zimmermans aggression.
He was a SELF APPOINTED block watch “captain” who had failed to get a job in law enforcement and had a documented history of violence (DV case and his assault on officers)
So lets get this straight, a wannabe cop, who followed, ignored dispatch chased down, without cause, someone in the dark.
Do no pretend this was unrelated to those first events.
Zimmerman was the initial aggressor.
There are a lot of possible things that may have happened. It’s irrelevant what Martin perceived absent an actual threat from Zimmerman. In fact, the higher the level of perceived threat, the greater his need to get away from Zimmerman. He chose the exact opposite and exhibited a blind rage in the process.
I’m not ignoring anything. I’ve discussed it. Both of their actions were suspicious to the other. Neither was aggressive to the other.
That’s like saying Martin was a drug user/thief on school suspension. It’s emotional debate baggage that has nothing to do with the case.
That is what he had been trying to do so for over the entire incident.
If you rob a bank you don’t get to claim self defense if you kill the security guard because he hit you.
Plus this is Florida, there is no duty to retreat from an aggressor.
Why does the law apply for Zimmerman in your mind but not for Martin?
No, but it is a balance for your irrational claims against Martin who was breaking no laws and was fully within his rights to be there. To say Zimmerman was “watching his neighborhood” is meaningless also.
Following someone in a car, exiting and trying to chase them down as they try to avoid you is not aggressive?
Seriously, this is a really bad debate point. he was very close to his house and could have been washing skittles down with his ice tea.
The law does applies equally to both. It begins when a threat is made. It begins at the end of the other person’s nose.
No, It begins when a reasonable person believes there is a threat.
Being followed and chased by a larger male in the dark pretty much fits that bill.
There is no need for magic words, Zimmerman’s actions were a credible threat.
No, it’s not. He may have wanted to return his wallet or any number of reasons. And based on the conversation that MARTIN INITIATED he would have known it wasn’t. Zimmerman did not act aggressively toward him.
When I was a kid I was followed all through a housing development by a car. Not one block like the case here. Turned out it was another car with a kid who thought I was racing him. I found his actions suspicious. Should I have shot him? Should Zimmerman have shot a person he thought was a fleeing burglar when Martin turned on him? The answer is no.
*If *that’s true, then Zimmerman had a right to defend himself. However, unlike most of you here, I don’t take what Zimmerman says as the gospel truth; in fact, I don’t believe him: not after his history with the law, bragging on myspace, and (recently) lying to the court.
No, you don’t. The law specifically addresses that. If you’re in the middle of committing a felony, the law does not apply to you. How is that relevant to the Zimmerman case?
Nobody is suggesting that Martin didn’t have a right to be there. He didn’t have a right to beat up Zimmerman.
Amen, he didn’t qualify to be an officer due to his criminal history so he decided to play Cowboys and Indians under the guise being a neighborhood watchman. It’s disparaging enough that the U.S doesn’t require police officers to get a bachelor’s degree and hand out police academy diplomas like candy raindrops, but for them to sanction and lend credibility to a neighborhood watchman who possessed no formal training or classes, is irresponsible. Indeed, it is irrelevant that Zimmerman was a neighborhood watchman because he carried no proof of his “official” position. He could, as someone else mentioned, been a child molester prowling the streets.
What’s funny, rat avatar, is that the posters here will hand-wave Zimmerman’s beating on women (then making fun of it on MySpace), resisting arrest, prescription of uppers (mixed amphetamine salts) and downers (benzodiapenes), attempting to withhold a passport from the court, and lying to the court about his finances. Even Zimmerman’s own lawyer has commented that Zimmerman is “frustrated” that he has to prove his innocence. What innocent person says that? Be rest assured that they’re the ones looking at Zimmerman with rose-tinted glasses and claim that we (general we) should throw away common sense and only confine our inquiry to what the law says to the letter. It’s certainly a convenient proposition but not a intelligent one.
- Honesty