But murder is. And there is far more circumstancial evidence incriminating Zimmerman as the violent aggressor than there is for Martin.
I’ll just leave this here…think it points out the problem pretty well.
Can you point me to some? So far I haven’t seen any.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
It’s hard to see something that hasn’t been presented.
We have the motive, which is bigotry, and the body, which is dead.
But I will indulge you one more time.
From the 911 call and the girlfriend’s account we know:
-
Zimmerman described Martin as a “fucking coon” and said “These guys always get away”. 2 points against Zimmerman.
-
Zimmerman, in possession of a gun, left his car to pursue Martin. 1 point against Zimmerman.
-
Martin tried to elude Zimmerman.
-
Zimmerman catches up to Martin, who says “Why are you following me?”
-
Zimmerman says, “What are you doing here?”, followed by a scuffle and screaming (identified as Martin by his mother). 1 point against Zimmerman.
-
Zimmerman shoots Martin. 1 point against Zimmerman.
Everything points to Zimmerman. Where in this scenario do you find any circumstantial evidence that Martin might have assaulted Zimmerman?
Even if I stipulate bigotry, neither are in any way evidence that Zimmerman initiated the physical confrontation.
As Bricker pointed out, the slur is extremely debatable, and even if it occurred, is not in any way evidence that Zimmerman initiated the physical confrontation.
not in any way evidence that Zimmerman initiated the physical confrontation.
not in any way evidence that Zimmerman initiated the physical confrontation.
Please link to “identified as Martin by his mother”. Because I have a link that says that the father said the screaming on 911 tapes was not his son.
And anyway - how is the above evidence that Zimmerman initiated the physical confrontation. Because he said “What are you doing here”?
not in any way evidence that Zimmerman initiated the physical confrontation.
So - do you have any evidence that Zimmerman initiated the physical confrontation?
1,2 and 4 are irrelevant, and in the case of the racial slur, false.
3 is dubious, given the eyewitness account of Martin on top of Zimmerman.
All 5 shows is that there was a fight, not who instigated it.
6 is not in doubt. It has no bearing on who started the fight.
So no, you have almost no evidence that Zimmerman started the fight.
The only evidence that Martin started the fight is Zimmerman’s statement, which is understandably dubious, but unless it can be disproved, he’s not guilty.
Yes, there is. That’s what the two phones call are, evidence. You can say the evidence is inconclusive. You can’t say there is no evidence.
And I am still wondering why you seem so equally certain that the kid assaulted the guy as Fear Itself is sure it happened the other way around.
And I still don’t get why you don’t understand that getting out of the car after being told not to tells us something about the guy’s character. It’s not evidence in and of itself, but it very well supports the story given from the kid’s side. Just like, if the kid had been some sort of gangsta wannabe, it would have supported the old(er) man’s story. As far as I know, establishing the character of the perpetrator has not been eliminated from what is allowed to be considered.
In that an “aggressor” is someone who initiates, yes, those actions do in fact make one an aggressor.
Perhaps you are using a different meaning for “aggressor”, one of which I am unaware. If so, please feel free to share it.
Only law enforcement can detain people on suspicion that they have committed a crime. Civilians can detain people only if they actually witness a crime, absent special circumstances (like shopkeeper’s privilege.)
Well, there’s the dead body with a bullet hole in it. And there’s Zimmerman standing there with a smoking gun in his hand, saying he just shot that guy.
Hey, Shaggy, I think we found a clue.
That depends. Some states do allow for a citizen’s arrest when a person has reasonable knowledge that a person committed a crime, even if they didn’t witness the crime.
There is all kinds of evidence. There is just no evidence that relates to who started the physical confrontation.
I am not. Where did I say I was?
Um, he wasn’t “told not to”.
That’s not evidence that Zimmerman was the aggressor. Who the aggressor was is determined by how the fight starts, not by how it ends.
No, it is not. That would be evidence of assault, not aggression. The sum of Zimmerman’s actions would lead a reasonable man to conclude that he was the aggressor in the confrontation.
If you replace “conclude” by “fantasize” and “reasonable” by “biased”, I’d agree.
Zimmerman, who is not a police officer, was armed and following Martin.
Zimmerman had no need to leave his vehicle or to follow Martin.
Zimmerman leaves his vehicle with his weapon.
Zimmerman is stalking Martin and Martin knows it.
Worst case scenario:
Martin lays for Zimmerman and attacks him from behind.
Martin is acting in self defense.
Zimmerman’s use of his weapon is pre-meditated murder because Zimmerman brought the weapon to the situation that he created which then resulted in Martin’s death.
Crane
Which, in your haste, you have neglected to provide.
If someone hasn’t already used this law to commit murder, they will. Get a permit to carry. Get into some altercation with the target (helps if they have a temper problem). Provoke. Let him take a swing at you. Even better, let them connect, a fat lip is better than five to fifteen. Blow away their shit.
Now, I’m totally about the peace, love and kittens. And if I can think of this scenario, somebody else already has.