Allow for the possibility!? I DO think he started the fight. I think Zimmerman was too much of a pussy to throw the first punch.
Of course, he SHOULDN’T have started the fight, but 17-year-olds make bad decisions sometimes. That’s why it’s our responsibility as adults not to put teenagers in situations in which their bad decisions can have deadly consequences. George Zimmerman failed as an adult and as a decent human in that regard. He put an innocent teenager in a situation where the teenager’s dumb decision cost him his life, all because he was wrong in his assessment of a young black man walking in his own neighborhood. He’s a piece of shit for that, and it fucking sucks that “the law” doesn’t have a provision for punishing people who fail to be decent adults, fail to correctly assess a situation, and those failures result in someone being dead. It. fucking. sucks.
Fuck George Zimmerman and anyone who continues to defend him.
What evidence? Are you actually accusing me of ignoring evidence that you yourself have not specified or proved the relevance of? Are you convinced you have pertinent evidence or legal arguments that the Prosecution ignored/mishandled?
No, that is the only relevant fact. If no evidence exists that Martin was justified in his use of force then the automatic presumption is that he was committing a crime. Speculation without evidence is meaningless in terms of logic and the law when we have a rebuttable presumption with no legitimate rebuttal.
So what? None of that is criminal or justifies Martin responding with force. And none of that would justify Martin “standing his ground” either. Because for the Nth time, simply following someone at night and even confronting them and asking questions does not come even close to justifying a legal claim of self-defense. “Stand your ground” or otherwise. You are simply wrong. And do you somehow think Martin was aware of Zimmerman’s background or could use it for justification after the fact in your little hypothetical? Because, in that case, your analysis went from “bad” to “completely off the rails.”
Then why did you bring it up when talking directly to me?
I don’t need to thread any needles. I have the basic law and a verdict on my side. And yes, one of the limitations of our legal system is it can only examine evidence it possesses. Do you have some solution to that? And what possible double standard are you referring to?
Do you think Zimmerman would have shot Martin if he simply punched Zimmerman? If so, do you think Zimmerman would have been convicted?
And see, that’s the difference between you and me. My personal feelings for Zimmerman or Martin, my emotional reaction to a teenager dying, or the actions of either party not relevant to the case, don’t ever enter into it. It’s called objectivity. You and some of the others here should look into it.
What you don’t have are witnesses, one who didn’t see nor hear the violent altercation described by Zimmerman and two who testified that the person on top got up and walked away. One of whom also testified that she had later seen Zimmerman pacing with his hands on his head, classic behavior of someone panicking: I killed him! I killed him! Need to come up with a story and quick!
Don’t ever enter into what? What are you talking about? Your personal feelings for Zimmerman don’t enter into your personal feelings for Zimmerman? The trial was ages ago and you’re not a juror, you’re allowed to call him a piece of shit. Christ, nut up and have an opinion on a shitty person who did a shitty thing. It’s OK.
Oh look - needlethreading. You handwaved away things as “irrelevant” that were entirely relevant, and did so because they were inconvenient for your argument.
More disingenuous needlethreading. You’re using “absence of evidence is evidence of absence” as a rhetorical argument and then using your “I’m just a caveman lawyer” schtick to get away with it.
WITH A GUN
Funny how you left the gun out of the equation. Because it’s inconvenient to your argument.
Please point out where I said Martin was aware of Zimmerman’s background.
Because it was relevant to my post. I apologise if I overestimated your cognitive skills.
And yet you’ve misrepresented both the actual evidence and what I’ve said in this thread.
We are all completely fooled by your feigned innocence. Seriously though, this Bricker Jr thing really isn’t working for you.
Martin correctly identified Zimmerman as a dangerous threat, ran away from him and hid. You ignore this, but we haven’t forgot about that. Bathing yourself as objective while lecturing us on Zimmerman’s righteousness is simply a display of your lack of awareness about your own abilities. You are not persuasive nor as rhetorically skilled as you declare yourself to be.
Why wouldn’t he? People are killed everyday by short-tempered maniacs.
Zimmerman took himself out the car and pursued a kid in the dark, in the rain, carrying an armed weapon. With judgement With actions this irresponsible and hostile, it’s easier to believe Zimmerman shot Martin for the crime of refusing to submit to him than it is to believe the kid was the aggressor in the situation.