And in this case we refer to the law to see what society has determined is the person with the right to use violence, and it was referred to a trial where it was determined Zimmerman did. Sounds like we don’t disagree, no does Ditka.
Now, should we talk about whether these laws are the correct moral laws or whether this was a stupid unavoidable tragedy and things like education ("Kids, Florida is a concealed carry state and anyone you get in a fight with might be armed, discretion is the better part of valor) and the neighborhood watch guidelines (“You must immediately identify yourself before any use of violence as a watch member or be unable to exercise the Stand Your Ground defense”) is a better means of preventing future tragedies?
Zimmerman shoved or otherwise initiated a physical altercation with Martin, expecting Martin to punch him back, giving him and excuse to draw the gun Martin didn’t know he had and shoot Martin while claiming he was in imminent fear for his life.
Nothing about Zimmerman has shown that level of cunning or preplanning- it takes a lot of malice, it would require him deciding to kill Martin before anything happened- and we have no testimony to that effect.
It doesn’t matter why Martin attacked Zimmerman, as Martin is not accused of anything. All that matters is that he did, based on all the available evidence. The majority of that evidence is from the girl Martin was on the phone to as the altercation happened, which was presented at the trial.
There is Martin’s friend Dee Dee’s testimony. If you consider that to be reliable?
Martin’s friend was subsequently interviewed by state prosecutors on April 2, 2012. During her interview with the prosecutor, Martin’s friend recounted her last phone call with Martin and added that Martin had described the man as “crazy and creepy”, watching him from a vehicle while the man was talking on the phone.[129] She also testified that Martin referred to Zimmerman as a “creepy ass cracker” and “nigga” during their telephone conversation.[138][139]
*‘Cracker’ conveys history of bigotry that still resonates
Complicating the matter further: Despite suspicions among many case watchers that Zimmerman followed Martin largely because he was African-American, the only mention of race from the defendant in his call to the police that night about a “suspicious guy” came when he was questioned. “This guy,” the dispatcher asks, “is he white, black, or Hispanic?” Zimmerman responds, “He looks black.”
All of this may seem pointless to people who focus on the central fact of this case: No matter how the conflict began, police say it ended with an armed man killing an unarmed one. The debate over cracker may furthermore seem arcane to people who live north of the Mason-Dixon line, where cracker is seldom heard, and even when it makes an appearance, it is not freighted with decades of history. To be sure, cracker is not on par with the n-word, but it is nonetheless a sharp racial insult that resonates with white southerners even if white northerners don’t get it.*
Except Zimmerman was not told by a police officer to “stay inside and not confront Martin”.
*On the evening of February 26, 2012, Zimmerman observed Martin as he returned to the Twin Lakes housing community after having walked to a nearby convenience store.[41][Note 3] At the time, Zimmerman was driving through the neighborhood on a personal errand.[42]
At approximately 7:09 p.m.,[Note 4] Zimmerman called the Sanford police non-emergency number to report a suspicious person in the Twin Lakes community.[44] Zimmerman said, “We’ve had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there’s a real suspicious guy.”[2] He described an unknown male “just walking around looking about” in the rain and said, “This guy looks like he is up to no good or he is on drugs or something.”[45] Zimmerman reported that the person had his hand in his waistband and was walking around looking at homes.[46] He also mentioned that Martin was wearing a “dark hoodie, like a grey hoodie.”[47] On the recording, Zimmerman is heard saying, “these assholes, they always get away.”[48][49]
About two minutes into the call, Zimmerman said, “he’s running”.[50] The dispatcher asked, “He’s running? Which way is he running?”[51] Noises on the tape at this point have been interpreted by some media outlets as the sound of a car door chime, possibly indicating Zimmerman opened his car door.[52] Zimmerman followed Martin, eventually losing sight of him.[50] The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following him. When Zimmerman answered, “yeah”, the dispatcher said, “We don’t need you to do that.” Zimmerman responded, “Okay.”[53] Zimmerman asked that police call him upon their arrival so he could provide his location.[50] Zimmerman ended the call at 7:15 p.m.*
Yup. Thanks for addressing this point. It’s one I intended to, but never got back to. AFAIK, he wasn’t even speaking to a police officer, just a dispatcher, but either way, the “We don’t need you to do that.” “Okay.” suggests compliance, not disobedience.
“The police told him not to follow Martin” is another falsehood, along with “Martin was in a public place” and “Zimmerman stalked Martin”.
I’m well aware that the media reported many of these things as fact, but they (probably intentionally) reported falsehoods. It’s easy to read or watch what actually was said at the trial - it’s been quoted in this thread! It’s rather sad to see many people here who disdain those who follow Fox News or whatever unquestioningly believing reports that fit their biases, even when presented with evidence that the reports are wrong.
[ul][li]Zimmerman follows Martin.[/li][li]Zimmerman loses sight of Martin.[/li][li]The NEN dispatcher tells him “we don’t need you to” (follow Martin).[/li][li]Zimmerman stops following Martin.[/li][li]Zimmerman asks the cops to call him so they can arrange to meet.[/li][li]Zimmerman hangs up, and goes looking for a house number or street sign so he can give a precise location.[/li][li]Martin doubles back, confronts Zimmerman, they exchange words, and Martin attacks.[/ul]He didn’t “do it anyway.”[/li]
Regards,
Shodan
Like the falsehood of “right by my father’s house” proving that Martin was about to enter the doorway to his father’s house and then turned and went back to pursue Zimmerman. When in fact the location of the incident easily could also be described as “right by my father’s house”? Like that falsehood that keeps being trotted out as rock solid proof of Martin’s intent to attack or that he “doubled back”?
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.
Not really. You can’t do a forensic check on that (too confabulated with the fight), there’s no evidence it applied to a physical restraint over say a metaphorical (what does Zimmerman need to get off of? Martin? Martin’s trail? His father’s lawn?).
Again, though, is a full blown layout and pounding of someone’s head on the ground a proportionate response? It’s completely reasonable for Martin to have over-reacted as human beings especially given his age, but that literally put Zimmerman at serious risk of death or permanent disabling injury. (Don’t mess with the head, guys. ) That’s the immutable end of it as far as the law goes with respect to murder.
Manslaughter in the 2nd or 3rd was the correct charge.
350 feet is a big back yard. The homes located in The Retreat at Twin Lakes in Sanford, Fla. are nowhere near that large.
If things were different, things would be different. There are 12+ homes (24+ if you count both sides of the common area. With 5 homes per building and 3 buildings per side, it looks like your parents could build at least 30 similar homes in their backyard.) along the path which Martin took to and from his home to the point where he confronted Zimmerman.
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.
Someone said “get off”, but DeeDee was unwilling to say for certain who it was. I suspect that it was the person with injuries consistent with being punched, pushed to the floor, and smashed against the ground who said it, rather than the person who’s only injury was a gunshot wound.
Yes, obviously all the benefit of the doubt goes to Zimmerman. His guilt has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Martin is not accused of anything, so that doesn’t apply to him.
But Martin shouting “get off” at the onset of the confrontation certainly casts doubt that innocent Zimmerman was blindsided. When you say that Martin initiated the confrontation, that doesn’t fit with him being the one shouting “get off!”. Why else would he shout that if Zimmerman didn’t touch him?
A guy slammed my locker on my hand in an empty hall and ran down the hall laughing and saying “Suck on that”
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.
Only relevant if you’re maintaining that Zimmerman decided he had to kill him to cover something up by insinuation. Are you? Because it’s pretty clear that Zimmerman wasn’t just pretending to be afraid of physical damage- he was actually injured.