You accuse others of assuming facts not in evidence. Martin was shot about 200’ from his door, which does not suggest that he went back to confront Zimmerman. His girlfriend’s testimony about the conversation is unreliable, so to say that he went back is an unfounded assumption. If I was being followed at night, there is a fair chance that I would pause before approaching my door, to determine where my stalker was.
Then, why did he not hie into the safe place? What he knew about his stalker and his stalker’s intentions is unclear. The bird’s nest instinct does exist in humans to some extent: if I perceive a potential threat, leading that threat right to where I live is often not the best choice – a choice that one must make in the moment.
So claiming that Martin backtracked is not only an unfounded assumption, if it were true, it would be entirely understandable.
We’ve done this already. Based on where the fight happened, AND Dee Dee’s testimony, AND Zimmerman’s statements, the balance of the available evidence indicates that Martin and Zimmerman lost sight of each other, Martin was right by his house, Zimmerman was looking for a street address or house number to be able to give a precise location so he could meet up with the police, and Martin went back and confronted and attacked Zimmerman.
You don’t have to worry about leading someone to your nest if they can’t see you.
You are talking in terms of generalities, I’m talking about this particular case. I won’t be distracted by your attempt to pin me with something I’ve never said.
Okay, so you say that there are too many variables for you to say how you would respond in Martin’s situation.
Yet, you say you know enough about the case to say exactly why Martin did what you say he did.
And why do you think he made that decision? He was just a thug looking to beat someone up that night, or that he was concerned for his safety from this stranger who was following him at night?
It was Zimmerman’s decision to pursue Martin through a neighborhood in the dark that got Martin killed. Unfortunately, Martin did not have perfect knowledge of why this person was following him in the dark. You seem to think that there is no way that he could have possibly perceived this as a threat, but have no problem with Zimmerman considering Martin to be suspicious because he as walking down the street.
We’ve been over this already that you have made these unsupported assertions, even though they contradict facts.
In any case, if you claim that Zimmerman was looking for a street address or house number, why was he not on the street, where street addresses and house numbers are, and instead, behind the houses, where street addresses and house numbers are not? If he were looking to meet up with the police, then why was he not on the street, where the police would be coming, and instead, behind the houses, where they would not?
Sounds to me like he was following and looking for Martin. No other explanation as to why he was following Martin behind houses makes any sense.
And as he was actively looking for Martin, your assertion that it was Martin that then circled back to confront Zimmerman makes even less.
You know, this could have turned into a controversial encounters post. Zimmerman calls the cops on some kid walking down the street, the cops show up, and shoot the guy acting suspicious, the armed guy going around behind houses and following residents.
And because you can’t see them, that means that they can’t see you, right?
Except that Dee Dee’s testimony also says that after they lost sight of each other Zimmerman found Martin again and came right up close to him, not that Martin went back to find him. Zimmerman could see him just fine.
No, I understand that you excluded the bits that contradicted your chosen narrative. I have no difficulty in grasping that.
How about “He followed me home, confronted me angrily and put his hand on his weapon”? That’s more than enough excuse for the police to shoot people; in fact often they don’t even have to touch the weapon to get shot. And we know Zimmerman followed and confronted Martin angrily and that he had a weapon, and that in other instances he waved a gun at other people in anger. It’s not a remotely implausible scenario.
Would there? What would that evidence look like? Bear in mind that we only have Zimmerman’s account of the altercation itself.
Is anyone asserting that Zimmerman’s original intent was to seek out and murder Martin? Zimmerman’s intent was likely to confront Martin, and took the gun along for his own protection. Zimmerman then confronted Martin and the whole thing escalated. The question is whether Martin had sufficient reason to believe that Zimmerman was an imminent threat to attack him in self-defense. You say he didn’t. I say it is entirely plausible that he did, particularly as alternative theories presented are considerably less so.
And sure, maybe Martin flew off the handle and attacked Zimmerman just for following him and for being a dick. But neither you nor Shodan are making that case by changing the story of what we do know happened.
From what I have read, Zimmerman did confront Martin angrily per se. Martin demanded to know why Zimmerman was following him (angrily, we would assume). Zimmerman did not answer (e.g., “I’m doing neighborhood watch and you look unfamiliar”), he asked Martin what he was doing there. So one cannot literally say he confronted him angrily, just that he was very undiplomatic.
As far as the gun goes, some testimony seems to indicate that Martin was not aware of it until moments before he was shot.
Martin is not accused of any crime, so it’s irrelevant. But I certainly don’t think someone who’s dead should be posthumously convicted of a crime, so to the extent it matters, of course I do.
There weren’t any addresses on the back sides. That’s why Zimmerman went between the houses to go to the other side and look for a sign. It was at that point, as Zimmerman was coming back, that Martin also came between the units, confronted him, and there the fight took place.
He couldn’t know it for certain. But again, this is an indication that Martin was not frightened. He made sure, by doubling back, that Zimmerman could see him. And then attacked him.
The evidence indicates that he did. Look at the relative positions of Martin’s house, where Zimmerman first spotted him, and where the fight took place.
Ultimately if Martin’s mother had not kicked him out of the house, none of this would have happened. However, this does not mean that it is his mother’s fault. The fault lies with the person who did the violence.
Martin going to get fruit juice and Skittles was reasonable, Zimmerman noticing a stranger acting suspicious is reasonable, Zimmerman following the suspicious stranger was reasonable, Martin asking why Zimmerman was following was reasonable, Zimmerman asking what Martin was doing in the neighborhood was reasonable. What is unreasonable was Martin punching Zimmerman and bashing his head against the concrete. Zimmerman then shooting someone attempting to injure or kill him was reasonable.
The only unreasonable course of action was Martin attacking Zimmerman and therefore the fault lies entirely with Martin.
Earlier you did not ask me about “Martin’s situation”. You said this:
We don’t have any evidence that Martin knew Zimmerman was armed prior to their physical altercation. But, since you seem interested in how I would have responded if I found myself in “Martin’s situation”:
I would not have run. I would have walked away from the stranger eyeing me and headed towards my home, probably keeping a watchful on him. If you want to fast forward past the point where Martin decided to run, then I would have gone home and gone inside. If you want to skip past that decision point, to where Martin and Zimmerman found themselves face-to-face, then I might have asked him why he was following me but I would not have punched him in the face and smashed his head on the concrete.
Wrong! I have pointedly NOT said that I “know enough about the case to say exactly why Martin did what * say he did”. Did you seriously miss all the belly-aching because I wouldn’t speculate on his motive? People were right sore about it precisely because I did NOT “say * know enough about the case to say exactly why Martin did what * say he did”.
Once again, I don’t know why he did it. I don’t see any benefit in speculating without further information either.
We don’t “only have Zimmerman’s account of the altercation”. Dee Dee heard the beginning of it. If she had heard Martin say something like “Oh shit, he’s got a gun and I think he’s going to shoot me” or “please don’t shoot me man” or something like that, THAT would be evidence that Martin was facing an imminent use of unlawful force. If the witness that saw the scuffle, instead of seeing Martin on top of Zimmerman pounding his head into the concrete, had seen Zimmerman pointing his gun at Martin, that too could have been evidence that Martin was facing an imminent use of unlawful force. If it were Martin, not Zimmerman, that had a bloody nose, that might be evidence that he was facing an imminent use of unlawful force. Those are just a few examples.
What? This is the reason Zimmerman chose to follow and called the police in the first place. If Martin was just walking home, like other residents did, there likely would have been no problem.
calling Obama a babboon on Twitter, confederate flag as his profile pic. But you’re gonna ignore this post just like youj ignored this evidence the last few times I brought it up.
I know reading comprehension is hard, but YOU have no evidence of THIS.
Sure there’s evidence of it. Dee Dee’s testimony was that he said he was “right by” his father’s fiancee’s house. You may want to argue for a strained / stretched-to-the-breaking-point-of-credulity definition of “right by”, but the rest of us don’t have to, and probably won’t, buy into it.
No, they don’t. You keep claiming they do, but the vast majority of people in this thread don’t read it that way. So either you’re some super persecuted genius, or you’re WRONG.