I think you mean that we have no evidence that ZIMMERMAN was threatening “imminent use of unlawful force”, and you’d be wrong. We do have evidence of that. The fact that he stalked a kid with a gun on some sort of vigilante crusade is pretty strong evidence of his state of mind. So does the fact that he pursued Martin after being told that the police will handle it. Any reasonable person being pursued by such a maniac should be scared for his life.
I’ll quibble with the bolded wording: Mr. Black was not ignoring police instructions. “Ignoring” is a purposeful act that presumes both knowledge and intent; Mr. Black was ignorant of the police orders because he could not hear them (as you noted); he was not reacting to them. The fact that police characterize it as “ignoring” is itself purposeful, as it helps them build the narrative that they want.
Think how different the headline would be if it read “Police shoot man who does not react to their shouts”, which is what really happened. And it isn’t the first time (2011 case that drew no charges).
You are wrong. Martin was not “cornered” by Zimmerman. And there’s no evidence that Zimmerman “pulled out a gun” until after Martin had attacked Zimmerman.
You can call it whatever you like, it doesn’t make your mislabeling any less wrong.
I would not escalate the situation by introducing violence into it if I thought it could be handled peacefully. That was Martin’s fatal error.
Someone following me and then asking me what I’m doing does not rise to the level of a threat to my life that justified the use of force.
How is a policeman in a dark house at the site of a known crime supposed to know whether this man is “not responding to” or “ignoring” police instructions? I’m not saying this guy should have been shot, but he was holding a gun that he wouldn’t put down, and he pointed at object at a police officer. How many black men in their 20s have been killed for far less?
According to the evidence, Martin was committing assault and battery.
No.
According to the evidence, Martin was the first to use violence. Martin was not justified in reacting to being asked what he was doing (according to Dee Dee’s testimony) by attacking Zimmerman.
Asking someone what he is doing is not a threat, and does not justify violence. The idea of “I killed him because he asked me what I was doing” is absurd. “I killed him because I was in fear of my life from the person who attacked me, knocked me down, and was bashing my head on the ground” is not absurd.
There is no evidence that Zimmerman pulled his gun until after Martin knocked him down, broke his nose, and bashed his head on the ground hard enough to put gashes in the back of Zimmerman’s head. There is evidence that he did not pull his gun - namely that the fight went on for a minute or more, long enough for people to hear it going on. If Zimmerman had his gun out, why would he wait for Martin to bash his head on the ground?
Zimmerman didn’t corner him, as has been pointed out. Martin had made it back to his father’s girlfriend’s house, and then (according to Dee Dee) doubled back, found Zimmerman, and attacked him. And Zimmerman was not stalking him when Martin doubled back - they had lost sight of each other.
Martin didn’t suddenly come upon him again - Martin sought him out and attacked him.
There is no evidence of racial animus on Zimmerman’s part, and being the neighborhood watch guy is not stalking, morally or legally.
Regards,
Shodan
Defended himself against what - being asked what he was doing? That does not justify a violent response.
Regards,
Shodan
One shouldn’t even need to hear it. It should be common sense, shouldn’t it? The police respond to an incident. Do I really want them to see me with a gun in my hand? As they enter the house, I’m putting the gun down before they even see me holding it. I’m not going to get to the point where they see me and point a gun at me because anything could happen at that point, and I know that “anything” is going to be very bad for me.
Oh, people in their 70’s are far from helpless and addled unless they have Alzheimer’s or something similar, in which case they shouldn’t even have a gun in the first place.
From the OP, snipped and bolded.
There isn’t.
What’s to discuss? The prosecution should have brought Zimmerman up on manslaughter charges. Any reasonable jury would have convicted him.
Sure there is. The victim in Colorado had just saved his grandson from an intruder and was, in hindsight, not really a threat to the policeman that shot him. It was tragic.
Martin hadn’t saved anyone, and was very much a threat to Zimmerman when he was shot.
The guy with an iced tea and a bag of Skittles was a threat to the guy with a gun.
Okaaaayyyy…
Sure, Martin just came out of nowhere and jumped the Good Guy before he had a chance to pull out his gun. Gotcha. :rolleyes:
Your alternate theory is what? That Zimmerman had a gun pointed at Martin the whole time but he still let him beat him up a good bit before deciding to shoot him?
Okay, that explains a lot. You’re obviously posting from an alternate universe. Just for your information, that’s not the way it happened here in our world. Zimmerman was following Martin in this universe.
No, going around your neighborhood looking for people who you think look like criminals is what makes it stalking. And deciding that somebody looks like a criminal because they’re black is evidence of racial animus.
No, my theory is that Martin saw a stranger following him for no apparent reason and decided that that stranger might be a potential criminal.
Your theory is that Zimmerman saw a stranger who was black and decided that that stranger might be a potential criminal.
Which of our theories sounds racist?
Or it’s self-defense.
No, I am posting from this universe. Zimmerman spotted Martin, called in to the NEN dispatcher, who told Zimmerman “we don’t need you to do that” (i.e. follow Martin), then Martin and Zimmerman lost sight of each other (according to Zimmerman’s contemporary statements and Dee Dee’s account) and Martin was “right by his father’s house”, and Martin doubled back, confronted Zimmerman, and then attacked him (according to Dee Dee’s testimony and the circumstantial evidence) when Zimmerman asked Martin what he was doing.
Zimmerman was not going around his neighborhood looking for people; he was driving home from Target, and he was the neighborhood watch guy, who had already made a number of reports of suspicious activity ranging from missing children to burglaries in progress. Being the neighborhood watch guy is not stalking.
There is no evidence that Zimmerman decided Martin looked like a criminal based on Martin’s race. Zimmerman’s description of what made him notice Martin did not include his race, nor is there any evidence of racial animus on Zimmerman’s part.
Regards,
Shodan
Sorta hard to answer this when Martin is dead and Zimmerman (i.e. the guy who killed him) is the only other person who was present.
I believe this. I mean, if you can’t trust the guy who shot him, who can you trust?