And what of yours, which appears to be designed to deflect from the fact that you left out several extremely salient details in your description of events.
Did he start it? Your transcript suggests that Zimmerman was the main antagonist and while it doesn’t show who threw the first punch (and since one of the parties is dead we only have Zimmerman’s word for it) we have a report of Martin saying “Get off!”.
Apart from the various times Dee Dee mentioned Martin expressing concern over Zimmerman’s actions, that he sounded scared, that Zimmerman had gotten “real close” and that when asked why he was following Martin Zimmerman responded angrily?
So asking a person who followed you home why they were following you is now a belligerent act, but actually following someone home isn’t?
A grown man follows a child around, approaches him, and the child ends up dead. Yet you blame the victim of this encounter. Typical.
And yeah, you’re right. Any excuse you would make would be disgusting, because you’re defending someone who, morally, is the equivalent of a murderer. Even if Trayvon attacked Zimmerman in cold blood, which you have no evidence for, none of this would have ever happened if George Zimmerman didn’t go out looking to make trouble. In your scenario, where Martin suddenly becomes violent despite no history of violence, him and Zimmerman share the blame for what happened, 50/50. Again, before you screech about Florida law, I am talking about moral culpability, not legal responsibility.
In any realistic scenario, Zimmerman’s share of the blame explodes upwards. So yeah. You defending him IS disgusting, and always will be.
Fair enough, I will tone down any personal discussion here. I think we simultaneously posted so if my last post falls afoul of your instructions I apologize and will take it to the Pit.
Neither one of those are criminal acts, and neither justifies violence. Punching someone in the face for asking “what are you doing” IS though, and straddling them and bashing their head on concrete does justify a violent self-defense response.
Martin was 17. He may not have legally been an adult, but he’s not what I would call a child (unless I was trying to make an emotional appeal because the facts didn’t support my argument).
What are you talking about? There’s lots of evidence of that Martin attacked Zimmerman. There’s Zimmerman’s bloody face and head. There were reportedly abrasions on Martin’s knuckles. There’s a witness that saw Martin on top of Zimmerman, as well as the grass stains on Martin’s knees and Zimmerman’s back.
No, that’s evidence that Martin and Zimmerman had an altercation, and at least at one point, Martin was winning. That’s like me arguing that there’s lots of evidence that Zimmerman attacked Martin – the bullet hole in Martin’s body, for one.
Are you going to address Zimmerman’s history of violence, as multiple posters have asked you repeatedly?
Which question? About Martin’s history? I think it unlikely that his encounter with Zimmerman was the first time Martin had ever thrown a punch, but even if it was, “this is the first time we have a record of that he ever beat the shit out of someone” does not mean he gets a pass for it. He was still on top of Zimmerman, bashing his head on the concrete, when he was shot. That makes the shooting justified.
For instance, in the Positive Gun News thread, there is a recent story of a woman who killed an escaped inmate. Can you tell me what violence he initiated on her before she killed him?
Or is it possible that the threat of violence is enough to justify violence?
With the primary evidence being the testimony of the only person to survive the encounter, the evidence can suggest that to someone who is looking to blame the dead kid for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.