Just a follow up: he didn’t know if he shot the kid, but he straddled him and took him from on top of himself
Very curious.
Yes, that’s what the original call to the police by Zimmerman was about.
Yes, evidence that Martin initiated the attack. It’s not conclusive, but it at least exists, unlike evidence that Zimmerman started it.
Correct, but irrelevant, as no-one chased anyone, with or without weaponry. Zimmerman had a legally owned firearm, that was carried concealed, and there is no evidence to suggest it was out at any point before Martin punched Zimmerman.
He could have done, but instead he called the police. Usually the best option, rather than approaching someone.
If Martin had simply gone to the house he was staying at, rather than waiting for Zimmerman, the shit could have ended right fucking there. Instead, Martin punched Zimmerman to the ground, got on top of him, and bashed his head against the ground, for no reason that anyone’s been able to explain.
Yep, and I bet he wishes he’d stayed in his car and driven away as fast as he could. The difference between Zimmerman’s regrettable actions and Martin’s is that, to the best of our knowledge, Zimmerman’s were legal.
You claim to have read the entire thread, if you have you will have read me, and others, making these points many times.
Being wrong will do that.
It only takes one idiot juror to fuck up what should be slam dunk case, so no thanks.
Of course, you think everyone who doesn’t think in lockstep with you is an idiot.
No just the ones who post idiotic positions.
None of your cites refer to any evidence that Zimmerman was the first to physically attack Martin.
It has to make some kind of sense, which, so far, you have failed to do.
Sure, at least part of it was. The fact that some of it was on the grass does not prove that all of it was on the grass.
It could have been Zimmerman saying “get off, get off”. Since the only witness to the fight has said specifically that Martin was on top of Zimmerman, and since no one says that Zimmerman was on top of Martin during the fight, and since no evidence exists that Zimmerman was on top of Martin, we cannot reasonably conclude that Zimmerman was on top of Martin. Because, as mentioned, there is no evidence of this.
So it appears from the evidence.
What about it? The clip got knocked off. That does not establish that Zimmerman attacked Martin first. It is just as likely that it got knocked off when Martin punched Zimmerman in the face, or when he drove Zimmerman to the ground, or in the course of Martin bashing Zimmerman’s head into the ground.
Previously you claimed that Zimmerman used a throw to take Martin to the ground. You have produced no evidence of this at all, nor have you been able to account for why Zimmerman wound up on the bottom if he threw Martin instead of Martin tackling him.
If by that you mean that I think logically, thank you.
If by that you mean that I think differently from you, thank you even more.
Regards,
Shodan
Actually it will take 12 idiot jurors to fuck up this case.
Yeah, sure i am wrong.
My pleasure, sir.
Yes. No-one chased anyone.
Learn the facts of this case before discussing it. They’re all up here in this thread you claim to have read.
Also, Martin didn’t get shot because he didn’t go home, despite what you’re trying to imply with your inappropriate analogy. He got shot because he punched Zimmerman to the ground and bashed his head against the floor. That’s not in question. The only thing in question is whether Zimmerman was in a reasonable state of fear so as to be allowed to shoot him.
As Martin was preventing Zimmerman from fleeing, it doesn’t even matter if he wasn’t the original aggressor, only that he was continuing to be aggressive at the point Zimmerman shot him.
You may not like this law. You may well fucking despise it. But you can’t claim it doesn’t exist, or shouldn’t apply. That’s what you, like ywtf and others, are doing, and it’s fucking disgusting. You can’t prove he broke the law, but want him convicted anyway. Sickening.
Actually it’s six, but who’s counting?
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june12/zimmerman_04-12.html
No one chased anyone? You want to play word games now?
You want to give this bullshit argument that Martin’s edema may have caused him to attack Zimmerman (WTF???) then say “learn the facts”???
“Learn the facts”…as if that mantra is going to somehow make me accept your positions??
**SPARE ME. **
**
I disagree with you about the law. **
Everything is there to send that monster away.
It was not meant to be used for people who precipitate situations like this.
Can’t prove he broke the law? Can’t prove it wasn’t either manslaughter or second degree murder?
What the hell have the last dozen or so pages been about?
What I bolded in red should send Zimmerman to prison. It does matter that Zimmerman was the initial aggressor–even though I think the rest of this statement is fiction.
It will be VERY interesting if and when Serino and the Medical Examiner testify.
Extremely.
You need to read the law, then, and see that it says exactly what I claim it does. This isn’t a discussion about whether it’s a good law, although such a discussion is certainly necessary. It’s a discussion of whether Zimmerman is actually, provably guilty of any crime. You’ve added nothing new to the discussion, and shown you don’t understand either the law or the evidence.
Oops, you’re right.
Of course I haven’t in that mind of yours.
Only in your world and a few others that Zimmerman isn’t “provably guilty of any crime”.
I even tried bring up discussion about OTHER injuries Martin sustained, and you gave a bullshit explanation of it. You are understating the significance of the autopsy.
If it can be proven that the edema happened BEFORE the shot, that will be utterly devastating for Zimmerman’s defense. Devastating. I don’t see how that can help them.
Zimmerman’s behavior AFTER THE SHOT will be considered too.
It’s all about Zimmerman…if there is anything that counters your view that he should get off, back to the bullshit.
Listen, I originally gave him the benefit of the doubt. So it’s not as if I immediately said “let’s roast this guy”.
No. I changed my opinion after looking through evidence dumps and watching the interviews and really thinking about this.
Yes, if you kill someone especially under circumstances like this, your story BETTER BE AIRTIGHT.
I believe I have posted the statutes.
You need to look back at the thread.
I am tired of this nonsense that if someone has a differing opinion, they “don’t know all the facts” or they “haven’t read the law”–acting like THEIR interpretations are the gold standard.
Utter bullshit.
Put your money where your mouth is. $100 - I say Zimmerman will be acquitted of 2nd degree murder or it will be dismissed before trial. If you’re worried about that one juror - we can make it so that you win if he is acquitted because of one juror.
Wanna do this bet?
Would this include a manslaughter charge?
Ah, you’re backing down from 2nd degree now?
The law clearly states that the original aggressor may use lethal force in self defence if they’ve exhausted all possibilities of retreat, and are in reasonable fear of death or serious injury. That’s not interpretation, it’s a plain reading of your cite
Please explain how someone who is beneath another person, who is pounding their head into the ground, has the possibility of retreat.