Martin/Zimmerman: humble opinions and speculation thread

[Hbns]

@betenoire39

**
This is what these people don’t f-ing get, and it’s frustrating as hell to talk to them. **

So why bother? You don’t seem open to any of their arguments or points, why would you expect them to be open to yours?

[betenoire39]

@Steophan

1. I take that to mean you can’t answer my questions about what Zimmerman actually did wrong, then. You still want him to be punished, despite being unable to point to a single law he broke.

And you call me immoral?

2. Martin had every right to the protection of the law. He did not have the right to break it. He did not have the right to launch an unprovoked attack on Zimmerman. He is, ultimately, responsible for his own death. It’s tragic, and it’s because of stupid behaviour on both sides, but Zimmerman is not responsible for Martin’s voluntary actions. Only Martin is.

3. If you don’t wish me to address you further, don’t post further in this thread. Otherwise, I’ll continue to prove you wrong.

Or, just possibly, you could prove me wrong. But you’ll have to do that with actual evidence, citations from law, and legal arguments. Or, you’ll just be another blustering know nothing who can’t accept that things don’t happen the way they want, and refuse to learn why they don’t.

1. This whole damn thread has been about that. read my posts. I have had the courtesy to read yours.

2. Martin broke nothing. He didn’t launch an UNPROVOKED attack on anyone.
   Zimmerman is responsible for Martin’s death, and he alone. Martin’s behavior was not ‘stupid’. He was mind his own business. He was trying to get away from that monster.
   Martin was not responsible for Zimmerman’s actions. Only Zimmerman was.

3. Again, please read my posts. I have had the courtesy to read yours.
   **You’re not “proving” anything other than your interpretation. **

I am presenting my interpretation.
You can’t seem to accept that things might not have happened they way YOU think.

Blustering know-nothing? I feel the same way about you: this coming from someone speculating that Martin’s edema caused him to attack Zimmerman.

Have mercy.

Buddy, you’re not fooling anyone here.

[betenoire39]

@Hbns

So why bother? You don’t seem open to any of their arguments or points, why would you expect them to be open to yours?

People are coming on the net and reading this stuff—this has to be challenged.

The only ones I can have a NO BS discussion with (on the other side) is Bricker and PatriotX. The reason is that they are not using word play and rhetorical games when responding and bringing forth their points. I haven’t had bad exchanges with them.

[Steophan]

@betenoire39

2. Martin broke nothing. He didn’t launch an UNPROVOKED attack on anyone.
   Zimmerman is responsible for Martin’s death, and he alone. Martin’s behavior was not ‘stupid’. He was mind his own business. He was trying to get away from that monster.

None of this is true. You don’t know what “provoke” means, clearly. Following someone and asking them questions does not provoke an attack. There is nothing legally speaking that can provoke an attack, apart from a credible threat of violence or, in some jurisdictions, theft. There is no evidence whatsoever that Zimmerman did that.

Martin was obviously not trying to get away from Zimmerman, if he was he would have been at the house he was staying at, not doubling back on himself to make sure he encountered him.

Oops, there I go with facts rather than baseless speculation again. I’m sure you’ll ignore them as usual.

Here are the questions I asked you before. Please answer them, with the requested cites, before continuing to claim Zimmerman was in the wrong. I guarantee you that, if you do so, I’ll admit you’re right.

1. Do you accept that following someone is, in Florida, perfectly legal, and does not constitute a threat? If not, please cite either statute or case law to demonstrate otherwise.

2. Do you accept that carrying a loaded, concealed handgun is perfectly legal in Florida, assuming the possession of the correct permit, and that Zimmerman possessed said permit? If not, please cite either statute or case law to demonstrate otherwise.

3. Do you accept that no set of legal actions can impact ones right to self defence under Florida law? If not, please cite either statute or case law to demonstrate otherwise.

4)Do you accept that, under the specific Florida law, even if Zimmerman did act as you claim, unless he was in the process of committing a felony when he became in reasonable fear of death or serious injury, if he had no chance to escape at that moment he was entitled to use lethal force in self defence. If not, please cite either statute or case law to demonstrate otherwise.

5. Do you accept that the State has the burden of proof at trial, and that they must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman is guilty of each element of the crime of Second Degree Murder in order to convict him, and that there is no burden of proof on the defence? If not, please cite either statute or case law to demonstrate otherwise.

[betenoire39]

@Steophan

None of this is true. You don’t know what “provoke” means, clearly. Following someone and asking them questions does not provoke an attack. There is nothing legally speaking that can provoke an attack, apart from a credible threat of violence or, in some jurisdictions, theft. There is no evidence whatsoever that Zimmerman did that.

Martin was obviously not trying to get away from Zimmerman, if he was he would have been at the house he was staying at, not doubling back on himself to make sure he encountered him.

Oops, there I go with facts rather than baseless speculation again. I’m sure you’ll ignore them as usual.

Here are the questions I asked you before. Please answer them, with the requested cites, before continuing to claim Zimmerman was in the wrong. I guarantee you that, if you do so, I’ll admit you’re right.

1. Do you accept that following someone is, in Florida, perfectly legal, and does not constitute a threat? If not, please cite either statute or case law to demonstrate otherwise.

2. Do you accept that carrying a loaded, concealed handgun is perfectly legal in Florida, assuming the possession of the correct permit, and that Zimmerman possessed said permit? If not, please cite either statute or case law to demonstrate otherwise.

3. Do you accept that no set of legal actions can impact ones right to self defence under Florida law? If not, please cite either statute or case law to demonstrate otherwise.

4)Do you accept that, under the specific Florida law, even if Zimmerman did act as you claim, unless he was in the process of committing a felony when he became in reasonable fear of death or serious injury, if he had no chance to escape at that moment he was entitled to use lethal force in self defence. If not, please cite either statute or case law to demonstrate otherwise.

5. Do you accept that the State has the burden of proof at trial, and that they must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman is guilty of each element of the crime of Second Degree Murder in order to convict him, and that there is no burden of proof on the defence? If not, please cite either statute or case law to demonstrate otherwise.

1. Stop playing word games. Use the meaning of the word provoke as I did FOR MY STATEMENT.

Just following and asking questions…yeah whatever.

You still can’t accept the possibility that Martin was scared out of his mind. That’s what underpins your argument. Because if you did, you probably wouldn’t be making the claims you are.

You still think Martin wasn’t trying to get away from Zimmerman?

Again, stop repeating Zimmerman’s phrases verbatim.

You don’t know if Martin really “doubled back”. You can’t prove that definitively.

Again, you’re the one speculating, and won’t admit it.

“If he was trying to get away, he would have already been home.” Please. Complete utter garbage reasoning.

you know what, enough of this.

[Steophan]

@betenoire39

1. Stop playing word games. Use the meaning of the word provoke as I did FOR MY STATEMENT.

How you used it for your statement is irrelevant. How it is used in law is what matters.

Just following and asking questions…yeah whatever.

You still can’t accept the possibility that Martin was scared out of his mind. That’s what underpins your argument. Because if you did, you probably wouldn’t be making the claims you are.

We have the statement from his girlfriend that he was calm, and walking not running. Dubious as that statement as a whole is, it’s the best evidence to his state of mind. Also, if he was scared out of his mind, he wouldn’t have attacked Zimmerman, he’d have run home, which he could easily have done if he’d chosen to do so, in the period of time when Zimmerman didn’t have sight of him.

You still think Martin wasn’t trying to get away from Zimmerman?

Again, stop repeating Zimmerman’s phrases verbatim.

You don’t know if Martin really “doubled back”. You can’t prove that definitively.

I don’t need to. You need to prove that Zimmerman chased him, despite the fact that he lost sight of him, moved away from the place Martin was ostensibly headed, and yet somehow came back into contact with him. Explain how he did that, without Martin doubling back. Oh, right, you can’t, any more than you can answer any of my other questions.

Again, you’re the one speculating, and won’t admit it.

Every speculation I’ve made has been labelled as such. I’ve done very little speculating, however, as a plain viewing of the facts, and Zimmerman’s statements where it agrees with the facts, produces a plausible narrative where Zimmerman killed Martin in justified self defence. Therefore, he is not guilty of any crime.

I’m not interested in speculation, generally. I’d like to know Martin’s motive, but I assume it died with him.

“If he was trying to get away, he would have already been home.” Please. Complete utter garbage reasoning.

Nope, fact, based on analysis of the timing of the various phone calls, and the maps of the area, some of which analysis is present in this very thread. You know, the one you claim to have read.

Figuring out how far someone could have travelled in a given amount of time is not garbage reasoning, it’s quite the opposite.

you know what, enough of this.

Not quite. There’s still a few questions you seem to have inadvertently failed to answer. I’m sure that’s an oversight, and nothing to do with you being unable to answer them, or to admit that your biased, irrational position is destroyed by that inability.

1. Do you accept that following someone is, in Florida, perfectly legal, and does not constitute a threat? If not, please cite either statute or case law to demonstrate otherwise.

2. Do you accept that carrying a loaded, concealed handgun is perfectly legal in Florida, assuming the possession of the correct permit, and that Zimmerman possessed said permit? If not, please cite either statute or case law to demonstrate otherwise.

3. Do you accept that no set of legal actions can impact ones right to self defence under Florida law? If not, please cite either statute or case law to demonstrate otherwise.

4)Do you accept that, under the specific Florida law, even if Zimmerman did act as you claim, unless he was in the process of committing a felony when he became in reasonable fear of death or serious injury, if he had no chance to escape at that moment he was entitled to use lethal force in self defence. If not, please cite either statute or case law to demonstrate otherwise.

5. Do you accept that the State has the burden of proof at trial, and that they must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman is guilty of each element of the crime of Second Degree Murder in order to convict him, and that there is no burden of proof on the defence? If not, please cite either statute or case law to demonstrate otherwise.

[Steophan]

Oh, if there’s anyone else who still thinks Zimmerman should be convicted of murder, please answer those questions.

[Hbns]

@betenoire39

The only ones I can have a NO BS discussion with (on the other side) is Bricker and PatriotX. The reason is that they are not using word play and rhetorical games when responding and bringing forth their points. I haven’t had bad exchanges with them.

I don’t know about PatriotX, but Bricker isn’t on the “other side”. Bricker is on the side that Zimmerman is most likely the one entirely or nearly entirely at fault for the events that night. He probably agrees with some portion of the events as you have theorized. The difference is that being well versed in the law, he doubts very much that there is enough evidence to support these theories at trial.
(My apologies to Bricker if I have this all wrong.)
Hell I am pretty much in the same boat. I fairly certain that Zimmerman attempted to restrain Martin physically until the police arrived. A scuffle ensued and Martin was shot. It doesn’t require nearly as much supposition and deviation from known facts, but it also probably doesn’t have enough factual evidence to support a conviction.

I think you and Steophan and others butt-heads because you want to argue (discuss) the unknowable (what was in their heads) and the possible (what might have happened). And they want to discuss the facts (what is known for certain) and the plausible (what is most likely to fit those facts).

Don’t be too discouraged. You are in the right place. This is the Martin/Zimmerman: humble opinions and speculation thread to Thread in the In My Humble Opinion forum. Sometimes people forget that they aren’t in Great Debates. This IS the place to speculate on what might have happened. I for one find your take interesting. I don’t agree with a lot of it, partly because I think you are basing your analysis in emotion, and partly because I am a “the simplest answer is the most often correct” kind of person. I won’t begrudge you your opinion though.

[Hbns]

@Steophan

Oh, if there’s anyone else who still thinks Zimmerman should be convicted of murder, please answer those questions.

I would suggest that your statement that Martin attacked Zimmerman is speculation. Zimmerman’s injuries could certainly be consistent with Martin fighting off Zimmerman’s attempt at unlawfully detaining him.

[Magiver]

@betenoire39

And this is the problem I have with Zimmerman’s defenders.

I would suggest that this in itself is a problem. You shouldn’t have any problems with people you disagree with. That’s an emotional response to a debate.

@betenoire39

They really don’t care about Zimmerman’s actions–but they’ll turn around and say they are only interpreting the law.

We’ve looked at the evidence and it’s consistent with his account of what happened. It’s rare to have this much information.

@betenoire39

What they don’t understand is that criminals and sociopaths say these things ALL THE TIME…ALL the damn time.
**
I know, because I spent time dealing with people like this.**

so not only are you an expert in martial arts but you’re a psychologist too? Or are you claiming you can read Zimmerman’s mind over long distances. I’ll just ask for a cite to back up your statements regarding Zimmerman’s mental capacity.

@betenoire39

Again, time and place has to be accounted for. We have to look at the big picture that a person who WAS IN initial pursuit over someone HE (in that sick, sick mind) labeled as a criminal. He had a fucking gun.

We’ve gone through the entire scenario extensively in the previous 100 or so pages. But again, your amazing psychological skills have saved us the trouble of debating the evidence further since you’ve declared him sick-minded.

@betenoire39

The person who he pursued was doing nothing wrong and minding his business until coming into contact with Zimmerman and ended up dead by that gun.

and Zimmerman was doing nothing wrong prior to that teeny tiny detail you left out where Martin beat the tar out of him (and was subsequently shot).

@betenoire39

If you can’t take the heat, stay the fuck out of the kitchen.
Zimmerman took the heat, and when Martin didn’t obey him, he shot him.

Cite? This is a completely baseless statement.

@betenoire39

If you don’t want confrontations, don’t start them.

Sound advice for people like Martin who think it’s OK to attack people who in their mind are

@betenoire39

In my view, Zimmerman initiated it and was the aggressor.

post your reasoning.

@betenoire39

There would be no fucking way I would follow someone that long (IN THE DAMN DARK) and not expect them to freak out. No way. You know why? I have common sense. Something like that where I live might get you shot or in a knife fight if you do it to the wrong person. And I would understand…no one wants to be followed. It’s threatening. No one wants to feel like prey.

So in your world you would attack someone “that makes you feel like prey” instead of putting distance between them and calling the police? That’s how you would handle it? Wouldn’t you expect to get shot or stabbed if you attacked someone?

[Magiver]

@Hbns

I would suggest that your statement that Martin attacked Zimmerman is speculation. Zimmerman’s injuries could certainly be consistent with Martin fighting off Zimmerman’s attempt at unlawfully detaining him.

Well there is no speculation he was beating him. And it doesn’t seem logical that someone who went to the trouble of calling the police (who were minutes away) would commit a crime in front of them. This is the era where everyone owns a video camera phone.

Also, given the conversation as related by Dee Dee, Martin would have been insulted by the question asked by Zimmerman. He clearly was aware that Zimmerman was watching him. I would speculate that Martin found this question doubly insulting as a black person.

[JoelUpchurch]

@Hbns

Don’t be too discouraged. You are in the right place. This is the Martin/Zimmerman: humble opinions and speculation thread to Thread in the In My Humble Opinion forum. Sometimes people forget that they aren’t in Great Debates. This IS the place to speculate on what might have happened. I for one find your take interesting. I don’t agree with a lot of it, partly because I think you are basing your analysis in emotion, and partly because I am a “the simplest answer is the most often correct” kind of person. I won’t begrudge you your opinion though.

That was back in April before the discovery started. People who want to spin theories that aren’t supported by evidence, aren’t speculating they are fantasizing.

[betenoire39]

@Hbns

I would suggest that your statement that Martin attacked Zimmerman is speculation. Zimmerman’s injuries could certainly be consistent with Martin fighting off Zimmerman’s attempt at unlawfully detaining him.

Thank you.

This is what I have been arguing.

[betenoire39]

@Magiver

1. I would suggest that this in itself is a problem. You shouldn’t have any problems with people you disagree with. That’s an emotional response to a debate.

We’ve looked at the evidence and it’s consistent with his account of what happened. It’s rare to have this much information.
2. so not only are you an expert in martial arts but you’re a psychologist too? Or are you claiming you can read Zimmerman’s mind over long distances. I’ll just ask for a cite to back up your statements regarding Zimmerman’s mental capacity.

We’ve gone through the entire scenario extensively in the previous 100 or so pages. But again, your amazing psychological skills have saved us the trouble of debating the evidence further since you’ve declared him sick-minded.

3. and Zimmerman was doing nothing wrong prior to that teeny tiny detail you left out where Martin beat the tar out of him (and was subsequently shot).
4. So in your world you would attack someone “that makes you feel like prey” instead of putting distance between them and calling the police? That’s how you would handle it? Wouldn’t you expect to get shot or stabbed if you attacked someone?

1. No, I have problems with people who try to belittle those because they are pointing out inconsistencies and alternate theories that might be just as plausible as theirs.
   There were posters who I disagreed with but we didn’t have an exchange like this.

They didn’t write out racial slurs and say things like “people like you” and such…
They didn’t play rhetorical games with me.

2. I never said I was an expert. I was simply pointing out that there was so little blood to show on Martin for such a ‘savage’ beating-- and NONE of Zimmerman’s DNA under Martin’s fingernails to boot. I don’t care WHICH side you stand on–you don’t see this as ODD?

It is my personal opinion of him that he is sick…his actions that night sicken me. No to mention his past with a cousin, his actions at work, and the way this guy seems to treat certain people.

3. I disagree…Zimmerman did everything wrong IMO. And again, I hope you know you are speculating here. And even if it was true, how do you know it wasn’t in self-defense?

4. I disagree–Martin DID put distance between himself and Zimmerman. Even Zimmerman will admit that. Anyone listening to that 911 tape will agree.
   That’s where the “double back” bullshit has to come in. That was the ONLY THING LEFT for Zimmerman to say.

If I put distance between someone and that person was still coming at me, especially in that situation, my self-defense mechanism would kick in, for sure.

Zimmerman had no rights over Martin. None.

[betenoire39]

@Magiver

**Well there is no speculation he was beating him. ** And it doesn’t seem logical that someone who went to the trouble of calling the police (who were minutes away) would commit a crime in front of them. This is the era where everyone owns a video camera phone.

Also, given the conversation as related by Dee Dee, Martin would have been insulted by the question asked by Zimmerman. He clearly was aware that Zimmerman was watching him. I would speculate that Martin found this question doubly insulting as a black person.

But why? I think out of self-defense.

You probably disagree.

Yes, people have called the police and committed a crime and had it on video. One Raul Rodriguez in Texas did.

Again, people do demented stuff. It may not seem logical, but they do it.

Shit happens like that.

Just because it doesn’t make logical sense doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

**Disclaimer–this is pure speculation: **for all we know, Zimmerman wanted to shoot the next ‘suspicious’ black he saw and had a plan to cover it up. Maybe he was tired of the break-ins and wanted to send a message. He knew the law and knew what to say and do. Maybe that was the plan.

This is possible.

[betenoire39]

@Magiver

He clearly was aware that Zimmerman was watching him. I would speculate that Martin found this question doubly insulting as a black person.

I think this is important.

And I think this is why some people (not pointing the finger at you) believe Zimmerman.

What about Martin being black and insulted?..PLEASE elaborate.

[PatriotX]

@Hbns

I would suggest that your statement that Martin attacked Zimmerman is speculation.

Yes. Of course it is. The speculation that Z’s telling the truth about that part.

@Magiver

.. it doesn’t seem logical that someone who went to the trouble of calling the police (who were minutes away) would commit a crime in front of them.

1. When I think “humans,” “reliably logical behavior” isn’t one the top ten phrases which spring to mind.
   Imho, I don’t find a conclusion which rests upon the premise that a random human suddenly in a stressful situation would behaved “logically” to be exactly rock solid.
   It’s speculation that Z would necessarily behave logically. imho. ymmv.

2. Another flaw with the argument that Z would not do something which was not "logical"is that we don’t know what assumptions Z was operating under. There’s wide variety of possible scenarios Z may have expected to occur based upon what his preconceptions were.
   W/o knowing what those assumptions were, we can’t really say what was “logical” to Z at that moment. [I don’t see us getting that kind of data anytime soon, Ms Cleo excluded of course.]
   e.g. If Z thought that detaining a criminal was not a crime, or if Z thought M would let himself be brow beaten into sticking around for the PD, or a gazillion other assumptions which Z may have been operating under.

If Z’s assumptions are something other than what you’re speculating they are, it may well have been “logical” for Z to do something which you find not “logical.”
The starting assumptions can have a profound effect on the “logical” conclusion reached. imho

[betenoire39]

@PatriotX

The starting assumptions can have a profound effect on the “logical” conclusion reached. imho

Brilliant observation.

Some people are operating under the assumption that Zimmerman was the 'good guy" who was “protecting his neighborhood”.

They are also operating under the assumption that Martin launched an “unprovoked assault” against him (Why? Racial assumptions and assumptions about his parents).

Under these assumptions, it would be reasonable to believe Zimmerman (even if his story doesn’t quite check out).

I am not operating under these assumptions.
That’s why I am not coming to the same conclusions (combined with my analysis of Zimmerman’s interviews and evidence dumps ).

Some people are very clear about why they believe Zimmerman: it has nothing really to do with Zimmerman-it’s about how they perceive** MARTIN**.

To some, Martin is “No Limit Nigga with a hair trigga temper”, exhibiting what they feel is stereotypical behavior

I just wish they would be more honest in saying what they really feel.

But if you read between the lines of some posters, this comes out.

[Magiver]

@betenoire39

2. I never said I was an expert. I was simply pointing out that there was so little blood to show on Martin for such a ‘savage’ beating-- and NONE of Zimmerman’s DNA under Martin’s fingernails to boot. I don’t care WHICH side you stand on–you don’t see this as ODD?

Why would there be DNA under the nails of someone punching another person? It couldn’t be because the nails are balled into a fist?

@betenoire39

It is my personal opinion of him that he is sick…his actions that night sicken me. No to mention his past with a cousin, his actions at work, and the way this guy seems to treat certain people.

I wish my neighborhood was filled with people who watched for burglars and called the police. I don’t wish my neighborhood was full of people who went around beating the crap out of others.

@betenoire39

3. I disagree…Zimmerman did everything wrong IMO. And again, I hope you know you are speculating here. And even if it was true, how do you know it wasn’t in self-defense?

I can only base opinion on the evidence at hand. Martin was a troubled youth who stole from others and damaged property. How do you know he didn’t attack Zimmerman? The nature and length of the beating implies a complete lack of civility.

@betenoire39

4. I disagree–Martin DID put distance between himself and Zimmerman. Even Zimmerman will admit that. Anyone listening to that 911 tape will agree.
   That’s where the “double back” bullshit has to come in. That was the ONLY THING LEFT for Zimmerman to say.

The evidence shows Zimmerman was where he said he was. There is no reason for Martin to be there except to confront Zimmerman. If he wasn’t there during the call then he had to move toward that location which is 180 opposite where he lived.

@betenoire39

If I put distance between someone and that person was still coming at me, especially in that situation, my self-defense mechanism would kick in, for sure.

Again, Zimmerman was where he said he was which was the opposite direction of Martin’s house. How did Martin get there?

@betenoire39

Zimmerman had no rights over Martin. None.

Everybody has a right to self defense. Nobody has a right to assault another.

@betenoire39

**Disclaimer–this is pure speculation: **for all we know, Zimmerman wanted to shoot the next ‘suspicious’ black he saw and had a plan to cover it up. Maybe he was tired of the break-ins and wanted to send a message. He knew the law and knew what to say and do. Maybe that was the plan.

This is possible.

Martin liked to fight and saw Zimmerman as an easy mark. This is possible.

Anything is possible. Those explaining the case don’t bring up the possible.

[betenoire39]

@Magiver

1. Why would there be DNA under the nails of someone punching another person? It couldn’t be because the nails are balled into a fist?

2. I wish my neighborhood was filled with people who watched for burglars and called the police. I don’t wish my neighborhood was full of people who went around beating the crap out of others.

3. I can only base opinion on the evidence at hand. Martin was a troubled youth who stole from others and damaged property. How do you know he didn’t attack Zimmerman? The nature and length of the beating implies a complete lack of civility.

4. The evidence shows Zimmerman was where he said he was. There is no reason for Martin to be there except to confront Zimmerman. If he wasn’t there during the call then he had to move toward that location which is 180 opposite where he lived.

Again, Zimmerman was where he said he was which was the opposite direction of Martin’s house. How did Martin get there?

5. Everybody has a right to self defense. Nobody has a right to assault another.

6. Martin liked to fight and saw Zimmerman as an easy mark. This is possible.

Anything is possible. Those explaining the case don’t bring up the possible.

1. Why would there not be DNA?..after all, Martin supposedly grabbed him and ‘pounded his head into the pavement’? I get stuff under my fingers just from working on a car or cooking…where’s the blood?

2. I don’t wish my neighborhood to be filled with people driving around in the dark with no lights on following and killing people. I don’t want people who molest children in my neighborhood. That would make me uncomfortable.

3. Switch Zimmerman’s name with Martin. Replace stealing with molesting cousins and attacking cops and bullying coworkers.

4. The evidence IMO doesn’t clearly show this. For the remainder of this paragraph, switch Zimmerman with Martin.

5. Agreed–Martin had the right to defend himself.

6. Switch Zimmerman with Martin.

Agreed–Anything is possible. Those explaining the case don’t bring up the possible.

The very same things you said in support of Zimmerman can be said in support of Martin. Only difference is that Zimmerman was the one who followed MArtin and killed him.

See how this works?

Back at square one.