Why not stay the hell in your car and leave the boy alone?
Why not let the police respond?
Why pursue with a loaded gun?
Why put yourself in that position?
It’s all about Martin and his supposed actions: why didn’t he do this, why didn’t he do that…lalalala.
Never anything about Zimmerman or his actions.
Nothing.
Oh wait, they’re legal. :smack:
When Zimmerman got out of his truck is caught on the dispatcher call.
Despite what many are saying, a jury will be considering these things, especially now that I have read jury instructions on self-defense killings.
All of this ‘at the moment’ nonsense is really getting tired.
They will look at Zimmerman’s actions and their contribution to the killing.
They will look at the physical and weapon advantage Zimmerman had.
They will look at the forensic evidence. They will look at the lack of blood and DNA on Martin.
Everything is trying to prove that Martin “doubled back”, because that’s the only thing Zimmerman really has, and the reality is that there are other explanations of how they encountered each other which have nothing to do with Martin “doubling back”.
Remember, Zimmerman had a truck. It’s easy to close the distance from a truck. The slowest car is faster than Usain Bolt.
Listening to those eyewitnesses describe Zimmerman’s behavior after the shooting is also going to disturb a jury.
This is was the first time I heard those two women speak, actually.
Guys, all roads point to Zimmerman not really fearing ANYTHING that night.
Let me play your game for a second.
Let’s say Martin does leave the complex. Where would he have gone afterwards?
At which time should he have done so? Wouldn’t that have put him near Zimmerman again?
I guess you are assuming that Zimmerman would have broken off his pursuit, correct?
Also, why would it be Martin’s responsibility to leave the complex?
Again, just playing your game. can you answer these questions please?
Yes – and that’s a key component for the jury to consider, right?
The jury has to hear evidence that disproves self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. Right?
If it was me and I didn’t want to lead the “stalker” back to the house, I would have beat feet back to the store.
Just sayin’.
Sure, Bricker (not sarcastic).
I think they will get that.
Ok then.
I will still play the game.
How long would that have taken Martin?
Again, wouldn’t that have put Martin near Zimmerman?
And using the racial characterizations of Martin from some posters in this same thread, why would people at the store believe that some 6 foot 3 black kid would have been running away from someone? Don’t people like that have no fear? Afterall, he was a “NO Limit Nigg* with a hair trigga temper” (as said by a poster here).
Would they have helped him?
Are we to assume that Zimmerman would have broken off his pursuit? (oh wait, according to some posters, Zimmerman wasn’t pursuing him :smack:).
it’s an assumption based on evidence. We know where he dropped his flashlight.
We have a very precise record of the time it occurred based on the call to the police dispatcher.
Because Martin told his girlfriend he was next to his house. If he was hiding then he would have had to come out and approach Zimmerman on the sidewalk.
He had lots of choices to make. He could have left the area entirely given his head start. He could have called the police and reported a suspicious person following him. They would have explained the situation to him. He could have stayed hidden. He could have knocked on a front door and asked for assistance. All of that would have been legal and prudent.
So did Zimmerman.
SO DID ZIMMERMAN.
Unbelievable.
not unless he’s retarded. He has infinite directions he can head that lead away from Zimmerman. It doesn’t have to be the store he came from.
He’s 5’ 11". Is it that difficult to keep track of the basics? It wouldn’t matter if the people in the store believed Martin of anything. He’s in a public place where he can the meet the police he should have called in the first place if he thought he was in danger.
We don’t have to assume anything. Zimmerman already broke off pursuit. We heard him agree to this with the dispatcher on the phone and we heard his breathing change in direct response to it.
Because he was the neighborhood watch guy, and there had been several burglaries in the area.
He already called the police, and they were on the way.
In case he tries to kill you.
Because he was the neighborhood watch guy, and there had been several burglaries in the area.
Yes, that’s correct. They are legal, and do not justify Martin’s attack.
Do you believe that someone who has not broken the law should be convicted of a crime?
Regards,
Shodan
Zimmerman’s choices were sound and legal. He had already stopped a burglary in progress a few weeks before. Keeping Martin in sight for the police to investigate was a good thing.
Martin on the other hand was at home because of a school suspension. He brutally attacked Zimmerman and that behavior is unbelievable.
None of the things you are arguing about affect proving he wasn’t acting in self defence, they affect not being able to prove he was. I’m still not sure you understand the difference.
The latter will come into play in the pre-trial hearing, commonly but inaccurately referred to as the Stand Your Ground hearing, and the former at trial, should the case go to trial.
The standard of proof at the hearing is lower than at trial, where it is beyond reasonable doubt, but I can’t remember exactly what it is. I remember when we discussed it way upthread I was of the opinion that Zimmerman would struggle to meet it, and that the case would go to trial, and I’ve seen nothing so far to change that opinion. I’ve also seen nothing to change my opinion that the prosecution will struggle to meet their burden, and that he will walk.
So, if you disagree, please show the evidence that shows, beyond reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman did not act in self defence. That is, evidence that shows that there are no plausible explanations for what happened that evening that do not involve Zimmerman murdering Martin.
You’ve been asked repeatedly to do that in this thread, when I and others have come up with scenarios that we find plausible, and all you’ve been able to do is say they are not certain. That is insufficient, and if that’s all the prosecution can do, Zimmerman must be found not guilty.
In short, showing that it is not certain that Zimmerman did not murder Martin is not sufficient to show that it’s certain he did. Do you understand this distinction? That’s not a sarcastic question, it’s serious, and vitally important to understanding how this will play out at trial.
I am speechless…
Why are people dictating how Martin should have reacted?
Who are you to make these determinations?
And again, why is there a lack of analysis of Zimmerman’s actions?
Sound? So you’re saying it was okay for Zimmerman to profile Martin because of crimes that Martin had nothing to do with?
It’s not about “keeping Martin in sight”…it’s about the entirety of actions he did that led to Martin’s death.
What the hell does his school suspension have to do with this?
“Brutally attacked Zimmerman”…HA!
Crystal clear who I am dealing with here…
Indeed. He chose to call the police when he saw suspicious behaviour (which is laudable), he chose to follow the suspect (which is stupid, but not in anyway illegal or immoral), he chose to ask the suspect what he was doing (which again is stupid but not wrong), and he chose to carry a gun to protect himself (which, as it turned out, was an extremely sensible choice).
Oh, and he chose to use that weapon to defend himself. An act that is specifically provided for in Florida law. He was allowed to defend himself. If, of course, it turns out that the force he used was excessive (by the standards of Florida law), he may be punished for it, but frankly any law that forbids someone from defending themselves from being punched in the face and having their head bashed on concrete is fucking stupid.
So yes, some of Zimmerman’s choices were bad. He suffered because of them, getting a severe beating and, quite possibly, having his life screwed up.
Martin made some stupid, illegal choices, and it cost him his life.
Sucks for both of them, but Zimmerman should not be made to suffer more. I think there’s too many idiots out there who understand neither the law nor the actual events that occurred for that to be a possibility.
It was perfectly acceptable for him to call the police when he saw suspicious behaviour. Indeed, more that acceptable, it’s laudable.
Utter bull and a non-sequitur.
“sucks for both of them”??
Martin is dead. How the hell can Zimmerman “suffer more”?
How can you say that they are equivalent?
Sir, you need to check your moral compass.
You’re trying to define the events…you’re pushing YOUR interpretations here. Why would you link that to “suffering”?
ywtf nailed it earlier.
How immoral.
You have some nerve calling people idiots.