We are not, we are dictating how he should not have reacted, and *suggesting *how he should.
Random arseholes on the internet. Who are you to say we shouldn’t make them, when you’ve been making determinations how Zimmerman should have behaved.
I analysed Zimmerman’s actions a couple of posts ago. There are literally hundreds of posts in this thread analysing Zimmerman’s actions. What you are really asking is, why don’t we find Zimmerman’s actions to be wrong. The answer is, quite simply, because they weren’t (going by the evidence we have available).
A person with common sense. A person who has been in the exact same position as both Zimmerman and Martin and is alive to discuss it.
If Martin had done as you suggested and attack a creepy person following him he would be dead. which is what happened. What you fail to realize is that both Martin and Zimmerman were incorrect about the other. The difference is that one called the police and the other committed a violent crime and attacked.
Zimmerman is being threatened with death, and has been locked up, made to go into hiding, and is being subjected to criminal investigation, for defending himself.
Only the last of these is in any way acceptable in any circumstance like this - he should not have been arrested and locked up as he’s a risk of neither flight nor reoffending - but even that is dubious given the scarce evidence.
Zimmerman is suffering because he took the legal, and moral, acts of calling the police on a suspicious person, and defending himself against attack. That is how he should be treated until proved otherwise, in a court of law.
You presume him guilty, and want him treated as such without evidence, without trial, and in defiance of justice or morality. And you call me immoral? Please explain what is immoral about wanting someone punished by law if, and only if, there is evidence that they are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of breaking the law.
Because, as far as can be determined, Martin was the first to break the law.
We have been analyzing Zimmerman’s actions for the last hundred pages or so, at inordinate length and in excruciating detail. So far, there has been no clear evidence of any wrongdoing on Zimmerman’s part. There does seem to be evidence that Martin acted illegally in attacking Zimmerman. Thus, analysis both of Martin’s actions and of Zimmerman’s actions tends to the conclusion that Martin was the one at fault.
Those arguing that position - that Martin acted illegally - are the ones pointing to the evidence. You, on the other hand, seem to simply throw shit at the wall and see if it will stick. You have produced zero evidence that anything you have suggested actually happened.
You asked “Let’s say Martin does leave the complex. Where would he have gone afterwards?” I answered. Now you want to add all kinds of minutia to the equation for what purpose? To prove my answer wrong?
I answered your hypothetical. If you think it is a lousy choice just state why.
Go listen to Zimmerman's other dispatch calls. His actions aren't much different than that fateful evening. He doesn't want to give his house number, He'll tell the police where to meet him, etc. The only difference is that Martin, unlike the others, didn't run away. I'm a gimpy old Indian with bad knees, and I still walk half a mile in less than 45 minutes. If Martin was the least bit scared, he could have dialed 911, or have his girlfriend do so. Which brings me to the phone records. Why does DeeDee phone Martin twice, once while she's talking to him on the phone, and then ends the phone call within the other phone call. (look up the phone logs if you don't believe me)
Oh please. I love this five-on-one that’s happening–but I am not backing down.
I am not throwing anything other than questions and a counter-narrative that differs from the one that the chorus is chanting.
Because that’s what is being crafted here by the chorus: a narrative.
I am sure Cinderella was based on some facts, too.
Just the same chant: Martin this, Martin that. Self-defense this, self-defense that.
Pounded into the pavement, pounded into the pavement, doubled back, doubled back, should have called 911, should have called 911…
I bring a point about the lack of DNA evidence, there’s some BS covering that (his nose bled later after he killed Martin)
I bring another about the general inconsistencies of this guy’s story, there’s more bull.
I have laid out my opinions, clearly. The problem is that you have your mind made up, and so does the chorus.
You want your narrative of the night accepted. You know what, I don’t have to accept it. And if you’ve really been reading my posts, you will see the evidence I have brought forth.
You also want your interpretation of the legal system accepted.
To hell with that.
I have introduced a discussion of the relevant Florida penal code, links to the evidence dumps, eyewitness testimony, etc, yet you still want to say I am seeing what sticks.
The problem is I am looking at the same documents you are looking at–yet I have come to completely different conclusions than you and the chorus.
I as well as some other posters present an alternate theory that could explain the mechanics of that night: Oh, no evidence, no evidence.
BULL: we are looking at the same things you’re looking at.
Excuse us for having a different take.
You want to make fun of a dead child “no limit nigg* with a hair trigga temper” or some nonsense…how the hell do you know Martin actually lost his temper?
Then another poster assumes Martin “attacked” Zimmerman because since Martin was black, he was offended that Zimmerman “asked” him a question.
People want to lay out their views on guns and prejudices on certain ethnic groups and expect to remain unchallenged or think that people aren’t smart enough to detect them.
Just like that black poster (who revealed he was black–big mistake) who was shot down for daring to challenge the narrative. I think that was a five-on-one as well.
Well bless your heart. You say things without backing it up and then wonder why people call you on it.
There is no chorus except in your head. Nothing is being crafted. If we have similar posts it’s because we reviewed the material and came to the same logical conclusions.
this is the part where you should breath.
I simply agreed with you. Zimmerman’s nose began to bleed after the scuffle. How long do you think this exchange took? It was a couple of minutes. On top of this Martin was splayed out face down in the wet grass by Zimmerman. On top of that the homicide scene was further compromised by paramedics. What you’re left with is an opinion based on a lack of evidence.
You’ve laid out your opinions that are in contradiction with the evidence available and others have disagreed.
Ah, we didn’t reaaaally read your posts. That’s the problem. It couldn’t be that your opinion doesn’t have evidence to back it up.
well you do seem to have a problem controlling your emotions. There’s also an element of defensive paranoia with your constant referral to other opinions as a group effort. There is no “chorus”.
we know he assaulted Zimmerman with what can only be described as a vicious attack.
Being asked why you’re in your neighborhood is an offensive question. I stipulated it was more-so if made to an African American because of national history of discrimination. You can disagree with that if you want to but not to the idea that the question itself is offensive. Being questioned about your why you’re in your own neighborhood is offensive.
Whenever you’re confronted with a lot of logical rebuttals at once you stew over it for awhile and then post an emotional rant about how other people’s opinion is bull. The correct response to any point you disagree with is to post your theory and then back it up with evidence that supports it. Your methodology has been to pick something out that might be evidence and throw it on a wall to see if it sticks.
There’s no evidence that this occurred except in your head. The evidence is that Zimmerman was still on the sidewalk leading to his truck. How does Martin get there? He would have been out of sight during the phone call and he said he was by his father’s house.
No. What you’re faced with is a lack of DNA on Martin.
Again, where’s the DNA? Where’s the blood? Such a “vicious beating” and so little blood.
Bull. It contradicts YOUR INTERPRETATION.
Yeah, people want to cherry pick and leave questions I ask unanswered.
To hell with your psychoanalysis. Again, I was not the only one on this board who pointed this out (It’s like I am picturing your rebuttal–probably something disparaging about those posters too).
How can you describe it as an assault? I maintain it was self-defense. Martin was the one being pursued. Zimmerman was the one following him.
Whatever—that’s all in YOUR head. BULL.
“logical”…Please. If you want to talk logic, we can do that–one of my favorite subjects. I point out fallacies in arguments of the chorus (even Bricker agreed) and people still want to come with the same bullshit.
Logical my behind.
My methodology is to raise questions and seek a greater understanding and generate some discussion.
My methodology is to uncover things that I feel are important.
You want to put forth these scenarios, and when they get questioned: Oh, there’s no evidence.
I even try to play along and assume the scenario might be true.
Ok, so his nose was broken and bleeding? Martin’s hand was over his mouth? Ok then, Where’s the goddamned saliva or blood on Martin?
Ok, he should have gone out of the complex? Ok then, where?
Then more BS starts flowing.
The thought doesn’t occur: maybe my understanding is flawed?
I and others have repeatedly said that anything is possible. However the EVIDENCE backs up his account. The prosecutor has to prove it’s wrong. Not that it might be wrong.
Not really, there’s zero evidence for this. It’s possible it happened, in that there doesn’t exist evidence that conclusively disproves it.
Correct. We’ve offered plausible narratives, that fit with the facts, in which Zimmerman is not guilty of murder. Therefore, he’s not guilty of murder.
This is not a game, where the standards are equal on both sides. You cannot show someone is guilty of a crime by showing they might be guilty of it. You can, however, show they’re not guilty of it by showing the might not be. This, in case you don’t understand, is yet another attempt to explain reasonable doubt to you.
Oh, and you need to stop going on about answering questions until you answer all of mine, that you’ve continually refused to answer. People have made genuine efforts to answer yours, until the point where it’s clear you don’t want to hear the answers if they don’t please you.
Please show what evidence there is that Zimmerman was the first to attack, and that Martin was defending himself.
Hint: “It could have happened” is not evidence.
Evidence would be something like the mark of a punch on the knuckle of one party, and a broken nose and black eyes on the other. Evidence would be an eyewitness who saw one party sitting on top of the other.
I think we can take it as clear that you don’t have any evidence for your other speculations - that Zimmerman used a throw to take Martin to the ground, or that there was a third party involved. Those were made up out of whole cloth and have no basis in reality.
Are your other assertions the same, or can you come up with evidence?
