[QUOTE=betenoire39]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Further hint: Being followed does not constitute an attack, and does not legally (or, IMO, morally) justify physical violence.
For it to be self-defense, you have to show that Zimmerman attacked Martin. Following is not an attack, especially since both the transcript of Zimmerman’s 911 call, and Dee Dee’s description of her conversation with Martin, agree that Martin had “lost” him - that Zimmerman began to follow Martin and then lost sight of him.
It appears that the reason that the confrontation took place is that Martin doubled back to confront Zimmerman. Magiver and JoelUpchurch have already discussed this. You apparently have no response.
That’s a pity, but it can be redressed. Please post the evidence that shows that Zimmerman attacked Martin.
Spare me–I have posted about alternate reasons why they met up that fit in with the time line. Martin could have hidden, for example.
As if following someone in the circumstances that Zimmerman was following Martin in the f’ing dark on a rainy day like some serial killer couldn’t have been interpreted as threatening to Martin. He probably had his vehicle lights off.
You want to talk about an “unprovoked attack”. Again, spare me with the bullshit.
Zimmerman did everything to provoke the encounter. He could have defused the situation, even as the site you gave me mentioned. He chose not to. That’s what he wanted.
You just don’t want to accept that Martin was defending himself–and yes, that scenario can fit in with the timeline and the supposed injuries as well.
People have some nerve “suggesting” what Martin should have done–some goddamn nerve.
Yeah, well I have a few “suggestions” for ZImmerman.
I really don’t know why people can excuse Zimmerman’s behavior–that’s mind boggling to me.
There is a line between defending his actions and giving a legal interpretation (which might very well be incorrect–but that’s fine, because we are in an opinion thread).
For many here, that line is blurred.
If you wish to conflate the two, expect people of conscience to challenge you.
What circumstances? You mean like seeing someone darting across lawns in a gated environment, in the dark on a rainy day, like some burglar?
See what I did there, sounds silly doesn’t it?
Your sarcasm isn’t unnoticed. It COULD have been interpreted (key word there, very key word) as threatening - doesn’t mean Martin had to ACT (other very key word here) on it.
Lights off? Yes, he ‘probably’ did.
This little exercise is to humbly remind you how the word ‘probably’ and ‘circumstances’ aren’t going to hold water in a court of law.
What circumstances? You mean seeing someone darting across lawns in a gated environment, in the dark on a rainy day, like some burglar?
See what I did there, sounds silly doesn’t it?
Your sarcasm isn’t unnoticed. It COULD have been interpreted (key word there, very key word) as threatening - doesn’t mean Martin had to ACT (other very key word here) on it.
Lights off? Yes, he ‘probably’ did.
This little exercise is to humbly remind you how the word ‘probably’ and ‘circumstances’ aren’t going to hold water in a court of law.
Bold statement to make - you having no facts not withstanding.
They met up because Martin hid? What does that even mean?
And again - “could have” is not evidence. Please provide your evidence that Martin hid, or that Zimmerman was the first to attack, or any of the other unsupported horseshit notions you have been pushing.
As has been pointed out to you repeatedly, following somebody on a rainy day does not constitute a threat justifying physical violence.
As far as we know, Zimmerman did nothing to deserve to be attacked. Asking someone what he is up to is not provocation. If Martin thought it was, then Martin was a dangerous criminal.
Not until I see some evidence. You have provided none. All of the evidence to date suggests that Zimmerman was the one acting in self-defense, not Martin.
It does not take much nerve to suggest that people ought not to break the law and assault each other.
If any ever show up, they are welcome to try.
Of course, they will also challenge your idea that someone who has not broken the law should be punished anyway.
You mean someone going to the place he was staying at?
Doesn’t mean ZImmerman had to ‘act’ the way he did.
3.Thank you.
You are not the law. Neither are the others who are convinced they have the legal aspects nailed.
Serino would disagree.
How about identifying yourself? how about staying in his car? how about meeting the police at the clubhouse which he INITIALLY suggested?
How would Zimmerman KNOW that though? Is it unlawful for him to err on the side of caution?
You talk about circumstance - consider the circumstances. Suspicious looking figure, in the dark in the rain in a gated community known to have recent burglaries AND the person witnessing it (Zimmerman) is a community watch member.
It is not a stretch to get Zimmerman’s mindset in that situation. However as much as that may play to Zimmerman’s defense, it’s not evidence they will most likely use.
No of course not, yet haven’t any evidence to suggest that Zimmeran physically acted in anyway unlawful. Be careful not to confuse “facts” with “evidence.” There’s no obvious facts that Martin beatdown Zimmerman, however there is evidence.
I wasn’t agreeing with you on that, was being sardonic.
I understand the law well enough to know that high profile murder cases (even in our messed up system) do not hang on the whim of ‘probably’ and ‘circumstance’
Good questions - the prosecution may ask them.
A) Identifying yourself might cause someone to run away. Who sticks around for authority anymore? Everyone just runs.
B) Staying in your car means you lose sight of someone - assuming you can’t follow them in your vehicle.
C) Meetings and plans change. Sometimes you make a decision on the go.
Yeah Saraya, and how would the rapist have known his victim was a kung-fu expert?
Martin, suspicious? Why would that be? (Hint: skin color, perhaps?)
Everything is being seen through Zimmerman’s lenses: his prejudices, his fears, EVERYTHING.
Why not try to see it from Martin’s lenses? Martin’s mindset?
I hope Zimmerman says he was on Neighborhood Watch Duty that night…I really hope he does.
Yeah, well sometimes “probably” is all you have. Again, if you think a possible jury won’t be considering the ‘probably’, I really don’t know what to say to you.
Love your responses.
Yeah, sometimes you have to make a decision on the go. Indeed.
[QUOTE=betenoire39]
Again, as if a jury won’t be considering these things if this goes to trial…
[/QUOTE]
Do you believe the jury should convict Zimmerman if he has not broken the law?
Exactly right - everything is being seen through the eyes of Zimmerman - he’s the one being prosecuted.
The title of this thread is misleading. It uses the word speculation, which is inappropriate. It quickly turned into a really in-depth analysis of what happened and a piece by piece break down of Zimmerman’s actions, story and evidence.
If you wanted to have a discussion on ‘what if’ and propose a set of ideas and thoughts on how things would be through Martin’s eyes, that’s fine.
The issue at hand is most of the posters here already covered so many angles that it’s talked to death. And while presenting Martin’s point of view might make for food for thought, it doesn’t fit the formula.
Admittedly, your claims are getting a bit erratic - whether a result of frustration or not, they don’t help our interest in discussing Martin’s point of view.
Lastly, even if we make valid points that Martin was acting in self-defense based on circumstance and probability, we still cannot ignore the evidence that contradicts that.
Agreed, it does say speculation.
Rather I would have liked to seen this in a debate forum, given how it turned out early on.
You mentioned earlier about looking at it from a different angle, let’s do that.
Let’s not take one extreme side or the other as people have been doing.
In this speculation, we’ll assume the Pro Zimmerman approach and that all events are roughly accurate as he described. This means Martin attacked him.
However, it turns out he did have another way to escape Martin rather than shooting him.
Give me three or more possible alternatives you can imagine.
If you want to expand upon how you think the physical confrontation went, which in turn explains your speculation on alternate ways Zimmerman could stop the fight, then by all means elaborate.
For me the top three were
A) Use your gun to hit Martin in the face
B) Gouge Martin’s eyes or bite him
C) Roll over on your stomach to distract Martin, then pull your weapon and demand he cease attacking.
All of these could be plausible; however I came back to one nagging reality.
Even for someone comfortable around fire arms, Zimmerman was not a veteran police officer or a special forces member. Half the job for those guys is staying cool under pressure and knowing how to apply your training when the situation requires it.
I don’t believe Zimmerman had the knowledge or the emotional capacity to do this.
I imagine that as each second passed he calculated tons of different possibilities and then just drew a blank. He had no non-lethal option in his head and realized he had no WIN card to play other than to shoot him.
Is this Zimmerman’s fault? Can we expect a civilian to really know the best course of action in the situation he was in?
If you really think he should have been a better ‘victim’ then that’s your privilege, though it’s not hard pressed to imagine the average person wouldn’t have even waited ten seconds and already shot their attacker.
If you agree (under this hypothetical speculation), then you have to realize you’re admitting that Zimmerman MAY have taken a different course of action, however his inability to be a NAVY SEAL, doesn’t make him guilty of murder. It just means he’s not really good at fending off an attacker.
If however, Zimmerman had another way out and simply chose not to use it, the prosecution at least has a chance at using the ‘probably’ and ‘circumstance’ issues you mentioned earlier, to paint a picture where Zimmerman is guilty.
Point being that in the one hand, Zimmerman is just a victim of that circumstance (that he’s not a professional), and in the other he intentionally shoots Martin knowing there might have been another way out.