No, it doesn’t, which is why you have never posted any evidence for your more bizarre notions. For instance, there is no evidence that there was a third party involved, yet you think there was.
No, I am using evidence, and rational thought.
There’s your problem. I can cite evidence that Zimmerman was the subject of an attack. You can’t.
I am not assuming anything of the sort. I am examining the evidence to determine what can be proven, what can be disproven, and what cannot be determined.
It’s not simply a question of different opinions. It’s an opinion based on evidence and reasoning, and your opinion.
Thank you** Saraya.** This is actually very refreshing. I am not being sarcastic.
But you pointed out something very insightful (that many of the Zimmerman groupies) seem to overlook–he’s not a professional. So why put yourself in the situation where you had a gun and had to end up using it?
Others have skirted this issue by saying “oh, it’s laudable what he did” and other bullshit.
You want to do police work, but you’re not police–you’re just a civilian. You’re a wannabe cop–not that Martin was doing anything illegal :smack:.
It was all in his f’ing head.
Listen, I have NO PROBLEMS WITH NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH. NONE.
I have problems with what and HOW the Martin killing happened.
Zimmerman had SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES to deescalate the situation. Several. But no, he choose another route.
So you have to ask yourself, is it really plausible that a kid who was running away from him ‘doubled back’ (whatever the fuck that means at this point), a kid who didn’t have a history of violence and was going to somewhere where he LEGALLY HAD THE RIGHT TO BE, did what he did as Zimmerman said?
Or is it plausible that the guy in the car, former bouncer, armed with a gun, on medications and with a HISTORY of violence and going ham on people (and there are people who can testify to this) was just “keeping an eye on him” and didn’t provoke anything?
People would have to be living on MARS to think a jury isn’t going to weigh this.
At this point a sensible person would turn their gaze inward and wonder what has set them apart from everyone else.
Your message?
Your reasoning?
Your delivery?
All of the above?
There is of course the possibility that you are the only one seeing things absolutely clearly. However, the longer this goes on and given that you haven’t won over even one of those here who have been openly doubting Zimmerman’s innocence in the events makes it exceedingly unlikely.
Many have their minds made up…some of it is racial politics. Some of it is about gun politics as well.
Martin is the villain and he deserved it. Bottom line for some of these people.
To change some people’s opinions would require that they change their racial views.
To change some people’s opinions would require that they change their gun views.
I don’t think I can do that over the net.
I can however, offer a counter narrative and force more discussion so that maybe people reading these threads and the people who are WILLING can reexamine their beliefs.
Not me baby. Anyone.
You have repeatedly pointed to zero support.
I think your narrative is forcing people to tune you out. Even Monstro and youwiththeface haven’t stepped in of late.
There is no doubt that races and gun politics are playing a role. But they aren’t playing nearly the role that a lack of clear contradictory evidence is playing.
Let’s assume for a minute that Zimmerman does have a hero complex. Does it make a difference if he’s a good hero (saving the day for altruistic reasons, to help others) or an anti-hero(meaning the guy who saves people but only for selfish reasons)?
This is important because what you’re suggesting is that then everyone who wants to be a good citizen, shouldn’t be allowed to assume any roles or responsibilities similar to an authority figure.
Which is contradictory to you not having a problem with a neighborhood watch.
That means I’m left to conclude that you don’t think concerned citizens is a bad thing, you even think in some cases, civilians should get involved until professionals can arrive on the scene e.g. a citizen’s arrest.
Which then means you think Zimmerman in particular is an anti-hero.
Now how do we prove that? **First **the character profiling. They psych evaluated him and cleared him as racist, though he has a hero complex (so do millions of people).
The only way you can get to the conclusion he is an anti-hero is to move backwards through events rather than forward, which is dangerous as it leads to wildly exponential situations - but we can do that for the sake of argument.
We’ll take the position that Zimmerman laid a hand on Martin without provocation, then the violence escalated. In amongst that scuffle Zimmerman chose to shoot Martin.
STOP.
A) Did Zimmerman lay a hand on Martin in a commanding but non violent way? (Hero)
B) Did Zimmerman lay a hand on Martin in a commanding but violent way, attempting to exercise his hero complex? (anti-Hero)
C) Did Zimmerman escalate the violence because he wanted to resolve it quickly and not let Martin get away**“They always get away”** (Hero)
D) Did Zimmerman escalate the violence because Martin was not complying or frustrating Zimmerman (anti-hero).
E) Did Zimmerman shoot Martin because he was losing the fight and at that point he was the one defending himself? (Hero)
F) Did Zimmerman shoot Martin because he was losing the fight and realized it was his fault?(anti-Hero)
G) Did Zimmerman shoot Martin because he was losing the fight and it was his fault. He realized if Martin were to live, he’d tell police the truth? (murder)
Notice I’ve attributed the escalating of violence to Zimmerman for this hypothetical to give a more Martin point of view.
In scenarios A, C and E Zimmerman is helping the community, trying to be assertive yet not overpowering. He would still be a hero at this point.
In scenarios B, D and F Zimmerman is still helping the community, despite creating a situation that could have been avoided yet despite that it would seem most actions are selfish hence the anti-hero.
In scenario G, Zimmerman has decided to use lethal force to resolve a situation that he caused and could not find a way out of. This would be classed as murder.
The **second **part is establishing whether or not the altercation was necessary.
This ties back in with your comments about how Zimmerman could have chosen to
A) Ignore the situation
or
B) Approach Martin through vocal contact
or
C) Wait for the authorities
If he takes option A, then he is neither a hero or an anti-hero. All he is eventually doing is avoiding potentially becoming a murder. And if everyone were to have that type of logic, we’d probably ever leave the house. We all know life is about causality - if we ponder it too long, we go down a deep rabbit hole.
If he takes option B, Martin may have run (for whatever various reasons). Assuming Martin was doing something suspicious, him running away means he may have given up his quest of doing something illegal. In that case Zimmerman is a hero and achieves his goal - but since Zimmerman would probably never know that, it seems a moot point.
If he takes option C, Martin could ‘get away’ rather than simply leave. This puts Zimmerman in a state of concern over his effectiveness as a watch member and he acts on it. His actions lead to a confrontation. This doesn’t confirm or deny whether the violence was initiated by Martin. If it was, and Zimmerman really did defend himself, the end result is that Zimmerman is an anti-Hero. Despite the fact he is innocent in the shooting, he did cause the confrontation for personal selfish reasons.
Inadvertently (or maybe intentionally), Zimmerman not choosing option C means that Martin either didn’t run away, or couldn’t get away. Which avoids option C’s fallout.
-If Martin didn’t run away and he did return to confront Zimmerman than that was foolish. Zimmerman gets attacked and is a hero(for lack of a better word).
-If Martin couldn’t run away because Zimmerman stopped him from doing so, Zimmerman is still an anti-Hero for potentially stopping what could have been a suspicious person. While a grievance and frustration to Martin, it wasn’t exactly a horrifying experience. It’s no worse than cops stopping you on suspicion and then realizing you were not at fault, and let you on your way. It happens.
Zimmerman then is just one man whom is recognized as a community whistle blower, exercising his right to enact civil duty.
This eludes to the point that unless Zimmerman hurt Martin in some way by approaching the situation, and not applying option A, B or C, then Zimmerman hasn’t done anything wrong - or anything that Martin couldn’t have just said ‘nah it’s not worth it’ and walked away from. Third
Before the confrontation (remember this is back to front):
A) Is Martin spooked?
B) Is Martin aware of Zimmerman because he is nearby, or watching him intently?C) What is Zimmerman doing while Martin walks away?
D) What is Martin actually doing?
E) What is Zimmerman doing in that neighborhood?
In direct response :
A) Martin skipped away (allegedly), he must have been slightly spooked or rather unnerved? We haven’t evidence to say he didn’t move away at a faster pace than walking. We do have Zimmerman’s story, and speculation on how Martin might have gotten far away.
B) If Martin increased his speed for any other reason that being aware of Zimmerman watching him, we’ll never know. Imagine though if Martin was doing or attempting to do something illegal, just the fact another human was nearby might have put him into defensive mode. If he was minding his own business, then it stands to reason Martin simply noticed Zimmerman’s interest.
C) Zimmerman is supposedly on his phone - obviously we have call logs with time stamps - how much time before he called the police did he actually witness and observe Martin? Is that relevant?
D) Martin is probably just minding his own business, however being in the wrong place at the wrong time is neither his nor Zimmerman’s fault. We haven’t evidence to say otherwise.
E) Zimmerman is apparently there as it’s en route to his final destination and purpose of shopping. We have no evidence or probable cause as to why this route is inappropriate for his goal(s). It’s not ‘out of the way’, inconvenient, dangerous or irregular (this would only apply if we had a tracking of Zimmerman’s movements prior to the night, and of course this doesn’t exist for obvious reasons).
Throughout all three stages mentioned above, even at some points assuming either that A) Zimmerman acted poorly or B ) Zimmerman made poor decisions or C ) Zimmerman’s tale doesn’t match up exactly/consistently, we still cannot paint another plausible picture to describe the events to the point where Zimmerman is an irresponsible citizen. And by this of course I mean that he took his watch community duty too seriously, ignored logical reasoning and decided to use unscrupulous actions to create and ‘solve’ a situation that could be unavoided.
A hero complex maybe…an anti-hero even, but an irresponsible gung-ho unscrupulous citzen? Unless the prosecution can take the speculations and tie the little evidence we do have together, they have one hell of a time to make the murder charge stick.
See my notes above about alternate opportunities to deescalate.
It is plausible that Martin doubled back, under the assumption he wanted to confront Zimmerman.
Knowing how children are these days, it’s extremely common for them to have such an approach. In the past it was only attitude, everyone rebels at some stage - now, it’s attitude with action - because they know they can get away with it.
You can disagree on that 100%, however the word of an adult vs a child is still pretty strong accept in cases of pedophilia.
It’s also possible Martin doubled back for some other non related reason and ran into Zimmerman, words were exchanged and a fight broke out.
Pretty sure the Prosecution will try this angle and the Defense will squash it with the point that even if this was the case, it doesn’t prove Zimmerman was NOT acting in self-defense with the shooting.
Zimmerman’s past can certainly help paint a picture of what he is capable of; yet between Martin being dead( and not testifying) and evidence to the contrary, the State does not have a strong case.
To be clear, being an anti-Hero does not make him a murderer. It’s to present a situation where the jury may not use ONLY evidence to draw their conclusion. If they deem Zimmerman’s actions unnecessarily selfish, then they may lean towards a guilty verdict.
Because he was the neighborhood watch guy, and they had had several burglaries in the area. I already told you this.
That’s why he “put himself into the situation”. And the reason he was carrying the gun was in case he ran into a violent thug, who might attack him. Like Martin did.
No, it wasn’t. As you have told several times, there had been burglaries and shootings in the area. That was not “in his head”; it is documented fact.
Then you understand that Zimmerman was doing nothing wrong, and did not deserve to be attacked.
No, Martin chose another route when he attacked Zimmerman.
Yes, it’s very plausible, and, in fact, there is evidence that shows that it seems to be the case.
You mean the gangsta wannabe, who had traces of drugs in his system, had been kicked out of school for vandalism, drug dealing, and theft? That kid?
Keeping also in mind that Zimmerman was going somewhere that he LEGALLY HAD THE RIGHT TO BE, to resort to your method of argument by capitalization.
So you believe Zimmerman should be convicted now, because he has never been convicted in the past?
Saraya, I don’t know what he was saving the day against, that’s for sure.
No, I don’t have a problem with neighborhood watch: I have a problem with what Zimmerman did to Martin.
Give me some time to digest what you’ve written and I will write a detailed response.
I will return courtesy with courtesy since you have taken the time to actually analyze what
I have written rather than throw these red herrings and bullshit at me unlike some other posters.
Actually, I was hoping for English. A clear explanation, in other words, of
[ul][li]Zimmerman carries a (legally registered, licensed) gun to defend himself in case someone tries to kill him.[/li][li]Martin tries to kill him.[/li][li]Ergo, Zimmerman is guilty of murder. [/ul][/li]because it doesn’t make a great deal of sense.
I was hinting that maybe Zimmerman was expecting something to happen that night.
And it did. Because he made that happen.
You want to talk about a “nigg* with a hair trigga temper” but you want to ignore personality traits of Zimmerman that people have relayed. He is a confrontational person.
And what situation is that exactly? Martin had fled the scene. This is backed up by Zimmerman’s call to the Dispatcher and Dee Dee’s testimony. Martin is gone.
What situation is Zimmerman in exactly?
You have a problem with applying logic to evidence. You have yet to answer a single question posted to you about Martin’s whereabouts or why there are no marks on his body that indicate he was attacked.
Your posts are riddled with words like “chorus” and “groupies” to describe people you disagree with. Everything you don’t like to hear is met with words like “bullshit” and “oh yeah”. That’s not a rebuttal to an idea. That’s your disapproval of the idea
Again, what situation? At what point is Zimmerman suppose to be aware there’s a situation when Martin has left the scene? He’s gone and we have 2 phone calls that back this up. One of them from Martin himself.
of course it’s possible. I and others have said this repeatedly. But in order to introduce scenarios in court you have to have EVIDENCE. You can’t just say that a well known internet psychic believes Zimmerman is evil and therefore speculate he attacked Martin. The evidence shows that the Zimmerman was where he said he was. He wasn’t at Martin’s house, he was on the same sidewalk leading to his car. Both Zimmerman and Martin have said they lost sight of each other. Where was Martin? He tells Dee Dee that he’s by his house. Wherever he’s at he HAS to double back in order for the confrontation to take place.
The jury isn’t going to be allowed to hear speculation without evidence.
It’s not logic when it doesn’t lead me to the conclusions you want…because we all know, if logic were applied, then we would come to the conclusions you specify.
Also: I wrote about Martin’s movements several times. I gave speculation of the lack of marks on Martin.
No…it’s used against people who continue to use subtle racial attacks and people who don’t like being challenged. It’s used against people who can’t open themselves to holes in Zimmerman’s story and alternate explanations.
It’s for people who claim a “vicious beating” yet when asked about the lack of physical evidence on Martin to that effect, they give some bullshit explanation (oh, the nose started bleeding AFTER the fight, etc).
It’s for people who fail to acknowledge Martin’s humanity.
De-escalate by identifying yourself. Could have done that when he positioned his vehicle between Martin and his destination when Martin supposedly circled his vehicle.
No he doesn’t have to “DOUBLE BACK” for that to happen. I have said this a number of times.
Oh boy…like you think they will accept Martin “doubling back”? What makes you think they will accept that? They could call it as bullshit.