So, Z didn’t want to be a judge or some important lawyer-type guy and his daddy wasn’t a magistrate?
The best laid plans of mice and men, and that. I’m sure he’d have thought catching himself a real, live villain would have looked great on his resume, but when his citizen’s arrest plan started going pear-shaped, he had to adjust his intentions.
No, you’re not, to your shame. You’re the one who wants to put a man in jail for defending himself, on the grounds that he upset the family of the person who attacked him, and would be quite willing to ignore the law and the evidence to do so, were it in your power. Further, you mischaracterise your opponents, as you are either to stupid or prejudiced to understand our arguments.
My view of this case has nothing to do with my opinion of Zimmerman, with my opinion of the morality of his actions, or with my opinion of the skin colours of the participants. It is solely to do with the necessity of maintaining the integrity of the justice system against sensationalist media bias, political manipulation, and the basic, fundamental ignorance of people like you, ywtf, betenoire, and many others, for the protection of everyone.
If that means that a murder goes free because there’s no proof of his guilt, so be it. That’s not a problem. I would much rather take the risk of someone planning the perfect crime and getting away with it, even accepting the tiny risk that someone I care about could be the victim, than the certainty of injustice if we abandon the principles of innocent until proven guilty and beyond reasonable doubt.
I doubt you’ll understand any of this, though. That you characterise someone who phoned the police about suspicious activity, and was attacked as he waited for them to arrive, as a vigilante shows you have serious difficulty with the English language. I’ll grant you “dumbass”, as it’s pretty stupid to follow and question someone you suspect of being a criminal. You might, just for example, be punched in the face, having your nose broken, and have your head repeatedly pounded on the ground. You might even be forced to defend yourself not only against the physical attack, but an unfounded charge of murder.
Just for example.
There are multiple fatal flaws to Zimmerman’s story, and one of them is his claim that he didn’t realize he’d actually shot Martin until hours later.
If he’d had this doubt, why didn’t he fire his weapon again?
If he’d had this doubt, why didn’t he run away from Martin just as soon as the kid moved away from him?
If he’d had this doubt, why did he holster his weapon?
What made him realize that his safety was no longer in jeopardy, if we take him at his word that he didn’t realize he shot Martin? The answer is simple. His safety was never in jeopardy and he was perfectly cognizant of that.
Well, aint that a surprise? I bet you have a nifty explanation for how he simultaneously trapped the hand of his attacker, juggled the gun around in his unfavoured right hand and then managed to hit a place on his opponent’s body where he was guaranteed his murderous attacker wouldn’t be talking later, don’t you.
This could be important.
If he was out to murder or send a message so to speak, then he’d have unloaded the gun clip.
If he was simply trying a method to end what he thought was an attack, then it seems more likely to take one shot, maybe two.
For all we know Zimmerman was tentative to even take that one shot to begin with.
I have a feeling this looks better for Zimmerman in the long run.
I did laugh about him not knowing he shot Martin. I shot someone once by accident and I knew RIGHT AWAY!
Of course you just pulled this “fact” out of your rear…
For my protection, I would rather people like Zimmerman off the streets, especially if they killed people under these circumstances.
That’s criminal justice integrity.
You want them off the streets regardless of whether their actions were legal?
That has nothing to do with crime, justice or integrity.
No, I want them off the streets because they killed someone under those particular circumstances.
No, I don’t believe his actions that night were legal.
If I show support for this fact, it’s not you’re gonna admit that this calls into question Zimmerman’s claim to reasonable fear. But here goes anyway.
… and if it is found that they were, would you still want him off the streets?
I’ll ask you what I’ve asked you many times before - why do you think it was illegal?
I can go back and dig up the whole list of questions you ignored if you like, or you can just give a brief answer.
Steophan, I really don’t know where all of this is coming from.
I read your posts as well as the posts of some others here and I simply don’t understand why you feel the way you do.
No, I don’t want anarchy. Yes, I believe in laws to keep some sort of order in society.
I disagree with you on the **LEGALITY OF ZIMMERMAN’S ACTIONS. **
I don’t believe what Zimmerman did was moral or just or legal.
That’s just how I feel.
If he is found not-guilty, then obviously I will have to accept that.
I personally would want to be nowhere around a person like that or ANYONE who did something like that.
Fair enough?
What makes you think they were illegal? What law(s) do you think he broke? What evidence do you have to back up that claim?
Or do you think he should be convicted and go to jail because it’s just how you feel?
ETA And why do you have a problem giving straight answers to questions?
Of course it is. I don’t even know how I missed it. What would I do if I didn’t have you around to correct my shoddy thinking processes?
**
The entirety of his actions. **
You interpret something one way, I interpret it another.
You see Zimmerman ‘asking’ Martin something, I see Zimmerman challenging and threatening Martin.
You see Zimmerman ‘keeping an eye’ on Martin, I see Zimmerman intimidating and stalking Martin.
You see Zimmerman ‘fighting for his life’, I see Martin fighting for his.
You see Zimmerman as ‘good guy defending his neighborhood’, I see Zimmerman as a drugged up, hot tempered former bouncer with some psych issues.
You see Martin as a thug, I don’t.
You see Martin as ‘doubling back’, I see Martin not ‘doubling back’.
Steophan, to give you more insight, I have grown up in some pretty tough places were gunplay was (and is) COMMON.
People have the power of the gun and that gives them power over people.
People want to settle a dispute, they don’t fight-- they shoot.
And I am tired of this nonsense.
Trust me, if Zimmerman wasn’t carrying heat, NO FUCKING WAY HE ENGAGES MARTIN.
There are too many people out there with guns (legally and illegally–especially where I am) and they shouldn’t have them.
I am not talking about people who want to hunt and stuff, but people are too trigger happy.
People act as if Zimmerman couldn’t have disengaged Martin or fight him back, if an attack even did happen (which IMO Zimmerman precipitated).
I was carefully watching Zimmerman’s interview and I will give Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt. He said Martin punched him when he started reaching into his pocket–GUESS WHAT? Maybe Martin thought he was reaching for his gun. Maybe that’s why he clocked Zimmerman.
Makes sense.
Maybe he saw Zimmerman’s firearm.
That could explain Martin’s alleged behavior–rather than him being some violent crazy black kid.
Please list what laws you think Zimmerman broke, and the evidence for it. Challenging, threatening, intimidating, stalking, these words do not mean what you appear to think they mean.
Bear in mind that following someone and asking them questions is not illegal, and is not in and of itself threatening behaviour, and that stalking requires repeated occasions to occur.
I’m well aware you view the evidence differently to me. What I’m still not aware of is how you think the evidence, in your view, shows that Zimmerman committed any crime. Or, for that matter, how the evidence shows Martin fighting for his life.