Then you weren’t talking about anything that showed Zimmerman’s intent, and you have answered your own question.
Obviously not, since he had already shot him at that point.
And again, you are not making any sense. How does jumping on someone after they are already dead show ill-intent?
ISTM that you are trying to have it both ways, so that, no matter what Zimmerman does, you interpret it as malicious. You did this earlier with the fact that Zimmerman only fired once. Zimmerman only fired once, so that (to you) shows he intended to kill Martin, whereas, if Zimmerman had fired multiple times, that would have shown that Zimmerman intended to kill Martin.
Same thing here. Zimmerman claims he did not know that Martin was dead, and thus rolled Martin off him and checked him for weapons. If Zimmerman was telling the truth, and he did not really know for certain that Martin was dead, then his actions in checking Martin for weapons makes sense. If, as you allege, Zimmerman must have known that Martin was dead, Zimmerman’s actions make no sense at all - why would you check if a dead man was still dangerous?
Frustrating that you can’t actually prove he did anything wrong? Yes, I imagine it must be for someone like you, who just wishes to punish people you dislike regardless of whether they’ve actually broken the law.
But frankly, if Zimmerman was still in fear after he shot Martin, what he should have done was shot him again. That he didn’t suggests he was no longer in fear, at least not to the extent that he considered lethal force the necessary response.
I’ve no doubt you’ll somehow manage to pretend that this response, which could be considered anywhere between proportionate and wildly risky to his self, is suggestive of his guilt and malice, when it’s the exact opposite.
You’ve just said he would reasonably have been in fear. Do you have any evidence that, unreasonably, he wasn’t in fear?
There are, of course the exceptions. If Zimmerman was engaged in a forcible felony… oh wait, he’s not even charged with any such felony.
If Zimmerman initiated the attack… oh wait, that doesn’t apply as he had no means of escape.
If Zimmerman… oh wait, that’s all the exceptions.
So, the only criterion is reasonable fear - something you’ve already accepted could have occurred.
Of course, if you can prove that Zimmerman was committing a felony, or that he could escape, things would be different. But we know you can’t, else you would have done so on one of the many previous occasions you’ve been asked to, rather than continue your torturous routine of evasions, half-truths, and outright falsehoods.
Well, that particular part is difficult to argue against, because it doesn’t make any sense. No one claims that Zimmerman slid thirty feet as the result of a punch in the nose.
Yes. That’s kind of the point. The prosecution will need to prove it in such a way that it can’t be argued around. Else, reasonable doubt, not guilty.
If you just want to toss around bullshit theories and get butthurt when called on it, that’s up to you, but that won’t stop me and others calling you, and it won’t stop a jury finding Zimmerman not guilty, if this case even gets that far.
If Zimmerman was aware that Trayvon was using both hands to smother him and to slam his head against the concrete, he was also aware enough to know TM couldn’t have been carrying a weapon, so the question is, why jump on him at all?
Maybe he never did jump on him and had actually been in top control when he shot TM? Maybe George said he didn’t remember if he’d flipped TM over because he wasn’t sure at that point if anyone had seen him do it?
I don’t agree with you that section (b) is defeated by the timeline. The defense will argue that Zimmerman was in fear of serious bodily injury once the fight commenced. They will point to the medical evidence suggesting a broken nose in support of this fear. Whether Zimmerman could have backed away before the fight began is not what (b) represents. Could he have withdrawn after his nose was broken?
In any event, I’d be curious to know how the prosecution plans to show the hatred /ill-will / malice element.
Zimmerman had several means to avoid the confrontation. The police said this too, so it’s not just me.
All of this ‘at the moment’ nonsense…Bricker, can you please weigh in on this ‘at the moment’ talk? I am getting a headache. The point that I am trying to get across was that Zimmerman through the TOTALITY OF HIS ACTIONS put himself in that position and killed Martin. The ‘retreat’ could have happened at several junctures which I have written about ad nauseaum.
Not only that, it would appear Martin was retreating as well. So we’re in a little bit of a quandary here, aren’t we?
if you have read my posts carefully, I haven’t evaded anything you’ve asked of me. I have answered your questions at one time or another.
You keep on asking me what Zimmerman did that was illegal? Your answer: killing Martin. I think I have been very clear about this since day 1.
Falsehoods…please. We are back to the fishbowl problem.
And no, the cat didn’t do it, even though you say so.
As a general principle, I don’t agree with you on this, as I hinted above. It’s of no moment to look at the totality of the timeline. What the law refers to there is his ability to withdraw after hostilities, if you will, commenced.
Again I’ll point out that this is where manslaughter comes into play as a better charge, because the totality of his reckless actions are relevant to manslaughter’s elements.
