magiver and** steophan.**…
I don’t believe I have asked the two of you this question until now (surprisingly).
Are you lawyers?
Also, magiver, I am still waiting for a response.
No.
I’ve never heard of anyone grinding another person’s head into the ground. There’s no leverage or advantage to such a maneuver versus simply pushing down on a victims head. But your experiences may be different.
And as usual there is no evidence it occurred beyond your conjecture that it might have occurred. Zimmerman clearly has injuries on the back of his head and it’s reasonable to conclude that Martin caused them by slamming his head on the cement.
Cite that I said he was a badass. I’ve stated repeatedly that a 5’11" 158 lb 17 year old male is quite capable of doing what Martin did.
Are you?
I’m not suggesting it was a deliberate tactic or even that there was any grinding. Take a piece of concrete and try just rubbing your head against it lightly. Then, glue a tiny stone to the concrete and lightly graze your head against it. Please post results.
Most likely.
No, that is called jumping to conclusions.
I don’t mean badass in a Mike Tyson kind of way, I mean in a “kid on the wrong side of the tracks” way.
There seems to be little doubt in your mind that TM wasn’t an easy-going, likeable 17yr old, who’d no more attack an adult stranger for no good reason than you or I, and I’m puzzled as to why you are so convinced that Z’s described attack by him was completely within his nature.
This is an appeal to authority, and it is an unfortunate one. I know a lot about fighting, almost certainly more than you do. And the way this fight went down (according to the parts of Zimmerman’s account that are backed up by evidence) is quite typical.
So go away and stop wasting time posting nonsense.
Just like Martin did. And since attacking someone who approaches you is illegal, that demonstrates that Martin was in the wrong and that Zimmerman was justified in defending himself against Martin’s attack.
Regards,
Shodan
So since I am tired of people starting confrontations and using a gun to bail themselves out like immoral, unethical cowards, I should stop posting?
Talk about a “does not follow”. What a beautiful, logical response.:rolleyes:
Shodan, I think your “linear thinking” is slipping a little. This is one of the most illogical, irrational posts I have read from you (other than your bigoted assertions about Martin and DeeDee, obviously).
No need to be puzzled dimmy. As you with the face astutely pointed out, it’s racial and gun politics.
You have racial stereotypes at play with people’s perceptions of Martin and you have people who have certain beliefs about guns.
Martin was a feral black male and Zimmerman had the legal right to shoot him. Simple as that.
I assumed you meant you were tired of being refuted, and having it pointed out that you haven’t a scrap of evidence to back up anything you say. Apparently not.
Given that you posted this -
and since we know that this would be illegal, don’t you think you are over-identifying with the criminal in this scenario?
Regards,
Shodan
Speaking of appeals to authority, Mr Fighting Expert. Look, I’m not going to get into an internet dick-waving contest, but I’d wager I’ve been in more street fights than you if I could provide conclusive evidence.
I’ve grown up in an environment where people sorted out their differences with their fists and occasionally sticks, bottles bricks and anything that was readily at hand, not phoned the police and asked them to sort out the guy who would kick the shit out of you, if you’d let them.
That experience of mine is a lot to do with why I haven’t bought the idea of a scrawny kid getting the jump on a guy who thought he was capable of being a bouncer or a cop, and managing to beat the shit out of him without receiving one mark. I’m saying “beat the shit” but really all TM seems to have done is totally dominated Z without inflicting a great deal of damage.
What are you basing this assessment on? If you know as much about fighting and self-defence as you claim, you’ll know that maintaining control of a potential attackers distance is the sort of thing that is second nature to anyone who has an interest in controlling other people. That Z would have dropped his guard as alleged, uder the circumstances he did, beggars belief to anyone who isn’t just trying to justify Z’s actions.
-
Even in your lack of reading comprehension, you still manage to hurl an insult at someone.
-
The only criminal is Zimmerman, and I most certainly don’t identify with him.
And no, we don’t know this would be illegal. It’s self-defense.
So, Martin should have called the police when that psycho was following him and approached him with a loaded gun in his possession.
Utterly insane. And they have the nerve to say I am using “movie logic” and other shit.
Bottom line, the only thing I am “calling” in that situation are my fists, knees, feet and a weapon (if I had one on me).
You see, they are identifying with Zimmerman.
They feel Martin should have not resisted Zimmerman and let him maintain control over the encounter.
The options that they are giving Martin are options that speak to his submission–NOT TO HIM RESISTING.
It’s all about control with people like that–that’s the name of the game. Martin was shot because he resisted Zimmerman.
Even Zimmerman alluded to this during the police interview when he was talking to the female officer. I hope you caught this, dimmy, but Zimmerman told the female officer that she has a command presence and that’s why she’s never had to shoot anyone.
What’s the implication here? This gives important insight into why Martin was shot: Martin didn’t respect Zimmerman’s imagined authority.
It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if they were also defending the campus cop who left the safety of his locked building to go out and shoot a guy for being naked and acting menacing. While ignoring that using such logic, if TM had been old enough to own a gun, he’d have had as much right of shooting the guy who’d trailed him in a car and then got out to follow him along a darkened walkway. By rights, TM should have been able to stand his ground and shoot Z before he’d got within the danger area of 21 ft. He shouldn’t have to wait for Z to explain himself, if Z’s hand is starting to reach for his pocket.
Bingo. And this is one (out of the many things) that i have been arguing here.
When you have a case where the VICTIM (Martin–not Zimmerman for the chorus) actually had a case of self-defense, you seriously have to make a reassessment of who you believe and what happened.
But that’s where IMO the politics comes in: some feel that Martin just should have submitted to Zimmerman’s wishes. In other words, they feel Martin should have submitted to Zimmerman’s perceived “authority”.
That’s where the stereotyping comes in: they feel Martin and not Zimmerman escalated the situation (ignoring Zimmerman’s pursuit and his threatening, creepy behavior). After all, black males are known to act in certain ways, so it’s conceivable to them that Martin must have done something to make Zimmerman take his actions and that Martin deserved whatever it was.
I would have more respect for these people if they just admitted it point blank.
And yes, this is coming from a person who initially gave Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt, until I saw the other evidence that came out and put two and two together.
My experience. A sucker punch followed by a rush and a ground-and-pound is one of the most common ways for a fight to play out. If you had as much experience as you claim in fighting, you would know that.
There is no indication that Zimmerman is a trained fighter. Nor is there any indication that he expected Martin to attack him. Working a party as a bouncer does not make someone an expert in hand-to-hand combat or managing possible fight situations.
As mentioned several times previously, there is no legal (or, in my opinion, moral) justification to attack someone for asking you what you are doing. People who are not impulsive, dangerous thugs do not usually do that. Martin apparently did this.
It was a mistake on Zimmerman’s part to expect Martin to react like a civilized person.
[QUOTE=betenoire39]
You see, they are identifying with Zimmerman.
[/QUOTE]
And you are identifying with Martin, and repeatedly stating that you would commit the same crime that Martin apparently did. That may be part of your problem, and why you have so much difficulty with the evidence. Because all the evidence shows that Martin committed a crime, and Zimmerman didn’t, and you want it to be the other way around.
Regards,
Shodan
Can we examine your claim in #2 a bit?
As I understand it:
The only part that is slightly unclear is “…and got to me…” I conclude it doesn’t mean that they approached you, since the full phrase is, “…if they approached me and got to me…”
Can I ask you what, specifically, you mean by “got to me?”
-
X is common. Therefore, X occurred that night. Again, I don’t know what’s wrong with you today, but the zeroes aren’t turning into ones properly. That;s a very weak argument you’re making.
-
again, he just didn’t “ask someone what they were doing”–he did more than that. way more.
-
It was a mistake for Zimmerman to think Martin would allow his powerplay. He knew that. That’s why he brought the fucking gun as a backup.
I’m getting that same vibe. All that business about hoodies being criminal attire n shit. What the people demonising hoody-wearers don’t realise is, a large part of the appeal of hoodies is that it makes timid people unrecognisable also, and if a person with bad intentions doesn’t know who is under the hood, he’s likely to be as wary of you as you are of him.
Martin didn’t have any case for self-defense. This has been pointed out to you many times over - asking someone what they are doing is not an attack, and does not justify self-defense.
So when you assert that you would have reacted as Martin did, you are saying that you would also have broken the law.
Zimmerman didn’t have any authority, He could not force Martin to do anything. Martin could have walked away, flipped Zimmerman off, stayed in his father’s girlfriend’s house, or whatever he liked. Martin did not have the “authority” to punch anyone in the face for following him or asking him a question.
And, unfortunately for your credibility, or lack thereof, there is no evidence to date that Zimmerman attempted to make Martin do anything. There is evidence that Martin punched Zimmerman in the face, knocked him down, and bashed his head on the ground. So, as mentioned, all the evidence shows Martin as the wrong-doer.
Zimmerman’s actions do not justify attacking him.
I admit it point-blank - I believe, based on the evidence to date, that Martin did something to cause Zimmerman to shoot him - to wit, attacking him without legal or moral justification, knocking him down, breaking his nose and blackening his eyes, and bashing his head on the ground.
You wound up with eleven.
Regards,
Shodan
No, it isn’t. When real sucker-punches are landed, the person receiving them usually hits the deck and is stomped on. The typical street fight starts out with peacocking, a few wild punches being exchanged, a bit of stand-up wrestlng and argy-bargying, THEN a fall to the ground and a struggle for top position with whoever gets it then maybe being in a position to make use of it without just being rolled over and reversed.
The whole point of a sucker-punch is to end the fight before it has started.