I can picture him doing it. What I can’t do is prove he did it. Indeed, there is no evidence at all that he did that, and there is some evidence - although not to any high standard of proof - that Martin did it.
Ultimately, though, it doesn’t matter who was more likely to have been the aggressor. What matters (if, indeed, it turns out to matter at all) is whether Zimmerman can be proven to have been the aggressor.
I also disagree with you that someone who’s just called the police, and expects them imminently, is more likely to be violent that a pissed off teenager. Of whatever skin colour.
Raul Rodriguez from Texas would disagree with you…
He started shit, shot people and claimed SYG…needless to say he lost and was sent to prison.
And yes, he had most of it on tape.
I guess I am also starting to see the problem: we just come from completely different experiences and have different insights into human nature.
I disagree with you: for someone like that who KNEW the police, why wouldn’t he be emboldened to shoot Martin? Besides, who would go against him? Who wouldn’t believe him?
After all, this was some feral black male and he was defending his neighborhood. His dad knew people and so did he.
The racial aspect combined with his connections probably meant impunity.
Unfortunately for him, social media outed this: otherwise it would have been swept under the rug.
Another thing is this, and even another poster called you out on this: you are an interesting judge of character…BigT (I think the handle was) made note of this. In your mind, just because he lied about something doesn’t mean his credibility on other things should be called into question.
Maybe that’s how you view things, but trust me, others don’t have to.
Well, at least I have some assurance: if I ever get into trouble like Zimmerman and lie like him, you will be on my side.
Other than pointing to Z’s injuries and insisting they happened how he stated, is there any evidence whatsoever that Trayvon was a “pissed off teenager”?
DD makes no mention of Trayvon cussing like a trooper and pronouncing how badly he was going to make Z pay for his effrontery.
No witnesses report any whoops or hollers of excitement as Z was manhandled down a dark path, thrown to the floor and then brutally beaten.
The 911 calls don’t seem to catch any of Trayvon’s chattiness prior to the gunshot, where Z emphasises what Trayvon’s intent was and why he had to kill him. If audio experts could clean up those calls and any of the dialogue Z attributes to TM was heard, I’d have no qualms about reconsidering my opinions on Z’s honesty.
That’s them filling in the details, then they want to accuse us of fantasy and making shit up.
Again, this is where the stereotypes come in.
Perplexing.
Okay then…
What proof, in your opinion, would be needed?
Beyond reasonable doubt.
Yes… although “wonderful” isn’t the reaction lawyers usually get for revealing their profession. 
Zimmerman’s police call recordings would go towards establishing his state of mind, and would be sufficient to show the existence of his ill will or malice towards the victim (sufficient legally – it would still be up to the jury to decide one way or another, obviously). His objectively baseless decision to classify Martin, on sight, as a criminal and wrongdoer (“fucking punk”, to use Zimmerman’s own admitted interpretation of the statement) and to interpret Martin’s behavior in an unjustified criminal light (i.e., Zimmerman’s assuption that Martin was wrongfully running (sorry, “skipping”) away to evade arrest (“they always get away”), rather than out of fear), would be enough to establish his subjective ill will. He thought Martin was a criminal – he had actively hostile feelings towards the victim at the time of the fatal encounter.
Also for purposes of either a manslaughter or a murder charge, Zimmerman’s willingness to interpret Martin’s behavior as threatening and criminal, on the basis of actions that would not be interpreted by a reasonable person to be either of those things, shows Zimmerman’s mindset at the time of the shooting. Because Zimmerman, during the recorded police call, wrongfully assumed Martin was engaged in criminal behavior on the basis of innocuous actions, it makes Zimmerman’s belief that Martin was engaged in criminal behavior before or during the altercation more questionable. We know Zimmerman was willing to perceive a threat on the basis of very flimsy evidence – so the “threat” that caused him to shoot in self-defense might not have been objectively reasonable.
This is what some of you keep on saying, but what does this mean in this context?
I am hoping** Bricker **and our guest Jiha can chime in here.
Although I am not a lawyer, I actually voiced many of your views.
I said wonderful because there are people on this thread how are convinced that Zimmerman did NOTHING WRONG AND NOTHING ILLEGAL that night and that he should and will be acquitted. They feel that charging him would be a grave injustice. They further feel that since Martin didn’t get home soon enough that he contributed to his own death. They feel that Zimmerman was "viciously attacked’ because Martin was conceivably offended (because he was a black male) that Zimmerman would “ask” (gently like Snow White) what he was doing in the neighborhood.
This is mind-boggling to me. They cling to this. I am glad that there is someone with a dissenting view. You have a couple people here with who want to dominate this thread with the mantra of :“Zimmerman did nothing illegal and should be acquitted”. I think they are full of crap.
There are people on this thread who aren’t making such base and bigoted arguments–they simply say there isn’t enough to charge him–they aren’t defaming Martin, but they are making a strictly legal argument.
**
I can actually respect that**, but I disagree.
according to you: "But if someone who came up to me yelling like that (as relayed by DeeDee), yeah, that might do it. I think (3) and (4) can be established (IMO, correct me if I am wrong).
Dee Dee said Martin told her he was right by his house and he was the one who started the conversation. By Martin’s own commentary he is not in view of Zimmerman who by the evidence of the flashlight shows he’s still at T intersection when the fight starts.
Martin has to come to Zimmerman. There is no other logical explanation and barring evidence to the contrary Zimmerman’s testimony stands.
So based on your statement you would have shot Martin for approaching you or at least attacked him.
I’ve repeatedly said Zimmerman should be believed as far as his statements are supported by the evidence. What you seem to be saying is that, even if his statements are supported by the evidence, we should disbelieve him, as he’s lied about other things. This seems absurd to me, just as absurd as believing everything without question would be.
What I’ve also said is that all of Zimmerman’s statements, whether you believe them or not, are evidence. His claim that Martin attacked him is evidence of that. Not proof, but evidence.
I would be on the side of you being judged according to the laws in place, and the evidence available. I would be against you being judged by spurious moral judgements drawn from baseless speculation.
Not really, no. Certainly not at any level that would be admissible. I was speculating about the likelihood of particular scenarios, and made it clear I didn’t think it was directly relevant to the case.
I don’t recall mentioning anything to do with Martin saying anything… what’s all this about?
Again, I don’t have the same interpretation of the evidence you do. I feel that things Zimmerman said (EVIDENCE)–Zimmerman’s statements to the police and the non-emergency call lead me to believe he is full of shit. Furthermore, they lead me to believe that he should be held criminally liable.
As for the first bolded statement, you completely missed the point. But that’s fine.
Witness or confession, basically. Without one of these, there’s no way to know if there were verbal threats made, on either side.
It’s been repeatedly explained to you that it doesn’t work like that. Firstly, those statements are backed up by the physical evidence, and secondly if you disbelieve them all you may do is disregard them, not assume the opposite.
Correct, based on the current evidence he did nothing wrong or illegal.
Incorrect. Martin was free to do whatever the hell he wanted except to assault someone.
The evidence shows he was attacked. Cite that anyone suggested Zimmerman asked gently like Snow white.
It’s mind boggling that you can ignore the reality that Martin assaulted Zimmerman and had to go out of his way to do it. There is absolutely no reason for Martin to travel back in the direction he came from except to deliberately confront Zimmerman.
Ok then. Let me play along.
Let’s disregard what I disbelieve.
His story about how he came into contact with Martin.
His story about the mechanics of the struggle and how it unfolded.
His story about what he did after he hung up from the non-emergency call.
His story about what Martin supposedly said to him.
What’s left?
Zimmerman going to prison.
And I just want to say something…
So we have two lawyers on this thread who believe that the prosecution has the material for either a manslaughter or second-degree murder charge.
What do you make of this?
Zimmerman’s actions regarding his interpretation of Martin’s behavior was to call the police. We literally have a running commentary of him trying to keep Martin in sight while he navigates the police to the area. He is on record as agreeing to the dispatcher to stop following him and you can hear the wind die down on the phone in response to this agreement. His stated intentions are to meet the police and he has followed the instructions given him up to this point. At no point is Zimmerman directly chasing Martin.
At the time of the shooting he was on the short end of a beating that we can at least partially time with the audio from a 911 call. All the injuries are on him. We know from Martin’s commentary that he was not in visual sight of Zimmerman and somewhere hear his house. We know from his commentary that he engaged Zimmerman in conversation. We know from his call to Dee Dee that Zimmerman challenged his presence in the neighborhood.
the perceived threat by Martin to grab his gun is justified by the ongoing actions of Martin.