Yeah, that’s obviously what I believe.
grasping at straws, eh?
Unless you have another reason he attacked Zimmerman, that’s about it.
You are quite correct. He did not stalk him, he did nothing to make him fear for his safety, and he didn’t murder him.
Even if Martin believed that, and even if that belief was reasonable, if he then attacked Zimmerman and put him in fear of death or serious injury, Zimmerman was entitled to defend himself. Even if Zimmerman attacked Martin, as Martin was on top of him, and attacking him at the time, Zimmerman was entitled to defend himself. With lethal force if necessary (the latter being an important word in that particular case, although as there’s exactly zero evidence that Zimmerman attacked Martin, it’s unlikely to matter.
That’s the only conclusion I can draw, as you’ve provided no evidence that Zimmerman did anything wrong whatsoever, let alone something that would justify Martin attacking him in the way he did (not that I can think of anything that would justify such an attack).
I’ll make this clear, as I’ve done numerous times in this thread, in case you haven’t read it.
Zimmerman was perfectly entitled to consider Martin’s behaviour suspicious, and to call the police.
He was perfectly entitled to follow him, with or without a concealed weapon, on foot or in a vehicle, and to approach him and ask him what he’s doing, or stay back and simply watch him. Anyone is entitled to do that to anyone else, unless there’s a specific reason not to, such as a restraining order, and doing so does not constitute a threat to the other person.
It is, of course, possible that he made some form of threat in addition to his following, but the onus is on the person making that claim to supply the evidence. As yet, despite many people making that claim, not one piece of evidence has been shown.
And, of course, he was perfectly entitled to shoot and kill Martin.
You may not like the laws that allow such things to happen. The correct response to that is to campaign for them to be changed, not to slander Zimmerman and say he should be punished despite being innocent of any crime.
Yup. That sums it up.
They don’t care about what led up to it…they feel that that legally doesn’t matter. 
They feel Martin had no right to “hurt” Zimmerman–regardless. All Zimmerman did was “ask” Martin a question.
Yes, they are using the “angry black kid” reasoning. Apparently Martin was offended Zimmerman “asked him a question” (rather than being frightened or scared). Mind you, they have no evidence he was offended, but they push this narrative.
Welcome to the club.
That’s entirely correct. All cases of shooting someone to death are not murder, so the definition of murder does not include that.
As far as self defence goes, it doesn’t. What matters is his state of mind at the point he fired the shot, and if that state of mind was reasonable.
No, I don’t “feel” that. Not that “feelings” matter when we’re discussing guilty or innocent, or right or wrong, facts matter.
The only evidence we have for the contact between Martin and Zimmerman is that Martin questioned Zimmerman, then he responded.
Nope. I neither know nor care why Martin attacked Zimmerman, all I know is that we have no reason to think he was justified in doing so (mainly because there’s nothing that could justify that sort of attack). His state of mind, his race, or his age are irrelevant.
Once again, you are outright lying. No-one has made this argument. The reason we haven’t is that, as you say, there is no evidence for it. Just because you get your kicks making ridiculous assertions for which there are no evidence, and presenting them as fact, doesn’t mean the rest of us do.
Zimmerman was sitting in his parked truck*, talking to the dispatcher, and what does Martin see? Someone on the telephone. Doesn’t it make you a little suspicious that Martin was frightened by a telephone? If Martin approached the vehicle that doesn’t imply fear. Wouldn’t you be suspicious of someone walking up to your vehicle, while you were on the phone than running away?
*why didn’t Martin run away before approaching Zimmerman? you can hear the doors being locked when Zimmerman states Trayvon is coming to check him out, implying Z is the one scared.
Yeah, Martin wasn’t afraid for his safety, which is why he ran and hid, because he wasn’t afraid. Makes perfect sense; through the application of logic we have reached a conclusion that can only be questioned by the irrational.
And then he attacked Zimmerman, not because he thought he was in a fight for his life, but because he was a black teenager, and black teenagers randomly attack white men who ask them questions. More logic.
Yes, through the application of logic, we have concluded that Martin ran and hid, not because he was afraid, but because he thought the armed white man with the shaved head who was slowly following him late at night wanted to play hide-and-seek.
And then Martin atacked Zimmerman because Zimmerman, rather than taking his turn in the game of hide-and-seek they had going on, wanted to play 20 questions instead!
Hey, definition question for you; my dictionary has the following sample sentence; “The traffic was murder.” Could you do me a favor and let me know in which states this would meet the legal definition of murder (so that I don’t continue to misuse the word)? Thanks so much.
Since you are not a trained investigator, you’re telling us that your interpretations of the evidence are worthless? Thanks, but that was clear long ago for different reasons.
[QUOTE=Evil Economist]
Since I am not a member of the court, I am not required to use the narrow legal definition of words in my everyday speech, so I will call Zimmerman whatever I damn well please. In this case I will call him a murdering asshole.
[/QUOTE]
And since you apparently believe the distinction between murder and self-defense is a technicality and a nitpick, the value of your opinion can be judged accordingly.
Martin wasn’t afraid for his safety, which is why he doubled back to attack Zimmerman, because he wasn’t afraid. Dee Dee reports Martin as being right next to his father’s girlfriend’s house. If Martin were in genuine fear of being asked what he was up to, all he had to do was continue inside. But, he chose not to.
There is no indication that Martin thought he was in a fight for his life.
I have no idea how common it is for black teenagers to attack Hispanic neighborhood watch captains. This one apparently did.
It wasn’t random, but you know that.
Regards,
Shodan
Since he could have got to the house he was staying at, after losing sight of Zimmerman, but instead lay in wait for him, no, I don’t think we can conclude he was afraid.
Stop with the accusations of racism. I’m not racist, Zimmerman’s not racist, and neither, judging by their posts, is anyone else in this thread.
It doesn’t matter what “black teenagers” in general do or don’t do. It matters what Martin did or didn’t do. He didn’t go home. He did attack Zimmerman. The why isn’t particularly relevant.
That’s actually slightly more reasonable than most of what betenoire or you with the face have posted. You’ll still have to offer evidence to back up your otherwise unfounded speculation.
Oh, that’s how you meant it. You meant Zimmerman was a pain in the arse, and there was me thinking you meant he illegally, and with malice aforethought, killed Martin.
You must admit, it’s an easy mistake to make.
It was a rhetorical question.
No, I find it shocking that
[QUOTE=Hbns]
How hard was it raining?
[/QUOTE]
Got sidetracked so badly.
You were on a mission to prove a point once I questioned why you answered after making the statement:
[QUOTE=youwiththeface]
betenoir is not an criminologist, so his opinion on these questions don’t matter.
[/QUOTE]
As an epidemiologist (AKA disease detective), I’m trained in evidence collection and interpretation, so I am qualified to properly evaluate certain kinds of evidence. But OMG, there’s some evidence that I’m limited in my capabilities to interpret! There’s no shame in me admitting that; why can’t everyone?
Some folks in this thread seem to think as long as they have two eyes and computer, they can take one look at a file and authoritatively draw conclusions from it, regardless of what that file is. Which is why they can’t see the silliness in them declaring there is no evidence for murder, as if they know better than the professional experts who have spent hours pouring through reams of data, reports, videos, witness statements, and photographs.
From this point on I’ll just assume that everything you’re writing is rhetorical and not worth responding to. This will save us both grief.
I meant it in the way it is defined in every dictionary I have ever seen. How unusual. Though I will admit it might be impolite to use a word in its generally accepted sense in the same thread where a murderer’s apologists are trying to excuse the murder of a teenager by insisting on a particular narrow legal definition of that word.
Yes!
He wasn’t scared of the angry-looking armed shaved-head white man who had been stalking him down the streets late at night in the rain. He wasn’t bravely avoiding leading the creepy armed stalker away from the house where his girlfriend and father were staying. He wasn’t lost late at night in the rain in an unfamiliar neighborhood full of cookie-cutter houses after being stalked by a scary armed creep.
No, he was laying a trap.
He knew the police had told Zimmerman to get out of his car to chase down the suspect, and Trayvon took advantage of this to turn the tables on his stalker so that he could get in a fistfight with the large man with the gun.
Isn’t logic wonderful?
Please cite a dictionary that lists one definition of “murder” as “killing in self defence”. The word, in common parlance, means “killing illegally and with malice aforethought”. It doesn’t mean killing by accident, or by reckless actions, or by deliberate actions that one couldn’t reasonably assume would lead to death, or even a spur of the moment intentional killing. All of those things are different things, and have different names, and different moral and legal values.
I’m sorry life’s to complicated for you.
Stop with the silly strawmanning, and state your case, and your evidence for it.
Yes, it really is. Try it sometime.
Agreed. 
You sure don’t show it.
That, you certainly do show.
The limitation seems to be that you cannot “interpret” anything except to say “the black person is innocent”. You did the same thing in the “Lying Whore” thread. Guess what? You were wrong. The black person wasn’t innocent; she was lying thru her teeth. The white guys weren’t guilty (except for Nifong).
It’s like this weird shit you keep trying to pull to say that Zimmerman’s nose wasn’t broken. It was broken. It was. That has been proven over and over. Martin punched Zimmerman in the face and broke his nose.
[QUOTE=Evil Economist]
He wasn’t bravely avoiding leading the creepy armed stalker away from the house where his girlfriend and father were staying.
[/quote]
Avoiding leading anyone away? What are you talking about?
[ul][li]Martin’s girlfriend didn’t live with him. That’s why he was talking to her on the phone.[/li][li]Martin made no mention, nor is there any other evidence, that he knew Zimmerman was armed.[/li][li]Martin didn’t avoid leading Zimmerman anywhere. When he told Dee Dee that he was right next to where he was staying, he said he had already “lost” Zimmerman. So Zimmerman couldn’t follow him home. [/li]
So, as mentioned, Martin is home. He’s safe - no one is following him, and there is no way for anyone to follow him home. Yet he doubles back and attacks Zimmerman. [/ul]
That’s correct - he wasn’t lost. He was able to make it back home without hesitation or mistake.
How would you know?
Regards,
Shodan
What? This can’t possibly be accurate.
Oh, it is rhetorical. :smack: