Sure. Hey. It worked for OJ, so he’s got that going for him.
Absent an actual cite to back up anything you’ve said this is what you post. You are a walking pile of emotional babble and can’t construct a single coherent argument. It’s all waffle. You think he’s guilty and that’s all you’ve got to work with.
I think he fucked up. I think he is responsible for Martin’s death and he should be held responsible for Martin’s death. But I will not be the least bit surprised when he walks; he already has the benefit of the doubt in Florida with all their retarded, “Don’t worry, you can shoot people if you really have to” laws.
the person who fucked up is Martin. He beat someone. It’s a crime. If you don’t agree that you’re allowed to defend yourself that’s your opinion but it’s not the law.
The evidence indicates Martin went out of his way to confront Zimmerman.
Bullshit. Only in your mind.
On the other hand, if by “the evidence” you mean, “that’s what Zimmerman said, and Martin’s dead so he can’t refute it,” then I got nothing.
Well, yes.
It’s not true that “Legal Gun Owners Can Do No Wrong,” of course. But other than that, the fact that he put himself in that situation doesn’t create criminal culpability for him. You say “a shred of responsibility.” There are many levels of responsibility – moral responsibility, civil responsibility, and criminal responsibility.
Which one are you arguing? It’s very confusing to simply mention “responsibility,” because most readers will agree Zimmerman has at least moral culpability for Martin’s death – if he had stayed in his truck, the boy would be alive. But that doesn’t transform his actions into criminal ones.
Which kind of responsibility did you mean?
Several of your posts seem to express discomfort at the fact that we’re not treating Martin and Zimmerman equally. This one does; so does this:
What you don’t seem to be internalizing is: yes. That’s what happens with a criminal defendant. He gets special treatment in a trial. Some evidence that’s perfectly acceptable to bring up against the victim can’t be used against the accused. The accused has more rights at a criminal trial than his victim does, especially if his victim is dead. The defense can bring up prior bad acts of the victim with only minimal foundation; prior bad acts of the accused are sharply limited.
That’s the way the criminal justice system works.
That, in my mind, would depend if Zimmerman did something to provoke Martin to attack him. If not, Martin has sole responsibility for his own death. If he did, but that provocation was not enough to legally allow Martin to defend himself (as there’s no provocation that allows one to start an attack) then they share moral responsibility.
I don’t quite agree. If we’re talking about moral responsibility, it seems that the man with a gun should know not to place himself in situations in which the gun will be his only way to save himself. Sure, Martin should not have attacked him – but Martin was armed with fists, and presumably reacting to his own perception of danger.
It’s kind of like asking you if you got a good deal on your last car, and then asking the dealer: both of you may be quite happy with your deal, but only the dealer KNOWS how good the deal was. Here, both Zimmerman and Martin courted a violent encounter; only Zimmerman knew it had the realistic likelihood of being a deadly one.
Add that to their ages: Zimmerman an adult; Martin a youngster. Sorry, but when assessing moral culpability, the lion’s share is with Zimmerman.
It’s that presumption, that Martin was fighting because he believed he was in danger, that I consider not just unproven but not in any way supported by the evidence. I don’t see any reason to think that Zimmerman expected, or could reasonably have been expected to predict, that his actions would lead to him needing to use his gun.
If Zimmerman courted a violent encounter, he bears some responsibility, possibly all. I don’t see any reason to believe he did.
That’s nonsense. 17 year olds are fully capable of taking responsibility for their actions, and had this case played out differently, Martin could have been charged with assault. Unless you want to claim that he can be legally responsible for his actions, but not morally?
Zimmerman is morally responsible for his actions, and the reasonably predictable consequences thereof. He’s not responsible if Martin chose to double back and attack him.
inorite?
What about following someone who you think may be armed and up to no good could possibly end up being dangerous?
Who in their right mind could see that going sideways?
The purpose of carrying a gun is to defend oneself if attacked. There are no presumptions of responsibility to avoid unknown attacks. In fact, the presumption is that you carry it just for that purpose. Nowhere in the encounter did Martin indicate he would put Zimmerman in a situation in which a gun would be needed.
Yeah, good thing he stopped doing that before he found him.
Seriously, if Zimmerman had followed Martin, caught up to him, and started the confrontation this would be a good point. But he didn’t.
Then you acknowledge that there was a fight, one where Martin was attackin and hurting Zimmerman for an extended period of time?
Good, that’s one objective out of the way.
Now, as you’ll find with most modern assault (or greater) related cases, if someone is no longer a threat, incapacitated or the situation is under control, then continuing the violence is considered unncessary and can see you charged.
If Martin was overwhelming Zimmernan than why did he continue hitting him? We didn’t he just say something like ‘that’s what you get for following me…’ and then get up and run away?
Actually, any girl stupid enough to put on a miniskirt and goto a frat party drunk, where the ratio of boys to girls is 10:1, does deserve it - for being so stupid as to think it was a good idea.
Don’t put yourself in bad situations unnecessarily and things in life generally tend to work out fine.
It may depend on whether you believe that someone driving on a rainy night who wanted to see a street sign would get out of their car in the middle of the block instead of driving to the intersection.
It may also depend on whether or not you realize that GZ had to go back to his vehicle to retrieve at least his keys.
Given the set of assumptions you may be using, your conclusion may be entirely valid.
that never happened. what are you talking about? He got out of his car to see where Martin went? Prove that he didn’t look for a street sign when he got out of the car or that he wasn’t chasing after Martin to see where he went. Seriously, cite something. He clearly states his purpose for exiting the car on the phone and he’s clearly trying to direct the police to a street he doesn’t know the name of.
This is a truly stupid argument to make on your part.
How do you know he didn’t and George said, “Fuck that,” and shot him. Oh, right, Saint Zimmerman assured us it was all Martin’s fault.
Thank you for proving my point.
By the way, Martin didn’t put himself in a bad situation. He was walking home from a store. Zimmerman put him in a bad situation when he got out of his car with his gun to make sure one of those punk-assholes doesn’t get away again.
Or are you going to go off on another flight of fancy about how Martin might have really been a secret serial killer stalking old women watching TeeVee.
cite the evidence for this. Oh that’s right, you can’t.
He was done walking home from the store 2 minutes before the fight began. All he had to do was open the door to his house and walk in. He HAD to walk back to Zimmerman based on both of their accounts. HAD TO. There is no other explanation for where the altercation took place. Zimmerman was in plain sight talking on his phone.
Martin went out of his way to confront Zimmerman and then went on to beat him viciously.
Because then the gunshot wound that killed Martin would not have been a near-contact wound from less than eight inches away.
No, for the reason above.
As has been pointed out several times, the prosecution must disprove Zimmerman’s self-defense claim. “How do you know he didn’t” is not proof, especially when the evidence shows he didn’t.
Walking home from a store didn’t put him in a bad situation. Coming back from his father’s girlfriend’s condo, and then attacking Zimmerman, put him in a bad situation.
You are leaving off the part that made the situation turn bad - where Martin attacked Zimmerman, punched him in the face, broke his nose and blackened his eyes, and then sat on his chest bashing his head against the ground.
Regards,
Shodan
Round we go with the Martin double back to specifically attack the guy he was running away from bullshit.