cite that Trayvon Martin was or is being tarred and feathered by news groups?
Cite the evidence that Zimmerman was an ego-inflated cop-wannabe who thought he had carte blanche to confront whoever the fuck he wants because he has a gun to back him up. Because the evidence shows that when he was confronted by Trayvon he stayed in his car and calmly talked to the dispatcher. The evidence also shows that when the dispatcher asked him not to follow Trayvon he stopped. The evidence also shows that when Zimmerman was initially struck by Trayvon he did not respond by defending himself with his gun (which he was entitled to do). It was only after a considerable beating did Zimmerman shoot Trayvon.
It seems to me that you’ve posted yet another emotional outburst that is completely opposite of what the evidence shows.
You’ve not heard the term, “blaming the victim?” This is a text-book case.
And I believe it is Zimmerman who was responsible for initiating the confrontation by the fact that he didn’t shoot Martin while sitting in the front seat of his car.
All this shit about Martin “bringing it to Zimmerman,” is just that: shit. None of this would have happened if Zimmerman didn’t think he was Dirty Harry.
Martin’s only a victim if Zimmerman committed a crime, and the evidence suggests that he did not.
Interesting…so the fact that Zimmerman got out of his truck is all the evidence you need that he started some sort of aggessive conflict with Martin? Or is there anything else you’re basing this belief on?
Whoah. I missed that one. Martin *confronted *Zimmerman while Zimmerman was sitting in his car? How did he do that? By walking on the same street that Zimmerman was parked on? Or are you subscribing to this ridiculous “Martin stalked laps around Zimmerman’s truck whlie thinking menacing thoughts about him” notion?
Nevertheless, nothing about Zimmerman’s actions gave Martin the right to initiate violence.
Now we can agree that Zimmerman is an asshole and it seems like every neighborhood has one of his type. I’ve encountered them myself many times. As a matter of fact, if I’m in a gated community and no one knows me, I get challenged. The fact that I don’t attack them is why I’m typing this today. Martin was also an asshole, and you know what happens when two assholes start waving their man parts at each other? Someone gets hurt or killed.
Morally, I think they are equally responsible. But legally, Martin initiated the violence. Zimmerman defended himself. Unless the prosecution can prove that Zimmerman provoked the attack by doing something he was not lawfully allowed to do and which would have justified Martin’s response, he’s walking.
Zimmerman is a criminal defendent. Just like any other other criminal defendent. If Martin was on trial for killing Zimmerman, do you think we’d be hearing about Zimmerman’s anger issues; how he assaulted a cop once? Or how he was accused of molesting a relative? No, because victim’s don’t generally get blamed for the crimes that have been committed against them. Unless they’re wearing mini-skirts and were just asking for it, of course.
That’s probably why the judge ruled the evidence inadmissible. Martin is not on trial, Zimmerman is. So you’re right as far as that goes. However, Zimmerman is accused of a crime. The prosecution has to prove their case, and that’s going to be difficult.
Personally, I’ve been in Martin’s shoes, not as a young black man, but as a young man with long hair and looking kinda grungy. Basically, like I do not live in some of the neighborhoods I’ve been in. And people challenge me, most politely(“Can I help you?”), some rudely(“What are you doing here? You know someone here?”) and some just following me from a distance with a cell phone ready to call the cops if I do something more suspicious than walking.
I’ve never reacted in anger or with violence. 99% of people in that situation don’t. Because it’s STUPID.
The defense isn’t blaming Martin for a crime that was committed against him, its position is that Zimmerman didn’t commit a crime at all (a justified homicide is not a crime), and that Martin did. The evidence supports this position.
If Martin were on trial for killing Zimmerman, and he credibly claimed that he did so in self-defense, you’d better believe that Zimmerman’s character and history would come into discussion, and possibly into evidence.
Almost impossible, since there’s no evidence that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation. He certainly would have no intention of confronting Martin, since he wouldn’t have called dispatcher if he did, knowing the first police cruiser passing by answers a call. The police vehicle could have arrived before Z got off the phone. Did they accidentally run into each other? I doubt it.
Personally, I’ve been in Zimmerman’s shoes, not as a self-appointed neighborhood watch captain packing a gun, but I’ve found myself driving through some nice neighborhoods that I’ve lived in and seen black people or people with long hair who looked kind of grungy walking down the street.
I’ve never gotten out of my car to chase one of them behind a few houses in the dark, because that would be STUPID.
Unless of course, I was packing that gun; that would have been a perfectly rational thing to do.
My argument is, if it’s who iniated the confrontation that’s important – then that’s Zimmerman by virtue of the fact that he got out of his truck to specifically go after Martin.
And let me head you off at the pass. He didn’t get out of his truck to go look for a street sign in someone’s back yard, so don’t even try to sell me that one.
Actually, it would be Martin, by virtue of the fact that he attacked Zimmerman and not vice versa. At least as far as the evidence has shown to date. Getting out of a truck is not illegal - assault and battery is.
Because it’s a ridiculous rationalization considering there aren’t generally street signs in back yards, and I heard right on his 911 tape how he got out of his truck to chase down Martin because, "oh shit, he’s running … " or words to that effect.
Let me see. I see you on the street in my neighborhood, at night. I “go after” you and ask you what you’re doing here. In response, you punch me in the face and beat me up. Just take the situation as given, without relating it to the Zimmerman/Martin thing.
Do tell - in the above scenario, who, in your opinion, “initiated the confrontation”? And who, in your opinion, is the “victim”?