Back to your theory of the crime: so, has Martin gone into hiding after Zimmerman lost sight of him?
Fuck sakes.
Zimmerman was at point A. Martin was at point B. Martin was killed at point B. Did Martin drag Zimmerman behind the houses before he started pummeling him or something?
Fucking Zimmerman went after Martin. He had his gun. And, darn the luck, looks like he had to use it.
Now I anxiously look forward to the Gish gallop this thread has become about how angel-in-training Zimmerman just wanted to ask robo-thug Martin some innocent questions.
You seem oddly reluctant to deal in specifics or account for the evidence…
Three minutes elapse between Zimmerman telling the dispatcher he’d lost sight of Martin, and the first 911 call to report the fight.
So, it’s your theory that in that three minutes, Martin ran a very short distance south down the sidewalk, and stopped and waited for Zimmerman?
When Zimmerman was at the top of the T he could not see Martin and Martin could not see him. Martin was 300 feet away by his father’s house. What don’t you understand about this? Seriously? Martin had to go out of his way to confront Zimmerman.
Damn Martin’s luck that someone he was assaulting was able to defend themselves. You know the solution to that? Don’t beat the fuck out of people as a hobby.
Zimmerman was part of a neighborhood watch. Watching is what people do in a neighborhood watch. My neighbor’s have called the police on people on my property and I’ve done the same. I’ve stopped 3 burglaries in progress which resulted in the arrest of 2 people. What Zimmerman did was legal and proper. What Martin did was criminal and immoral and it cost him his life.
I agree with this – not to the extent that it creates a crime, mind you, but in the discussion of who should have done what as a responsible individual… Zimmerman was armed. He needed to exercise more vigilance than an unarmed person in every thing he did.
Why do you suppose Neighborhood Watch rules forbid their participants to carry firearms?
And let me remind readers: I am a lifetime NRA member, a handgun owner, and a concealed-carry handgun permit owner.
I disagree with this. The whole purpose of legally carrying a gun is to defend yourself if the need arises. It does not carry restrictions of travel based on what might happen. It’s sole purpose is “what might happen”. You’re espousing something close to rape victim mentality. She shouldn’t have gone to that bar because of the possibility she would be raped.
Twice Zimmerman avoided direct confrontation. Once in the truck and again when he followed the instructions of the Dispatcher. His behavior was one of observation, not confrontation.
for liability reasons.
That’s fine but it doesn’t explain your position. Zimmerman stopped his pursuit at the request of the Dispatcher. Martin was already gone at this point but that put more distance between them. You can make the point that the initial pursuit would have added to the likelihood that Zimmerman would catch up to him but that point was mitigated by his actions.
What would be hilarious is if the jury never hears all this crazy madness about Martin attacking Zimmerman because he opts not to take the stand.
Crazy madness? There’s not a scratch on Martin. Zimmerman shows sign of attack. Explain how Martin finds himself at the T intersection after having said he was at his father’s house.
Minor point - Police departments that train neighborhood watch volunteers advise volunteers never to carry weapons. Zimmerman broke no FLA laws because he has a concealed-weapons permit. PD’s also suggest that volunteers do not confront anyone. I don’t believe the SPD can “forbid” volunteers from carrying their legally-owned and permitted weapons.
As far as I know, the Twin Oaks NW doesn’t belong to any state or national NW organization but did recieve training from the Sanford PD. However, GZ wasn’t on NW the night he was attacked by and shot TM. GZ was running a personal errand when he saw a suspicious person and called police.
I would hope the jury will hear the evidence no matter if Zimmerman takes the stand or not. Since all the evidence tends to show that Martin did in fact attack Zimmerman, that scenario is going to be suggested to their minds no matter what.
What they are less like to hear about is crazy madness about Zimmerman attacking Martin, because there is no real evidence of that.
Regards,
Shodan
Martin had a hole blasted into his chest and you talk about scratches?
I can’t wait for this trial to start.
TM should have kept his street-fighting hands to himself and he “might” be alive today. Unless he tried to assault another FLA permitted firearms carrier.
If Z’s intention was to track down Trayvon with a gun, why would he call the cops?
Yes, I talk about scratches and any other indication that Zimmerman assaulted Martin. The purpose of a concealed weapon is for protection. The only indication of assault is that of Martin against Zimmerman. It’s clear from the evidence that the gun shot occurred following the beating. It was self defense unless there is evidence to the contrary that we haven’t seen yet. Do you have such evidence?
Zimmerman is the only one who can testify that Martin did what he claimed. If he doesn’t take the stand, the defense will be unable to argue that the shooting was justified.
You have a guy that exited his truck to follow a pedestrian in a dark alleyway, after a sustained period of pursuit.
The pedestrian ends up dead by the guy’s gun.
There is zero evidence that the pedestrian had any beef with the guy, but there is evidence that the guy had an issue with the pedestrian.
The guy had minor cuts on his head that didn’t even require dressing, let alone stitches.
The guy outweighed the pedestrian by 40 lbs and was armed. The pedestrian was unarmed and had nothing in his possession except candy, a beverage can, and a phone he was using seconds before he was killed.
Witnesses asserted that they heard a boy yelling for help immediately before the pedestrian was shot. The pedestrian was a boy. The guy who shot him is not a boy.
These are the inidsputable facts in this case. Everything else is fluff, filler, or uncorroborated. The jury will be presented with these facts and asked to determine if the defendant is guilty of murder. If Zimmerman does not take the stand, the jury will have no valid reason to believe Martin even touched Zimmerman, let alone put him in reasonable fear for his life.
If Zimmerman’s intentions were to kill Martin why didn’t he do it after the first punch in the nose which he was entitled to do?
Not true, there were eye witnesses to the beating and it’s clear who was doing the beating.
There is no “alleyway”. Martin ran to his house by his own admission.
the person doing the assaulting ends up dead. Go figure.
There is evidence that he approached Zimmerman twice and that Martin began the confrontation.
stitches aren’t required to demonstrate a deadly act. I can take a hammer to your head and kill you without creating a wound requiring stitches.
The “pedestrian” was taller, worked out with weights, and had a HOBBY of beating people up. This was his idea of entertainment.
There is no evidence that shows Martin was yelling and not Zimmerman. There is evidence that Zimmerman asked for help.
The undisputable facts are the location it took place in and who was beaten up. The conclusions from the evidence will be that Martin left his house to confront Zimmerman.
I challenge those who think Zimmerman is innocent to supply one indisputable fact–not an opinion, not supposition, not speculation, not a unverified claim–that supports the idea Zimmerman killed Martin lawfully.
I’ll even give you a freebie, even though it’s weak: Its inarguable that the back of Zimmerman’s head was nicked a couple times. Of course, it’s NOT inarguable that Martin inflicted these injuries, which is an important detail if someone is trying to claim self-defense. But he did have some scrapes.
What else is there?
Intentionally deleting text messages is not a good idea.