If I ended up shooting one of those people, I imagine I would be charged with a crime.
Anyway, it’s not my logic, as you put it. You asked for evidence. Now it’s up to the jury to consider its logic.
If Martin had “brought the situation” to Zimmerman, they would have found his body out in the street – you know, where Zimmerman was – rather than behind the houses.
For the life of me, I don’t understand the disconnect. Zimmerman was in his car in the street. Martin was shot behind the houses. I ask for the thousandth time: how is that Martin bringing it to Zimmerman?
TM lured GZ into TM’s trap 
You didn’t answer me…
Definitely. For “following”.
If your view is that once Zimmerman’s foot touched pavement, anything that followed was morally his responsibility, then that’s fine. Morals are a personal, subjective thing.
But to me, the details matter. If Zimmerman ran to the T, lost sight of Martin, and gave up any pursuit, and then Martin left the safety he’d fled to, having lost Zimmerman and aware of that fact, in order to come back and confront and punch Zimmerman, then to me Zimmerman isn’t the one to blame.
Did it happen that way? I don’t know for certain, nor does anyone else, even Zimmerman himself to some degree.
“Movies”? What do “movies” have to do with “justified use of deadly force” in Florida?
I’m sick of that friggin … “yeah, but,” argument from Zimmie’s defenders. Fuck sakes, Zimmerman by virtue of being a sterling little angel and lawful gun owner has pretty much *no *responsibility regarding what he does with his precious little problem solver in the eyes of those who don’t even think that a dead kid in a back yard even warrants a friggin’ trial. It’s sickening.
What warrants a trial is probable cause to believe a crime was committed and a good-faith belief that during the trial you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime was committed.
You don’t agree with that, I don’t think. You seem to think that a dead kid in a back yard warrants a trial, pretty much automatically.
Is that true?
Since we’re sharing, I’m sick of three attitudes in particular:
-
That a poster’s totally unprovable, completely speculative narrative of what happened can be freely substituted for reality for purposes of either moral judgement or the legal system.
-
That Martin, in those narratives in which Zimmerman doesn’t track down and try to tackle him, couldn’t be expected not to punch someone when “annoyed”, to borrow septimus’s term. Had it not been made clear that all the racists were supposedly on Team Zimmerman, I might even suspect racism to be behind the idea that young black men have such a violent nature that they can’t hope to contain.
-
That anyone who doesn’t accept 1 or 2 above is on “Team Zimmerman”, a uniform crew of immoral zealots with interchangeable thoughts and opinions that hate black people, worship guns, blah blah blah, and are an Other that all right-thing people should hate unreservedly.
DD testified that TM was at his daddy’s fiance house. That’s over 100 yds away from the “T”. How did TM travel 100 yds back to the area of the final confrontation? Do you think GZ dragged TM back or did GZ carry TM?
Have I told you lately how much I love you?
No because there was plenty of probably cause in this case. Don’t just look at the rhetoric and decide I’m presenting a law brief.
Here’s more bullshit. You want to pretend that Martin was practically standing on his father’s front porch based on “he said he was back near his father’s house” which I interpret to mean he was back in his father’s neighborhood.
And isn’t it amazing that that’s pretty much the only thing that came out of DD’s mouth that you believe as though it was handed down by Yahweh himself?
The jury wasn’t in the courtroom during this exchange. The judge may be pissed but the jury has no idea it occured.
I agree that once the investigation was completed, there was probable cause.
I’m not sure I agree there was good-faith belief that guilt could be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
If you were to learn that politicians, like the mayor or the governor, applied pressure to charge Zimmerman regardless of a good-faith belief that guilt could be proved, would that bother you at all?
I ask because your rhetoric seems approving of such a decision. It seems you’re saying that the moral wrongness of Zimmerman’s actions justify the legal consequences – as opposed to the law itself.
Do you believe that, or am I reading wrongly between the lines?
Human action, ...isnt self confession wonderful? So freeing, and cleansing....:cool:
My rhetoric was aimed directly aimed at the “Why was Zimmerman even arrested?” crowd.
I’m not going to play these games with you Bricker. You’ve even agreed with me that you feel Zimmerman was morally culpable for Martin’s death. The law as it stands? Yeah, it’s a piece of shit and Zimmie will probably be home polishing his toys by this weekend - but that doesn’t make it right.
Why don’t you quote a post of mine where I’ve done that?
The attitude that people need to “prove” that you don’t end up with a bloody nose and a shaving cut after being pummeled in the face 30 times by a physically fit 17 year old male, or that Trayvon Martin wasn’t a dragon, or that people who patrol neighborhoods with 3 streets in them tend to know the names of those streets, or multiple other things that you seem to think are “completely speculative” is equally if not more sickening.