That was from his trial testimony.
Me either. I’m not saying she ought to write a book and certainly not that I’ll buy it, just that there’s nothing wrong with it. In general, I kind of like it when jurors talk about their deliberations because it’s one thing nobody really knows much about (including lawyers).
By the way, Ibn Warraq, Martin’s friend, DeeDee, claimed, both on the stand and just today in an interview, that Martin thought Zimmerman was a “rapist”. Or, if you prefer, suspected it. Wouldn’t you say that Martin first racially “profiled” Zimmerman as a “cracker” (explicitly, I must say) and then incorrectly “profiled” him as a “rapist”?
“Walking around and looking about” and “looking at houses” when “it was raining.” Based on that “it looks like he’s (Martin’s) up to no good.”
Got a question been gnawing for some time. When did Martin first find out that Z was armed? We are told he carried his holster on his hip, towards the back. Not directly visible, but perzackly hidden either. Z says he tried to grab the gun, so that testifies that Martin knew it was there, but not when he found out about it. If, of course, Z is telling the truth.
If someone is approaching you, or following you and you are suspicious and uneasy about them, call that DefCon 4. Finding out they are armed, that’s at least DefCon 2. AAARRoooooga! AAAARRooooooga!
(There’s some personal experience in this appraisal, and my reactions may not be universal. Bet its pretty darned close.)
Doesn’t seem like anybody asked that question of Z. And I wonder why.
Zimmerman couldn’t have testified about when Martin discovered he was armed. He has no personal knowledge of what Martin knew.
This is exactly what I said in 2012 when asked, on this very board.
And not that I’d expect him to tell the truth if it were disadvantageous. Just wondering why nobody asked.
See, if Martin thinks he being followed by some ordinary white guy with hostile feelings, that’s one thing. If he knows that guy has a gun, that’s a whole different kettle of piranha, isn’t it?
Actually, it seems that Martin’s belief that Zimmerman was a “creepy-ass cracker” was proven correct.
I swear, Bricker, sometimes I think you would take a beating better than you take a joke.
(Punch line being I’m pretty much in agreement with that post. Could have said it better, of course, but not different in any substantial way.)
Do poor black people commit more violent crime than poor white people?
Yeah. Self defense is an affirmative defense which (IIRC) means you have to prove it. He doesn’t get the benefit of the doubt (or at least thats the way I remember it) when it comes to proving self defense, he’s got to convince the jury that it was self defense, the prosecution doesn’t have to prove it wasn’t self defense. I don’t think that an acquital was a foregone conclusion and I think that Jesse Jackson Jr. suspects that a jury might have found a charge of self defense more belivable because the dead guy was a young black man, even though the guy claiming self defense was the one with a gun.
Thats an awful lot of smoke if there isn’t any fire. And now we’ve got a dead teenage black boy to add more smoke.
This is a very micro case of history being written by the victors.
“Sinanju training enables one to…dodge bullets (even at point-blank range)…and bring a woman to the heights of sexual ecstasy.” -wikipedia
Gunbroker is the ebay of guns.
Reasonable doubt /= any reason to doubt.
Besides the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove an affirmative defense. He is absolutely guilty of killing that boy, he has to prove it was self defense.
He still ignored the dispatcher and bad things happened. Doesn’t make him a bloodthirsty murderer but he created a situation that became lethal. That boy was walking home, he wasn’t bothering anyone (unless just being a young black man is bothersome). He wasn’t some big black thug with a hair trigger like the conservative media wants you to believe.
Martin was about 5 inches taller and 10 pounds lighter than Zimmerman. Not that this doesn’t mean self defense is not possible but some of the pictures that have been floating around have just been random scary looking black guys.
Would you say he didn’t act reasonably? In the tort sense?
Sure you can concoct a story that portrays Zimmerman playing the defensive role, you could just as easily craft a story about this loose cannon Zimmerman (a guy with a history of violence) who took the law into his own hands one night to try and detain a young black man at gunpoint and when the young black man (in fear for his life) attacks Zimmerman, gets shot. If it wasn’t for his history of violence, I would probably go with your story. The fact that he has a bunch of mug shots that his detractors could choose from (from earlier in his life when he was bigger and in better shape), makes me believe your version a lot less.
I certainly don’t think Zimmerman clearly presented a preponderance of the evidence
It’s also apparently his right, by the state of Florida, to murder an unarmed teenager in cold blood simply because he wanted to and it’s idiots like you who’ll believe his version of events. If those are “facts,” I’ll leave you and your fellow apologists to them. As for your drooling bullshit, I’m done. I have no time to waste on those who are so incredibly stupid.
How could the evidence show that Zimmerman was shouting things at Martin if there were no witnesses? Oh wait, let’s just take the murderer’s word on what happened. Surely none of what he has to say will be self-serving.
Jesus Christ you people are pathetic.
See, I’m not explicitly calling YOU pathetic, rather I’m suspecting you of being pathetic.
Hey, I kind of like how that lunacy works in fantasy land.
Oh, man! Jon Oliver on The Daily Show just Pitted Florida hard enough to cook the oranges!
Not according to Florida law.
Not according to Florida law.
Not according to Florida law.
I think he did but it’s irrelevant. He didn’t have to.
smashed his head?:dubious: I’ve seen heads that were smashed against sheetrock (a decidedly softer material) and the back of the guy’s head had more than a few scratches.
No we don’t we have no idea who started the altercation. Was it the mall ninja with the gun and a history of violence, or was it the black male?
It is unreasonable to act the way he did and I suspect a civil jury will agree with me.
I suspect Zimmerman wouldn’t have left his truck to confront a scary black guy without the gun. But it was unreasonable for him to follow the kid and unreasonable for him to get out of his truck to pursue the kid on foot.
There’s no evidence either way, other than Zimmerman’s testimony which contains more than a few inconsistencies.
Or you could try not inserting yourself into situations like that in the first place. A situation that the police has asked you to stay out of. He may not be criminally liable but I am hoping that he is civilly liable and has to file bankruptcy after the civil lawsuit.
WHAT?!?!? Really? Not that I don’t believe you but you got a cite?
Read the Zimmerman trial jury instructions. Do you need a link?
At a guess, about a half-second before Z pulled the trigger. But only one person knows for certain.
Because the question is largely irrelevant?
If Z was carrying concealed properly, there’s no way M could have known he was being followed/stalked by an armed man.
If Z was carrying concealed improperly and allowed M to become aware of it before the confrontation, why in the hell would M turn back around and physically confront an armed man, barehanded?
Yes, I’ve read/heard the 911 call.
I was wondering in anything else had come out expanding upon those comments.
To add to the circus, what’s with Juror B37??
She’s saying some dumb shit.
Could try and outrun the bullet, I suppose. I lean towards cry like a girl and beg for mercy. But I wouldn’t rule assault out of the question. People do crazy ass shit when they are horny, but nothing like how they behave when they are afraid.
After all, didn’t Z say Martin went for his gun? Seem to remember that. Maybe that was why, knock him down before he could deploy.
Whatever, I guess. I agree the essential facts are as Bricker outlined in his post, and I’ve almost gotten over it.
A whole book on the deliberations? I’d be surprised.
A book on the whole circus, with one chapter as an insiders view of the deliberations - that could work