Apart from the threat at the end, it’s OK. You don’t have the right to threaten, as I’m doing nothing wrong.
True, some are neutral on it. But feel free to provide the list.
Actually, I do have the right to tell you to back off, and indeed threaten to hit you if you approach me, etc. So basically you’re entirely happy that a reasonable person might well have done everything Martin did right up to when the fight started.
I repeat, slowly for the hard of thinking. The avoidable death of Martin was brought about by the foolhardy actions of Zimmerman. All he had to do was return to his car, identify himself, or even just not leap to the conclusion that a person walking casually in the rain was up to no good. A young man who was doing nothing wrong is dead. It is really quite depressing you and your like can pretend this is a desirable outcome.
And no, it’s not just a case of witnesses agreeing with him or being neutral. And you know that:
“Cutcher and her roommate maintain that their account of the incident to the police did not agree with Zimmerman’s, and they demanded the police issue a retraction.[134]”
“The witness later appeared on CNN AC360 referred to as a female, giving more details on her account. She pointed out that she heard an argument between a younger and an older voice. During the time that she witnessed the incident, the scuffling happened on the grass. She said that the larger man, who walked away after the gunshot, was on top and that it was too dark to see blood on his face.[139”
etc.
Well, now, he said “some were neutral”. Taking “neutral” to mean “not corroborating Z’s account”, we may fairly take the witnesses direct refutation as being “neutral”. And if there are more than one, well, that’s “some”, isn’t it? Explicitly!
But you don’t know why, and never will. How do you know it was a criminal act?
I mean, Zimmerman shot Martin to death, but you seem okay with the fact that, since it cannot be proven to have been a crime, we don’t know for sure that it was.
You always leave out the fact that we can take Zimmerman’s lies, which, if we are the jury, we determine ARE or ARE NOT lies, based on the evidence and reasonable inferences we draw therefrom, and examine them to see if they are around issues which could prove him guilty of unlawfully killing Martin. If they are, we may, if we are the jury, view that as ***evidence itself ***that Zimmerman is aware of his guilt and is deliberately trying to avoid punishment. We cannot convict on that alone, but it definitely counts as evidence of guilt.
Just making sure we don’t forget that extremely crucial reality about defendant credibility.
I don’t really know what weight to give to the issue, but what about Martin’s fear of whites? Especially, armed whites. Not Z, he is, by his own testimony, entirely free of any racial animosity, he only hates punks and assholes.
Is racially derived fear a “reasonable” fear I would wish it were not so, but I have testimony from people who’s opinion I trust that it is a very real fear. Are we allowed to consider that, or are we obliged to dismiss it? And how many of us here believe that race played no part of Z’s suspicions?
Martin “looked like he was on drugs”? How does one look like they are on drugs? From what distance can you detect the tell-tale signs of being high? Twenty yards? Fifty? And he was looking at houses. He was surrounded by houses, yes? What was he to do, stare straight up at the sky, or watch his shoes? Go ahead, walk through a forest and not look at trees.
Did Z not know there were black people living in his neighborhood? Why wasn’t his first thought that Martin was somebody’s kid? Are we truly willing to believe that race played no part in Z’s suspicions? That they were based on solidly objective criteria, like looking to be on drugs, and reckless eyeballing of private property?
If we’re speculating, I can easily craft a scenario: Zimmerman grabs Martin in an effort to detain him, prompting the “Get off!” that Jeantel heard. Martin strikes Zimmerman when Zimmerman won’t let go of him. Zimmerman punches Martin, leaving no discernible injury (consistent with the gym instructor’s “0.5” rating of Zimmerman’s fighting ability). Martin punches back, breaking Zimmerman’s nose, because Martin is NOT a 0.5. Zimmerman threatens to shoot him, and Martin, fearing for his life, realizes if he runs he’s dead, tackles Zimmerman and holds him down, causing Zimmerman’s back to be wet with grass and his head to be scratched as he tries to squirm free. Zimmerman eventually works the gun free and fires.
(This is not consistent with monstro’s “No one goes towards what they fear,” but you can’t have everything.
The point is it’s trivially easy to imagine highly plausible scenarios in which Martin committed no crime at any stage of the encounter. And in the context of a criminal inquiry about Martin, that’s what we must do.
Obviously, in the context of a criminal inquiry about Zimmerman, we must bend of backwards to imagine Zimmerman as the innocent one.
You cannot extend that viewpoint to Zimmerman but refuse it to Martin.
If they showed up and Martin told them the story I just did?
But that would mean a lawful gun owner would have done something irresponsible with his gun, and common sense tells us *that *never happens.
Context is all. At Zimmerman’s criminal trial, he’s entitled to that sort of deference (not “never,” of course, but “not this time,”) and you have to eliminate every plausible scenario except that of guilt.
But when you turn around and start discussing the criminal liability of Martin, then he’s the one who gets every inference in his favor.
I’m not seeing too many people understand that basic point. Those that favor Zimmerman are not able to switch gears and consider Martin’s position if accused; those that favor Martin don’t seem to understand reasonable doubt.
You mean that the only person who is clear eyed and objective about this is you?
. . . .except that a jury found that Zimmerman validly used self-defense, so your little effort to come up with your own version of the story is just so much mental masturbation.
Me, Oakminster, BottledBlondeJeanie, pravnik, and Really Not All That Bright all come to mind as people who have shown a clear understanding of the issues and correctly summarized and responded to the relevant law.
This is not intended to be an exhaustive list, but rather a quick attempt to recall names.
I see you are attending the Stoid correspondence course and have gotten through the “argument by underlining” portion. I can’t wait to see what you can do once you learn bold and italics.
When you assume the guy you got beef with is armed with a gun, then running away doesn’t make sense. It’s fight to the death. Shoot or be shot. It’s scary.
The jury found that the state failed to prove every element of the charged crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. Even assuming, arguendo, that they based their acquittal on the issue of self-defense, all that means is the state failed to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
In other words: the jury could have decided the self-defense story was pretty unlikely, and still acquitted.
Hah! Good one! Seriously. Witty rejoinder.
On the other hand, it pretty much proves that you’re full of shit, so, win-win, really.
No, the jury found that the state did not rebut Zimmerman’s self-defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt. That is not to say that the “what might have happened” stuff isn’t pointless.
You seem to have opted for the “argument by calling people Stoid” strategy, which while effective, is unavailing here. Given the history of the poster in question you know as well as anyone that he meant exactly what he was banned for saying.
ETA: ninja’d.
And, elucidator, who else is taking Rand Rover, Terr, and Steophen to task when they err, and also taking monstro, ywtf, and The Second Stone to task when they do? Seriously – who other than me has written responses that attack positions taken by advocates for each side?
ETA: ok, who other than me and RNaTB?
'tis a heavy burden. Even Superman only fought the commies. 
You have a tendency to be especially sanctimonious towards one side. So please don’t pretend you’ve always been completely objective about this. You have never been, you still aren’t, and you never will be.