In a case of he said she said with absolutely no other factors or evidence involved, this is correct.
Forget this case and think of this hypothetical- one person has black eyes, bashed back of head, and other obvious, real injuries. Nothing on hands or knuckles to indicate he has hit anyone. The other has no injuries of any sort- none, other than bruised knuckles. If your life was at stake, who would you guess initiated the confrontation?
Is it possible to punch someone multiple times yet have no marks of any kind on your hands or knuckles? Are we to think Zimmerman jumped Martin and proceeded to slap and tickle him?
This is missing my point. “What would I guess” is very different from “what will I self-righteously declare must have happened.” I mean, you think people never lose fights they start?
ETA: And if you’re gonna post the question correctly, you might note that a bullet hole counts as an injury.
I don’t know, and neither do you. Some things remain mysteries, and this is one of them.
It’s also a mystery why so many are eager to (possibly) slander a dead child.
Based on this, how could I possibly know? The person would more injuries could absolutely have initiated the confrontation. People pick fights with the wrong people all the time. The injuries alone do not tell the story, because they cannot provide a timeline.
Constantly referring to a near eighteen year old as a child, while legally correct, is prejudicial to the jury. If he were standing behind you at Wal-Mart, would you dare say to the cashier “I can’t find my wallet, let this child go ahead of me?” No, so why here?
Agree, you cant know some things with 100% certainty. But reasonable doubt, preponderance of evidence, all that, which is more likely? Not to mention that Zimmerman was a total pussy and Martin was enraged, and Martin clearly was the better fighter. I am a weenie as well, me attacking an enraged young man very angry with me and stronger than me is simply not going to happen.
And I am sure not going to engage him in hand to hand combat if I have a gun.
I feel no need to participate in this change of subject.
If you want to continue to slander this dead kid who had no chance to explain and defend himself, feel free, but don’t expect others to retain from criticizing you for it.
Also- you cannot slander the deceased, kid or adult.
Exactly! I remember during the trial visiting a friend in FLa and I mentioned Trayvon and his right to defend himself. I was blindsided when my friends husband who up to that point was his typical quiet self turned on me and defended Zimmerman vehemently against the little potsmoking thug. Wo wo wo, I turned on him and said what would you have Trayvon do, what would you have any of us do, your wife or daughter if they were being followed and acosted by a stranger? I asked him what if the stranger had a gun? what would you do? I told him i would take my middled aged ass who harbors enough resentment and rage towards strange men who acost me in the dark and I would turn banshee and jump that motherfucker before he popped a bullet in my head. You might find me hammering zimmermans damn head against the pavement too. Lets ask Trayvon what happened, oh we can’t because he’s dead. Lets ask Georgie, can’t ask him he didn’t take the stand.
That shut my host down, and shut down the argument but i didn’t change his mind.
In theory, sure. My old sensei used to say “hard target, soft weapon; soft target, hard weapon”. Noses are soft targets and fists are hard weapons. Unfortunately, temples and jaws are hard targets and tend to damage the fist. So in practice, the more you punch someone, the more marks on your knuckles.
Could have, sure. And therefore, in a court of law, the presumption of innocence means if you can’t prove he was the initial attacker, the accused goes free.
Outside a court of law, you go by the best evidence available, which is that the person starting a fight usually suffers fewer injuries than the one being attacked - usually, not always - and that people are more likely to start fights if they think they can win them.
So there is non-definitive evidence that Martin was the first to use violence, and no evidence that Zimmerman was the first.
Add to that the other circumstances that are pretty definitely established - that Martin was definitely on top of Zimmerman and Zimmerman was never on top of Martin (grass stains and moisture on Martin’s knees, grass stains and moisture on Zimmerman’s back, no grass stains or moisture on Martin’s back or Zimmerman’s knees, the witness who saw Martin on top of Zimmerman bashing his head into the ground), that Martin did punch Zimmerman (Martin’s knuckles, Zimmerman’s nose), that Martin did bash Zimmerman’s head into the ground (the gashes on the back of Zimmerman’s head) - the balance of probability tends to shift.
Regards,
Shodan
Which course of action would you recommend -[ol][li]Walk into your own living room and give your little brother his Skittles, or [*]Turn around and go looking for the guy? [/ol]Because “what if the stranger had a gun?”[/li]
Regards,
Shodan
If it was simply that folks like Shodan were agnostic about whether Zimmerman (and Martin) acted lawfully, that would be one thing. It’s that they feel the need to put the kid on trial and conclude he was worth executing in cold blood that has me convinced this case is a great litmus test for racial bias.
See post above mine. Allowances are made for Zimmerman to prowl all over the goddamn place in the dark, huffing and puffing after Martin like an armed mad man. But we’re not supposed to read malicious intent in that. Nay, we are urged to see it as his god given right to chase after whomever he wants, when he wants, and not even consider the fear this probably caused in the person he hunted.
But let Martin not rush home right away—perhaps so he could hide until Zimmerman gave up looking for him—and that alone is treated as evidence of his malicious intent. Martin isn’t given any allowance to do anything except flee, while Zimmerman is allowed to kill.
Only one person that night had a true claim to “Stand Your Ground” and it wasn’t Zimmerman.
Both? And tell brother to call cops, mom would hop in the car to give chase Dad would grab his bat and the both of us would take a walk around the neighborhood. Because that’s just what we did once many years ago when a fiend followed me home and tried to bust in my house.
You can’t be sued for it, but you can certainly slander a deceased person.
That’s not entirely accurate, either. Some jurisdictions allow the surviving relatives to sue.
Which part of my version is uncertain?
(1) Zimmerman was a wannabe cop, self-appointed protector of the neighborhood. IIRC he’d applied to be police; police said “No thanks.”
(2) Zimmerman called the cops on Martin, and was advised NOT to follow Martin. (That’s “NOT” with an N.)
(3) Zimmerman followed Martin anyway, with a concealed handgun.
(4) Zimmerman’s behavior alarmed or upset Martin, as Martin reported via telephone.
(5) When this super-star vigilante hero was confronted by his “suspect,” he was unable to talk or fight his way out, and instead delivered a fatal gun shot.
Which one of these statements do you shake your head at, Richard?
I can’t be bothered to study Florida Case Law to determine a precise definition of “murder.” IIUC, there are “depraved heart” rulings to criminalize behavior like Zimmerturd’s.
Disregarded again because I never said that Trevor Martin was an angel. As accusations in domestic violence incidents against Zimmerman included a gun threat, you bet “life-threatening” is an appropriate thing to say. Also it is not a good idea for Zimmerman to use a confederate flag as an avatar on the internet, so one can say also that it is really dumb to defend a guy like that still.
And of course, having say that, it does not follow that one automatically believes that Martin did a sensible thing that night, it is more likely that this was a case where both people made mistakes, but one more than the other had the power to defuse the situation and instead forced the issue. You ever considered that there is the positivity that a stupid violent racist bastard induced a fight with a black guy that turned to be a reckless dumb hothead?
Please. Shodan would like to believe Zimmerman was the only one in danger. Not, you know, the kid being followed home in the dark by a guy with a gun. Again, black kids don’t get to stand their ground.
Not surprising. I refer you to the last paragraph in post #61 of this thread.