Very presumptuous of him to apologize for God’s plan.
That’s not a valid criticism. He could be apologizing for his failure to act as he thinks God wanted him to, for example.
He specifically said he cannot “second guess or judge” what happened in the prior quote, due toi it being “God’s plan.” By his own standard, he is now a blasphemer.
Of course, what he’s really doing in the second quote is walking back the idea that Martin died because God deputized George Zimmerman to kill him as an agent of divine wrath, because that sounds exactly as insane as it is. But let’s not overlook the fact that he ever said it in the first place, nor that there are Zimmerman defenders in this thread who have questioned the theological propriety of bringing him to trial, since the fact that Martin is dead proves that God wanted it so.
The sad thing is that if this proves true, I’ll be more bemused than surprised. But I’ll bite: who, in this thread, or even on this board has “…questioned the theological propriety of bringing him to trial, since the fact that Martin is dead proves that God wanted it so?”
In other words: cite?
Take juror B37 for example. Her latest statement was that many on the jury (herself included I believe) would have liked to punish Zimmerman, but “their hands were tied”. Tied by the laws and instructions as they were given to the jury. We all accept this. It is the law as it is, and the jury did a great job following it based on the evidence as it was presented.
I believe this is how I and many others feel about this case. No single act GZ did that night was technically illegal beyond a reasonable doubt. In it’s entirety though, and given some of the claims GZ makes that I find ridiculous, GZ set out that night to get Trayvon Martin and bring him to justice for past crimes allegedly commited by people who looked like him. GZ made a series of huge mistakes in his tracking of Trayvon. Many don’t believe what he did that night was within the spirit of self defense law. Many think his actions were reckless and led directly to the unnecessary death of Trayvon Martin.
Our hands are tied, so we can only accept that GZ is a sparkling example of citizenship?
He should get a parade for his heroism, restraint, and good judgement
-
He saved that white woman and her kids.
-
He took the worst beating I’ve ever seen.
-
GZ fought back with all of his might and reluctantly fired at the self proclaimed cold-blooded murderer only as a last resort.
-
He was so astute to see the suspect was “holding something” and “looking about”.
-
And why would anybody walk in a the rain, and a light rain at that? Everybody has a car, duh! This is America after all!
-
Trayvon circled his car like a shark around a lifeboat.
-
Then GZ followed on foot when a coward would have remained in their vehicle.
-
After a chase, when normal people would go back to their vehicle, he remained at his post outside and away from his vehicle for several minutes to make sure the punk didn’t return.
-
Luckily, he was still out there when the young man decided to come back for no apparent reason.
-
GZ, fearlessly stood his gound, and rather than retreat or verbally engage the asshole, he fumble-y reached into his pockets for something.
-
Not “the police are on the way.” “Not hello”. Not “Sorry young man, I am with the neighborhood watch.” Not “I am armed and if you get any closer I’ll shoot.” He somehow had the bravery to never asked a single question or make a disarming statement or action to the guy who always seems to get away. Why should he? Zimmerman was just protecting his neighbors.
-
Zimmerman was well within his rights to remain stoic and allow the suspect to approach within arms reach. Good play.
-
The armed man clearly thought through the entire scenario to keep himself and his neighbor safe.
He should be lifetime neighborhood commander because no late-teen to late-20 criminal is ever going to set foot in that subdivision ever again (no joke, I wonder what the crime stats look like these days?).
Or, can we examine what he said and give it our own thorough smell test?
Are you suggesting that Stoid posted something factually incorrect? What shocking news that is.
No, you should not give it a “smell test”. You should compare it to the evidence, to the facts of the case, and judge it according to them. A “smell test” is for deciding if your kid ate the last slice of cheesecake, or if the new “disabled” poster on a message board is a troll. Not for whether or not someone is a murderer, that requires greater proof that your feelings. Even for calling them that on a message board.
On this, Zimmerman does claim he made a disarming statement - “No, man, I don’t have a problem with you” - just prior to the attack. Not the most thorough or comprehensive statement, mind, but it is a disarming statement.
(the rest was lost in transmission)
No, “we” don’t “all accept this”. Four other jurors have made a statement that juror B37 does NOT speak for them.
So what evidence of what occured in the jury room are you left with? I think/maybe/coulda/woulda/shoulda etc?
This was a classic case of self-defense. SYG does not apply. It’s reasonable to believe that GZ reasonably believed he was in imminent (immediate) danger of death or serious bodily injury. FLA law says you can use lethal force to prevent someone from killing you or causing serious brain injury.
TM could have stayed by his daddy fiance house or ran farther AWAY from the “nigga”, “rapist”, and “creepy azz cracker” he thought was following him some 300 feet away.
Near the beginning of one of the Zimmerman-Martin threads that have been sprouting like mushrooms on the SDMB, Stoid claimed that Martin was an “honor student” too. I believe the idea then was to show that Martin was innocent, and now it is to show that Zimmerman is guilty. Wrong both times, as it happens.
Regards,
Shodan
I think it was presumptuous of TM to travel some 300 feet to confront a stranger without first ascertaining that his intended victim was armed.
Forgive me for not using your wording.
Conveniently.
Boy, you guys love this argument. Her statements are as credible as GZs statements. I’ll believe her. There is my “evidence”. 4 statements that B37 doesn’t speak for them doesn’t equal she is making it up.
Regardless of 1 person or 3 the point is still made. Reasonable people including jury members did think GZ was not innocent. They just couldn’t convict him of anything under the law.
I wouldn’t call it “classic”. I would say the evidence presented fit within the law.
Don’t disagree (if that is what happened).
We have done this in depth. How about if, instead, we give what you said a smell test?
No, obviously not.
No, this is a stupid exaggeration. He didn’t get a parade - he was indicted when he should not have been for political reasons, by a prosecutor who didn’t have a case and was hoping to intimidate him into pleading to something he didn’t do.
I am not aware of any white women involved in the shooting.
No one has claimed this.
This is fairly close to true - congratulations. Only took you four paragraphs and two bullet points.
Also relatively close to correct. Pointless, but correct - Zimmerman saw a stranger acting suspicously in a relatively high-crime neighborhood.
Unfortunately, we are now back to the stupid. No one, least of all Zimmerman, suggested that Martin was acting suspiciously by not driving.
So Zimmerman alleges.
Zimmerman did not follow Martin, and it had nothing to do with cowardice or courage.
He was outside his vehicle to look for a street sign, so he could give the exact location where he was to meet the police. There was no chase.
Again, sort of close to the truth.
Here is a mix of stupid and true. Zimmerman (obviously) had no legal duty to retreat when Martin came back from his father’s house to confront him. Also, according to Dee Dee, Zimmerman did respond to Martin’s verbal engagement. According to Zimmerman, he was reaching for his cell phone.
Again, according to Zimmerman (backed up by Dee Dee’s deposition) he did ask a single question, upon which Martin attacked him.
Again, the subtle mix of dumb and obvious. Yes, Zimmerman was within his rights to remain where he was. It was not a good play, because Martin was a violent punk, but there was no way for Zimmerman to know this before Martin attacked him.
No, obviously not. Zimmerman himself said that he forgot he had his weapon with him.
I have no idea. Fortunately it doesn’t matter - no one has suggested this in this or any other thread on the SDMB.
Your post doesn’t smell very good.
Regards,
Shodan
“Classic” self-defense meaning self-defense with a duty to retreat. Zimmerman claims he had no opportunity to retreat, since Martin was on top of him. Thus, under self-defense as constituted in every state, he’d be entitled to use deadly force.
Stoid
I’m starting to see why others get so frustrated with you. You ask for an explanation for a given phenomenon, are given one with cites and then hand-wave it away because you “do not find that remotely believable.” You make an assertion about facts, get called out, then completely ignore it.
You continue to ignore facts/evidence/arguments that don’t fit your narrative of Zimmerman being a cold-blooded killer.
Gun rights and self defense advocates sure rallied around him and defend his every action to the nth degree.
- The one who testified for the defense about a home invasion.
- Certainly not any medical expert. His own expert had trouble seeing the injuries in the pictures. (I know, doesn’t matter though…)
- It would be true except he did not leave an ounce of evidence that he ever fought back with non lethal force. (I know, he wasn’t required to…)
- A 17 year old white girl is walking in the rain slowly with “something in her hand” and he makes the phone call? (I know, profiling isn’t illegal…)
- Part of GZs claim of “suspicious” behavior was that TM was walking even though it was raining. I simply point out that Zimmerman had the luxury of an automobile. This event never happens if TM had a car to drive to 7/11 for his candy. Kids without I.D. don’t have cars.
- How about stupidity or negligence? (I know those aren’t illegal in this instance…)
- No. Listen to the evidence. What was that wind blowing, short of breath noise on GZs phone long before being asked for a location? (I know, getting out of the car to stretch your legs isn’t illegal…)
- How about amazing that GZ didn’t go back to his car, where the police expected to find him over several minutes. Maybe he stood there? Maybe he looked for Trayvon? He did anything but go back to safety. He didn’t de-escalate. (I know, he had no legal responsibility…)
- My point is why this adult didn’t announce himself since he was pursuing this kid? Why not continue a conversation. Look at it from TM’s perspective. Instead of continuing a dialogue with a person GZ went into his pocket for something. A weapon? (I know, Trayvon shouldn’t have hit him… and GZ wasn’t obligated to ask questions or have a conversation…)
If a drug addicted crazed person’ who circled your car like an animal and was carrying what you thought could be a weapon don’t you take a step back. (I know, he wasn’t legally bound to do so…)
- According to “Dee Dee”, and we all know how much everybody believes her testimony. I just want to stick with 911 call info and Zimmerman’s interviews.
While were at it she also testifies that Trayvon said “Get off”. What are we to make of that? Still, for my argument, we’ll stick with GZ’s iron-clad account. TM came from 300 feet “out of the bushes”.
- …but he said and did nothing against a guy who he stated and thought could be dangerous. (I know, that was his right…)
- Responsible gun owner. Luckily Trayvon pointed it out for forgetful old George and helped him grab it. (Again, George did nothing rong…)
The crime rate wasn’t numbered as it was just for fun. I do wonder though if crime has been reduced as a result? You are right it doesn’t matter.
Your post doesn’t smell very good (to me).
The answers are only silly or stupid because GZ said it happened that way.
With all due respect.
Again, he says he told Martin “No, man, I don’t have a problem with you.”
Yes
…and then reached on his person for what?
How was Trayvon supposed to know GZ didn’t have a gun?.. oh wait.
That’s a fine theory, but you wrote both that, by his statements, Zimmerman did not “make a disarming statement” and that he “said nothing”. That’s simply not true.
If you wrote instead “Zimmerman made a move that could have been interpreted as being provacative, even if he said what he claims to have said”, I wouldn’t have made a peep about it.
ETA: As an aside, thinking someone might have a gun isn’t an imminent threat that would entitle Martin to use force against Zimmerman.