Ever been online, gaming? My son, the Err Apparent, used to do it but was driven away. If even one hundredth of the claimants had done so, his mom was being nailed by 900 pimply faced snots every night. She denies it.
Martin was a teenage boy, and Z ostensibly a mature adult. Need the distinction be explained? And, of course, Z actually did shoot somebody. Did Martin?
Do you refer to Martin boasting about a fight he had? How do they compare in your mind with the mental state of a man whose wife had left him?
You’re correct. Martin’s texts are much more relevant to the case. As in “I’m not done wit fool” - “He aint breed[bleed] nuff 4 me, only his nose.”.
Martin created texts about Z’s broken nose? This is extraordinary news! Apparently, our efforts to communicate with the spirit world have surpassed simple table rapping, and embraced the bold new world of texting!
Do tell us more!
On Planet Denial, you’re probably right.
On Earth, Trayvon Martin died because George Zimmerman needed an outlet.
In the same vein, on Earth, Trayvon Martin dies because he was a violent thug and attacked the wrong person.
Honest answer? Martin’s texts suggest someone who would not be afraid to start a fight if he had to, Zimmerman’s having been left by his wife suggests that he would be pissed off, and not respond well to anyone threatening or attacking him.
It looks like we had two people who, for whatever reason, were more likely than most to be violent. None of which changes the fact (yes, fact) that Zimmerman’s was legal, and Martin’s not.
Amazing that you are STILL so confused about this…
Nope, unlike you I actually followed the trial.
What “attorneys for the defense” are you talking about? Assumed innocent UNTIL proven guilty, GZ was found NOT guilty by a jury. The trial is over.
TM chose to attack an armed victim and he died as a result of his bad choice. Maybe TM should have tried harder to stay in school?
Mrs Z didn’t say they had a “severe domestic quarrel”. That was the invention of the articles imaginative author.
TM died because he went back to the “T” to beat the nigger/cracker who he thought was looking for him. TM chose to attack an armed victim. The last bad decision he would ever make.
Your powers of telepathy are astonishing! Were you born with them, or get bitten by a radioactive bedbug?
The racist thug baby Tray-Tray got what he deserved, and Zimmerman is a free man. You idiots need to get over it.
A free man? You think? If he was rich, maybe, if he could fly from city to city and sleep in secure hotels. Sure, gonna be some guys like you, want to slap him on the back, shake his hand. Hearty company. Boon companions.
Besides, he was probably never that comfortable around black people to begin with. Though I doubt he was ever actually afraid of them. Never know, I guess. Bet he is now, though.
I wonder, how many guys in prison would trade places with him? Would you? To be a “free man”, like he is?
[1] I used present tense rather than past for rhetoric effect. Sue me.
[2] You sound like a bigot.
[3] No. “severe domestic quarrel” was my invention. Mrs. Septimus and I have had spats over the past 22 years, but they’ve never led to sleeping under separate roofs. If you’re arguing that the Zimmerman husband was so dysfunctional that for his wife to leave him and refuse to comment on how volatile his temper was was a “normal quarrel” rather than a “severe quarrel”, fine. Maybe you and Zimmerman should have tried harder to stay in school.
It sounds like there’s wide agreement. Two thug assholes encountered each other. The one who started the confrontation had a gun. The other one is dead. You guys wouldn’t understand a trivial syllogism if we stuck it up your recta with a hot poker.
Zimmerman was probably itching to take down a punk criminal, followed Martin, threatened or accosted him, and then murdered him. But just because that is probably what happened doesn’t mean it can be proved.
At least now that the trial is over we can all admit that the law actually doesn’t allow you to start a fight and then murder someone. Ha. It was quite funny how people pretended it said that. Sure, it says you can’t kill someone if you initially provoked their force unless:
“Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant”
But in reality, this has never and will never mean that you can try to kill someone, and then when they defend themselves, in the exact moment when you could no longer escape from their (defensive) force, you can proceed with your original murder plan and it would all be legal. I point a gun at you and begin to pull the trigger, you reach for your gun, draw, aim, and at that moment there is no way for me to escape except by completing the trigger pull and murdering you. Self defense? No, and nobody ever thought it was.
Because in reality, the “has exhausted every reasonable means to escape” does not only apply to the exact moment of the murder. It includes previous time when you could have escaped after being the initial aggressor. Otherwise the legal murder scenario above would work.
Zimmerman was almost surely the initial aggressor, and Martin almost surely was the one initially acting in defense, and all previous applications and any sane application of the law would have convicted Zimmerman… except the only witness to his aggression was already dead.
Almost all of them, unless very close to release would be my guess. They might be wrong to make that choice, but I can’t imagine, in that position, focussing on the negatives of freedom.
There’s no evidence Martin had a gun, and, according to the evidence at the trial, Martin is the one who started the confrontation. Even ‘thug assholes’ have a right to defend themselves if attacked.
Here’s the important thing - it doesn’t matter how nasty or unpleasant Zimmerman is, or how much you dislike his actions that night - they were legal. Martin’s do not appear to have been, but obviously there won’t be a trial to settle that for certain.
There is, quite literally, no reason to believe that. There is no evidence for it, and significant evidence against it.
There is good reason to suspect it was probably Zimmerman who “provoked force”, as the law puts it.
That’s because we know he was armed and stalking Martin on his way home. We know he ignored the advice of police not to follow and ignored Watch guidelines not to bring a gun. So we know he is a loose cannon with a temper, took a gun, and stalked someone he thought was a criminal.
We don’t know specifically if he threatened Martin, grabbed him, flashed his gun, or whatever. We also don’t fully know what Martin thought about the strange, armed vigilante stalking him, whether to grab, threaten, attack, mark down his home, we don’t know. But I think it is highly probably that if we knew everything, Zimmerman would be seen as “provoking force.”