“IMO” doesn’t appear anywhere in your post. You simply state as fact that Martin initiated the contact. That is the bullshit part.
How is it more lilely that Martin was the aggressor? The teenager trying to evade the older man in a truck following him around. Who has the history of aggression? Everything dredged up from Trayvon Martin’s past shows nothing that hints at violence, unless having the screenname “no limit nigga” means he is ready to go all ghetto on anyone in his way. Ridiculous.
On the other hand, there is the paranoid “watch captain” armed with a gun. The guy who chased down another driver in a road rage incident. The guy whose girlfriend filed domestic violence charges against him. The guy who lost his job providing security at house parties for being “too agressive.” Most importantly, the guy who had felony resisting arrest charges reduced to a misdemeanor. That only happened because he was a first offender and benefitted from a routine diversionary program. It doesn’t mean he didn’t shove a cop. What would ** Magiver** be saying about Trayvon Martin had he been the one who scuffled with the police? If that hadn’t been Zimmermans first arrest, it would have been a no-go for the CC permit. A real shame.
I have doubts that she can recall the details of the dialog that happened weeks before. I frankly have doubts that Zimmerman could exactly recall those details when he got to the police station. It would have been helpful if she had given her statement to police the next day. Of course, while I’m wishing for that, I might as well wish she had recorded the conversation.
The biggest advantage with Zimmerman statement isn’t that he didn’t time to construct a first class lie. He needs a lie that is consistent, plausible and isn’t contradicted by the physical evidence. My sister could have done that, but Zimmerman doesn’t strike me as the sharpest knife in the drawer. With my sister, I had to assume she was lying, since I couldn’t tell the difference. When she got older, she lost her edge and I could spot the inconsistencies.
I haven’t heard that Angela Corey has declined to prosecute. It is possible that she may decide that they aren’t ready to go before a grand jury next week. From what I read her team is redoing all the evidence from scratch. It’s possible that she may decline to prosecute, but I hope that doesn’t happen. I’m not sure what options remain if she does.
Sorry for the confusion. I was referring to the original SA, Wolfinger. I believe Corey has stated that she may not go to the GJ if she belives charges are warranted.
Isn’t that implied by the IMHO in the Group name? If you want to state something as a fact, then you should give us warning. The H seems kind of useless but I think everybody knows the H isn’t sincere. 
That makes more sense. Lucky that the Governor appointed Corey early. Wolfinger is tainted at this point.
nm
-
Cite?
-
Prior bad acts are not admissible to show the accused acted in conformity therewith.
ARRGH!!
This freaking forum is like a magic shield! Say what you want, it’s IMHO!
Ok, I made that scenario up, but it’s IMHO!
This fact was actually found on a psychic’s website! But it’s IMHO!
Here’s what happened: Zimmerman saw Martin and reported him to police, but at the same time it stirred feelings within him, feelings he’d never had for another male. He approached Martin with bluster and bravado, demanding to know what Martin was doing there, but then dropped his voice to a near whisper and offered to orally copulate Martin. Martin, disgusted, refused and called Zimmerman a derogatory name. Zimmerman, beginning to panic at what he had just done, responded by threatening to kill Martin if he ever told anyone. Martin shoved Zimmerman, and Zimmerman responded by bull-rushing the lighter Martin and knocking him to the ground; Martin began to frantically fight back, finding himself lying on the ground under the body of a man that had just proposed oral congress. Zimmerman pulls his gun, Martin tries to get it away, and the gun discharges, killing Martin. Zimmerman gets to his feet, quickly reviews the requirements of SYG, and hits his own head on a nearby tree to give himself at least a little injury.
In the distance, the sirens grow louder.
And… scene.
Hey, just IMHO.
This is just ridiculous. Zimmerman didn’t know any of these things when he shot Martin. None of them contributed to him looking suspicious. Suspension from school was the ultimate cause for him being in the neighborhood, but Zimmerman didn’t know this. From what we know, Martin didn’t show any poor judgment in his activities that night. He was exactly where he was supposed to be, doing exactly what he had every right to do.
Seriously. If Martin had been a sixty-year-old lady, everyone would be cheering if she’d given a gun looming in the darkness a good punch in the nose. We’d all be saying, “Hell, yeah, she was scared! It’s dark, Zimmerman could have been a serial killer/rapist/crazed man, and instincts kick in when you are in such a situation!” We wouldn’t be examining her past and using youthful indiscretions against her. Ooh, looky here! Granny got suspended from Catholic school for sassing the nun and smoking in the girl’s bathroom! She’s a bad granny, obviously!
The mystery is if Zimmerman initiated physical contact with Martin. Did he attempt to grab or restrain him? If this happened, HELL YEAH Martin should have punched the dude. That’s not stupid, that’s intelligent. Zimmerman was already crossing the line by following Martin so closely (close enough for Martin to see and question him about it). If he crossed that line by trying to make physical contact with him, Martin was justified in punching him. The evidence we are privy to supports a single punch flung out in desperation to flee. It doesn’t support a claim that Martin gave him a minute-long WWF beat-down. I’m imagining that’s more than enough time for Zimmerman to have sustained serious enough injury to produce copious amounts of blood (not just flecks on his face, but enough to stain his shirt), at the very least.
I don’t know why I should believe Zimmerman DIDN’T try to touch Martin. He got out of the truck for a reason (not to check street signs). He was close enough to Martin for the girlfriend to hear his voice for a reason. He had a gun on him for a reason. He is on record saying “These assholes always get away.” He has a demonstrated history of trying to get “assholes”–whether they be at illegal house parties, on the road, or unknown characters in his neighborhood. To demand that we not connect these facts and make the logical conclusion–that the guy’s story is fishy enough to warrant arrest in a normal universe governed by normal, just laws–is unreasonable.
I note that you have now abandoned the notion that Zimmerman could not possibly have restrained Martin except by drawing his gun. Good, we are making progress away from the ridiculous.
In order to prove or disprove your scenario, we need access to facts not currently available, especially the angle and nature of the shot that killed Martin. The greater the upward angle, the more likely that Martin was lying on his back or side when shot. The straighter the angle, the less likely - if Zimmerman was standing and Martin was lying down, and they were separated, the bullet would enter Martin low and go high. Also, if it was a close or contact gunshot wound, your scenario becomes less possible.
And, of course, unless you can establish beyond a reasonable doubt that it was Martin screaming for help rather than Zimmerman, the scenario falls further apart.
But to answer your question directly, yes, your scenario seems less likely (based on the facts available) than the one where Martin attacks Zimmerman. It’s hard to imagine how one gets cuts to the back of the head unless Martin was behind Zimmerman at some point - or Zimmerman’s account of having his head slammed into the ground is correct.
And the notion that Zimmerman would panic and shoot because Martin screamed for help is IMO rather far-fetched. Zimmerman (in your scenario) has the drop on Martin. And they have struggled to the point where Zimmerman is injured (and Martin is unscathed, AFAWK). I see no reason that Zimmerman should fire. When the police arrive (and Zimmerman himself had already reported the incident to 911) Zimmerman simply tells the story as it happened. And Martin goes to jail for assault and battery. For heaven’s sake, Zimmerman shot him, and he didn’t get arrested. Do you really think the police are going to bust the neighborhood watch who manages to subdue an out-of-control teenager who attacked him?
Plus, in your scenario, Zimmerman is panicked enough to shoot, but calm enough to come up with a completely plausible story that convinces the cops on the scene, thru four interviews and one re-enactment, not to arrest him. It’s possible, but not likely IMO, to turn panic on and off like that.
Regards,
Shodan
Isn’t that common knowledge at this point? Besides, that was all in response to Magiver using every vague scrap of “evidence” to portray Martin as the likely aggressor. Your magical forum post was funny, though.
You failed to report the charge was subsequently expunged. So not only was he never even found guilty, but the charge was supposedly wiped clean.
Which raises an interesting side question. Let’s imagine an officer arrests you for an absolutely mistaken reason. You’re standing at the corner, about to go rescue some puppies and feed them to some endangered baby seals, and a guy runs by you, and a cop follows ten seconds later, yelling “Freeze!” at you. You’re arrested, fingerprinted, and booked.
It takes a day, but it all gets cleared up. The robbery victim says it wasn’t you; the video tape in the store confirms it, the actual robber is caught with the stolen merchandise and makes a full confession. Charges are dropped. You seek an expungement, pointing out that you did absolutely nothing wrong. The state agrees, not opposing your motion. The judge grants your request and orders your record expunged.
Seven years later, you’re accused of theft, and the newspapers announce, correctly, that you were arrested seven years ago for armed robbery, but that the charges were dropped for lack of evidence.
How does that scenario sit with you?
Obviously, I have no idea how close that is to Zimmerman’s actual experience. But I do know that there was never any competent fact-finding that substantiated the claim he shoved an officer.
I said the same thing, mind you, about Martin’s school reports involving stolen jewelry:
Are you suggesting that the charges against Zimmerman were waived because the confrontation with the cop never occurred? If so, you’re the first person I’ve seen make this claim. Being that (as reported) they were waived in concert with Zimmerman entering an “alcohol education program,” it sure sounds a lot less like “whoops, we got the wrong guy, our bad” and more like “we’ll give you a break on this one if you get into a program and get control of your 20-year-old self.”
Or are we adhering to stiff rules here where if there wasn’t a conviction, we can’t even talk about it?
I’m suggesting that the effect of an expungement is a legal determination that the interests of justice are served by erasing the charge.
I’m suggesting that IF the incident never happened, or happened in a way that made Zimmerman truly blameless, what else would you expect to see other than an expungement? What other steps could he have taken to show he was completely and utterly blameless?
Well you could suggest a move to Great Debates, but I doubt it would help. It got kicked out of GQ pretty quick. You could skip any post that doesn’t a link in it and assume it doesn’t actually contain any new information.
The charges being dismissed instead of a guilty plea to a reduced charges and the agreed upon alcohol education program? Don’t they have these first-offense diversionary programs in your state?
You keep overlooking the point that we aren’t a jury and this isn’t a trial. We are just some people bullshitting about current events. As I see it, anything that isn’t an actual lie is on the table and people can evaluate that data as the see fit and have vigorous disagreements about the significance. Admittedly some of the posts seem somewhat fanciful, but other posters are free to point it out. Some posts make personal attacks on other posters, but that is what we have moderators for.
If we limit this discussion to data suitable for use in court the moderators might as well lock the thread and start a new thread when the trial starts.
So where were you going with the letter hypothetical, Bricker?