Is Zimmermans claim that he stopped following Martin once he got off the phone with 911, and it was at that point that Martin jumped him? I know none of us have full access to his statement, yaddayadda, but it seems like that is the interference being made.
If this is the case, how did Martin end up getting shot less than 100 feet from his house? We are supposed to believe that Martin, originally headed home after entering the front gate, backtracked to confront and beat up Zimmerman. But instead of being shot near the area Zimmerman reported him, he was found very close to his final destination.
Which is implausible on its face. There is only 2 explations that can account for the location of the shooting: Either Zimmerman would have had to have continued to follow Martin home after he ended the call, or their altercation would have had to have “traveled” almost all the way to Martin’s house. How an unarmed 140 lbs teenager could manage to pull that off with just some skittles and tea, I cant imagine, but he must have had mad skillz. Its a goddamn shame his life was cut short before the US Dept of Defense got a hold of him.
Good. So you now recognize that you were mistaken about intent being necessary to charge Zimmerman with murder.
“no evidence”? Zimmerman had a loaded gun. It had to have entered his hand at some point because he killed Martin with it. The two sides will each argue about when and how, but there’s no question that it was there. He told the operator he was following Martin and never said he would not. Witnesses, including the girlfriend have described how Zimmerman was, in one way or another, following/approaching/confronting Martin.
Zimmerman’s only refutation of this is the completely ludicrous claim that he had to get out of his car to look at a street sign (When was the last time you had to get out of your car to look at street sign anywhere at all?) to see where he was (in a neighborhood he had been patrolling for a year-in all that time he didn’t come to know the landmarks? I visit a friend who lives 30 miles away about twice a year and I stopped looking at the sign for her street 20 years ago because I know her street is the one with the green house on one corner that has the great rosebushes…someone else said if this was really the truth Zimmerman isn’t qualified to own a gun - I think if this is true the man isn’t qualified to be left on his own for more than 15 minutes at a stretch, since he’s clearly suffering from severe mental impairment) and Martin, 80 pounds lighter and armed with snacks, appeared from nowhere (because Zimmerman wasn’t following him anymore, which I guess means that Martin had decided to follow Zimmerman. On foot. Even though Zimmerman was driving…evidently Martin was not only quite the athlete, able to keep up with the car and all, he was also anticipating that Zimmerman would conveniently exit the vehicle at an opportune corner where Martin could put his diabolical snack attack plan into action) and attacked him. Because that’s just how Martin decided to act that day. For the first time in his life and for no reason whatsoever. And if that is the truth then I’m sure the autopsy revealed the parasites that had bored into his brain, making him act like an actual lunatic. (vs. the “outraged by injustice” variety of lunatic as identified in this thread)
So Bricker, please explain how the hell you define evidence so that you can confidently say there is “no evidence” that “creating a dangerous situation with reckless disregard for human life” was accomplished by Zimmerman stalking Martin with a loaded gun? Exactly what kind of “evidence” do you need to be convinced that this is a valid charge? High definition video from 16 angles with blow-by-blow narration? (And please don’t muddy the argument by mixing conviction and charging when I know you know the difference. We’re arguing charges, not conviction.)
And please, please, please tell me exactly what part of Zimmerman’s pathetic story strikes you as remotely believable? I assume some part has to, since it’s the only thing we’ve got to undermine the otherwise unobstructed picture that Zimmerman himself actually painted more vividly than anyone else,that of a man creating an extremely dangerous situation and recklessly disregarding human life, leaving his killing of Martin wide open to a charge of second degree murder.
I’ve never heard anyone, much less a group large enough to constitute “widely agreed”, suggest that he acted for any reason other than the obvious one (political ambition).
He had to get out of his car to read a street sign? He had to read a street sign to find out his location within the neighborhood he’d been patrolling for months?
Yes. If by political ambition, you mean an upcoming election in which the community vote would be of interest to him, and thus responsive to community pressure.
It’s funny… after the case unraveled, I don’t remember anyone here stepping forward to say that, in retrospect, maybe they got a bit carried away.
Many people here are not first rate at admitting their errors, are they, Steve?
No. There is an intent element of second degree murder in Florida. It’s just not “intent to commit murder.”
About two months ago, in a neighborhood I’ve lived for thirty years. It was dark, raining slightly, and I could either position the car to use its headlights as a flashlight or get out and approach the street sign to read it.
I haven’t hard his story yet. I’ve heard snippets, bits, and pieces, just like you have. You are content to rush to judgment; i am content to wait until I have heard the complete picture.
Nice try at obfuscating the difference between “pressure” and “ambition” (Hint: it’s analogous to the distinction between the “need” of someone who steals because he’s exhausted other options for feeding his family and the “greed” of someone who steals because it’s easier than honest work). No sale.
I’ve seen less projection going on at the cineplex.
So if he’s concentrating on following a person, he may well end up not knowing if he’s at the corner of Retreat View and Long Oak, or Retreat View and Twin Trees, or Twin Trees and Long Oak. In fact, there are two different locations at which Retreat View and Twin Trees intersect.
Indeed? This from a guy who railed against Virginia’s anti-same-sex-marriage law because it would cripple the state’s ability to prosecute domestic violence claims. When did you make that prediction? October 2006, wasn’t it? And it wasn’t a guess – according to you, it was a matter of “established fact” that many victims of domestic violence would find it necessary to go through an extra wringer to get protection from domestic violence. And that never happened, did it? And you have since then absolutely refused to concede that your “established fact” in that instance was anything but, right?
So, no. I have consistently admitted error when I’ve been wrong. I’ve opened threads to ANNOUNCE where I was wrong.
When the 911 operator tells Zimmerman that he didn’t need to be following Martin, it’s obvious he was outside of the car. He’s breathing hard, the wind is whistling, you can practically hear his thighs rubbing together as he’s walking.
Regardless, it was mere minutes after that call that Martin was dead. Did Zimmerman somehow get lost in the maze of those three streets in minutes?
Claiming that Zimmerman never left his car except to look at a street sign, against all evidence except Zimmerman’s say-so, is fool-hardy at best and retareded at worst.
How, in the world, is any part of the girl’s statement hearsay? Martin wasn’t retelling a secondhand story; he was narrating his last living moments. The stuff he wasn’t narrating the girl heard firsthand.
Of course, in a court of law, we would want to go back to the statement by Zimmerman. I’m arguing from the point of view that the policeman is not lying when he relates what Zimmerman’s statement shows. If Zimmerman’s statement does show that he says he was walking away and that Martin jumped him from behind, would you then admit then that there is evidence that he is not telling the truth?
It would be hearsay because she is repeating what Martin said, it’s not direct testimony from Martin. Whether her testimony would be allowed in court is another matter.
I’m going to have to disagree with you here based on what I’ve read of the Florida law (see here for justifiable use of force).
There is no law in Florida, as far as I know, against Zimmerman walking around with a gun, or following Martin, or asking him questions.
If he had stopped Martin forcibly, let’s say by grabbing him or throwing him to the gorund, he would have done something illegal. Nevertheless, if at that point Martin punched him, then Zimmerman could legally shoot him if he “reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony”. So all Zimmerman has to do is convince a jury that he was afraid Martin would harm him. In a state like Florida, there would be no shortage of law and order types that would agree with the Zimmerman defense. That is the claim of people in this thread that say that convicting Zimmerman is going to be difficult.
The main problem is these Stand Your Ground laws, beloved by law and order types, but, as we see in the Zimmerman/Martin case, giving rise to cases where an armed vigilante can kill an innocent person and easily get away with it. I would be curious to hear how a person could still support a “Stand Your Ground” law after this example. But when I asked Bricker, for example, all I got was a guarded “No comment”.
Wow. Overreaction, appeals to emotion, misrepresenting what your opponents have said. If this were a basketball game I’m pretty sure you’d have just fouled out.
No one here ever said there was no reason to question police. We’ve just said the police have access to information we don’t have. We’ve also said that until the investigation is complete, it doesn’t make sense to jump to conclusions. Yes, the situation has changed, but the whole point of the thread was why the police had not arrested Zimmerman back when you started the thread. I’ve probably openly stated the police may have been acting out of incompetence or bias more times than anyone else in this thread, so you representing my position as one of “never questioning authority” is just absolutely false.
I was presenting alternate theories as to why the police had not moved. Not because I believed or disbelieved them, but because that was the whole basis of the discussion. I’ve also never said that we shouldn’t question the police or assume the police are doing a good job, but rather that the investigation into the police handling of the case is a separate issue from the police investigation of Zimmerman.
I don’t like at all when people use politics to try and force someone to get arrested or prosecuted, that’s an ugly mob rule style influence on a system that is not designed to be democratic. If criminal prosecutions were supposed to be democratic the list of injustices people would have suffered over the years would be immeasurable.
Calling Trayvon Martin a nobody is nothing more than fact, and it has nothing to do with race. It’s simply to illustrate a point that one random teenager in Florida, no matter how unfairly he has been treated, should be reason to throw out 225+ years of constitutional freedoms and protections and rule of law.
Calling the angry blacks who have been bitching about this angry blacks is obviously just an accurate descriptor, and nothing more. Do you find it offense to be called angry when you are obviously angry? You’re self-described as black, so I certainly don’t think that is where you’re taking offense.
I’ve never said that no one else was complaining, but we all know which complaints are getting fed to me on NPR during my drive to work and it’s not rallies at white churches but black ones. Those are the complaints that are politically important.
I am informed that, according to legal experts, this may very well happen in this case, and it would be very difficult to prove otherwise.
Or you could look back to the case of Joe Horn in Texas, mentioned already in this thread, who told a 911 caller that he was grabbing his gun and going out to kill someone, shot a burglar who was running away from him, in the back, and was cleared by a grand jury. Note that the burglar was not in his own home.