Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You're the one who began claiming technical details when you claimed that Zimmerman could not have drawn while being straddled by Martin, which is false. You then call a technical rebuttal (by a gun owner) to your technical reasoning "immaterial, irrelevant, and nonsensical". This type of irrational hypocrisy is a large reason why the country is so emotionally split on this case.
So, okay, what's your take?
That Martin foolhardedly believed Zimmerman was unarmed, and from that "confidence", started beating on Zimmerman?
How do you know that no one was in danger? Martin initiated a vicious attack on Zimmerman, with no legal justification for doing so. That proves that he was a dangerous individual. It seems like Zimmerman's hunches about Martin were not unfounded.
We don't know who instigated the fight, but it appears Martin was winning. Zimmerman says he went straight to the end of the cut-through and was walking back to his truck when Martin approached him. But Martin's body was found 1 or 2 houses in from the T intersection indicating that Zimmerman was continuing his search. It appears Zimmerman lost Martin because Martin hid in the shadows off the base of the T. Zimmerman came back and somehow wound up turning at the T and encountering Martin. We don't know who initiated physical contact. The only survivor has given inconsistent accounts of the events of that night.
The "confrontation" didn't begin at actual scene of the fight, but earlier when Martin approached the vehicle of an unidentified male driving slowing along/beside him. If Martin had a predisposition for confrontation and fighting one would suspect that Martin would have confronted Zimmerman at this point, but instead, Martin according to even Zimmerman's own statement, chose instead to flee from an unidentifiable man who was following him.
It was only at the scene of the second confrontation that the events turn violent and the turn violent for only one reason, Zimmerman's insistance on seeking that second confrontation.
The fact is, during neither the first or second confrontation did Zimmerman attempt to identify himself, give voice to his concerns, whether those concerns were legitimate or not, nor as Detective Chris Serino wrote in his criminal complaint did Zimmerman at any time identify "himself to Martin as a concerned citizen and initiated dialog (sic) in an effort to dispel each party's concern".
According to Zimmerman's statement, Martin "appeared" and asked him if he had a problem. Instead of simply answering Martin's question by identifying himself as a concerned citizen, voicing his concerned Zimmerman instead lied and told Martin, "no" to which, according to Zimmerman, Martin responded by saying "You do now" after which the physical confrontation began.
Wether Zimmerman is convicted or not will hinge upon how the jury views Zimmerman's pursuit of Martin establish Zimmerman as the initiator of the confrontation. If the jury determines that Zimmerman indeed initiate the confrontation, as the state and I believe, then the question will rest upon whether or not Zimmerman met the standards set by the exceptions to the use of deadly force by an initiator of a confrontation.
The claim of the first bolded sentence is wrong. The physical confrontation, the only confrontation that matters in a murder trial, began when Martin attacked Zimmerman. There is no evidence for Zimmerman attacking Martin first.
If a man catches another man screwing his wife, the cuckold goes to jail if he attacks or murders that man. Is following someone worse than screwing another man's wife? Why would Trayvon get a pass to physically attack Zimmerman just because he was following him? The answer is that he wouldn't and won't. The only people that wish him to are irrational, racially motivated and hate filled because they want to see the non-black guy get prosecuted for killing a black guy, no matter what the reason.
The conclusion of the second bolded sentence is wrong. The events turned violent because Martin physically attacked Zimmerman. You can't blame a physical attack on someone who did not initiate nor sustain the attack. Though, he ended it.
The third bolded sentence proves my point and fully contradicts your previous claim.
The state "believes" that there was enough racially motivated public outcry for it to be too politically risky not to attempt to convict Zimmerman. There is no chance that it will be proven that Zimmerman initiated a physical attack. The evidence doesn't exist (if it does, point me to it), but the evidence for Martin initiating a physical confrontation does exist.
This is what proves the case for the defense, and it's all they need. Everything else is politics, and this picture proves that irrational ramblings of the Zimmerman hate club:
Zimmerman didn't receive these wounds after he shot Martin. He received them before. There were no bruises on Zimmerman's hands but there were on Martin's. The last refuge of the Zimmerman haters will be wild conspiracy theory, for which there is zero evidence, that Zimmerman somehow inflicted these wounds himself. We've already seen it in this thread, and this headshot is mostly avoided in discussion because it's the nail in the coffin of the prosecutions case. But here it is. It really is, together with the other supporting evidence of a Martin initiated physical attack, the definitive conclusion to all rational discussion about who was guilty of what.
The claim of the first bolded sentence is wrong. The physical confrontation, the only confrontation that matters in a murder trial, began when Martin attacked Zimmerman. There is no evidence for Zimmerman attacking Martin first.
If a man catches another man screwing his wife, the cuckold goes to jail if he attacks or murders that man. Is following someone worse than screwing another man's wife? Why would Trayvon get a pass to physically attack Zimmerman just because he was following him? The answer is that he wouldn't and won't. The only people that wish him to are irrational, racially motivated and hate filled because they want to see the non-black guy get prosecuted for killing a black guy, no matter what the reason.
The conclusion of the second bolded sentence is wrong. The events turned violent because Martin physically attacked Zimmerman. You can't blame a physical attack on someone who did not initiate nor sustain the attack. Though, he ended it.
The third bolded sentence proves my point and fully contradicts your previous claim.
The state "believes" that there was enough racially motivated public outcry for it to be too politically risky not to attempt to convict Zimmerman. There is no chance that it will be proven that Zimmerman initiated a physical attack. The evidence doesn't exist (if it does, point me to it), but the evidence for Martin initiating a physical confrontation does exist.
This is what proves the case for the defense, and it's all they need. Everything else is politics, and this picture proves that irrational ramblings of the Zimmerman hate club:
Zimmerman didn't receive these wounds after he shot Martin. He received them before. There were no bruises on Zimmerman's hands but there were on Martin's. The last refuge of the Zimmerman haters will be wild conspiracy theory, for which there is zero evidence, that Zimmerman somehow inflicted these wounds himself. We've already seen it in this thread, and this headshot is mostly avoided in discussion because it's the nail in the coffin of the prosecutions case. But here it is. It really is, together with the other supporting evidence of a Martin initiated physical attack, the definitive conclusion to all rational discussion about who was guilty of what.
except you don't know who started the fight any more than any one else.
The evidence doesn't exist (if it does, point me to it), but the evidence for Martin initiating a physical confrontation does exist.
Please point me to the evidence that Martin initiated a physical confrontation - other than Zimmerman's word. The best we can say is that Martin was winning the physical confrontation.
We don't know who instigated the fight, but it appears Martin was winning. Zimmerman says he went straight to the end of the cut-through and was walking back to his truck when Martin approached him. But Martin's body was found 1 or 2 houses in from the T intersection indicating that Zimmerman was continuing his search. It appears Zimmerman lost Martin because Martin hid in the shadows off the base of the T. Zimmerman came back and somehow wound up turning at the T and encountering Martin. We don't know who initiated physical contact. The only survivor has given inconsistent accounts of the events of that night.
In an absolute sense, that is correct (the bolded line). It can never be said, absent a video recording, that anyone knows the exact events of anything that was not witnessed (and even then, witnesses can lie). This is why we are morally bound to rely on evidence for judgment. The evidence supports that Martin initiated the attack (no evidence of Zimmerman punching him - but evidence of Martin punching Zimmerman). As a society, we have a moral obligation to rely on the probability of what the evidence infers to judge a man's life. Otherwise, we have gone astray as a society and only very bad things will result. This racial hustling and ignoring of the evidence is very bad for both race relations and the justice system. Justice can never be emotionally implemented.
How do you know that no one was in danger? Martin initiated a vicious attack on Zimmerman, with no legal justification for doing so. That proves that he was a dangerous individual. It seems like Zimmerman's hunches about Martin were not unfounded.
One, acted at all times offensively.
And another, acted at all times defensively.
Your take is offensive to reason, logic and common sense.
except you don't know who started the fight any more than any one else.
You are ignoring the relatively overwhelming evidence that Martin started the fight. I should remind you all that if you were to get into a fight with your neighbor and were winning, even if he started it, you would be the one hauled off to jail because the law generally takes the view that the person doing the beating is the one continuing the violence and likely started the violence. Ask any cop for verification. It's true, and this is what I know from speaking to a lot of cops that I know and not in the context of this case.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
