Who are you talking to? And why should they care about what is "old" to you?How about you just cut the "racist" bull****. It got old long ago.
1. I addressed what you said.
2. Really? Because when I explained my position to you 1-2 days ago, you said I was one of the only people with a logical explanation for my opinion.
3. I think Martin hit him as I said before.
The only known fact is that Zimm got out of his car and followed Martin for a matter of seconds. Based on the 911 call, it sounds as if he stopped following when the dispatcher advised that it was not necessary. So, when Martin approached Zimm, Zimm was no longer following.
I didn't say you were a racist. I said your comment was a "pretty racist thing to say" and in fact, saying that black men are brainwashed requires the implication that they cannot and/or do not think for themselves. I don't know what to tell you either.
So you said black on black violence gets "little attention at all" by the S and J. That's patently untrue and you refuse to address that it's untrue. Again, just because you don't know about something doesn't me it isn't there.
I'm going to politely suggest that everybody look again at the map of the complex, where the shooting occurred, etc.
Also the video excon provided of the interview with "john". Which iirc shows the walkway in question.
Zim was a ways from the street and well up the "corridor" formed by the two rows of buildings when the shooting occurred.
If he was walking "back" then it is reasonable to assume he was FARTHER down that corridor than where the shooting took place. I'm having a hard time getting the "movie" to run based on what we've heard of Zims story.
It just doesn't "resolve"
Except that your post is to ignore what the law says. Here:
There must be probable cause to believe that Z committed an unlawful act. Should he be indicted, his attorney will first try to use the Statute to have the charges dismissed. The DA will have to produce probable cause. Right now, we know of no such probable cause. A "trial for the sake of a trial" is specifically against the Law in this case.
Who are you talking to? And why should they care about what is "old" to you?
Except that your post is to ignore what the law says. Here:
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection
776.041 Use of force by aggressor. —The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
You have made too many assumptions. At least one map presented showed possible paths taken to the point of altercation, such that Z had progressed down the corridor more, then headed back. Another equally plausable route would be that Z went through those rows, as in across them, and never went "down". I have seen maps with that route as well. All such routes are plausable if Z had wanted to either maintian visual contact, having possibly lost it, or know just best where M went before he returned to his vehicle, as he was expecting the cops, and wanted to tell them as best he could.
Here is one real safe assumption. M could have walked to his Dad's gf's place and back twice from when he first realized he was being followed. He chose not to.
All I said is that their will be more evidence coming out, and there will. The autopsy hasn't been released yet. We don't know everything yet. To fully take anybody's side, is jumping to conclusions. You're no worse than the people fully taking Martin's side and calling a hate crime IMO. All we have is speculation. You yourself speculate that Z didn't continue chasing Martin. That he didn't physically escalate the situation in any way. There is no way of knowing. Insufficient evidence doesn't equate to innocence either. I understand why Casey Anthony walked, but I don't believe she's innocent, nor do I believe Z is telling the entire story.
I am not going to say all black men are brainwashed but many of them are conditioned to think that all or most whites are racists and out to get them. Also anyone, white or black or otherwise (and their are plenty) who mindlessly follow Sharpton and Jackson's racist asses cannot think for themselves.
Show me any time that either of them have any where near as active in a case where a black man was killed by another black man as they have in this case. Or what about the Duke lacross one? these guys come out to promote racism and almost nothing else.
What the hell difference does it make? Z could have not been on the community watch at all. Maybe Martin could have spent the night with a friend. Maybe Martin could have just stayed home and got skittles and ice tea the next day. Pointing out such redundancies doesn't make a difference. We can't change the past.
1. Yes I did.No you didnt.
Honestly this subject has been beaten to death. There are some people who can make a logical reasoning for doubting Zimmermans account is not 100% accurate (you may be one of them). But noone has made any type of case that uses actual evidence to prove that Zimmerman should stand trial or that his story is not true. And the more evidence that gets leaked, the more innocent Zimmerman looks.
I am glad you can say that. Really I am. That is half of what matters. If Martin hit Zimmerman and continued to assault him after Zimmerman went down (eye witnesses) then Zimmerman had the right to defend himself, does he not?
As for 4-6 I am not going to get into word play with you. I got sucked into a bit ago and it was a waste of time and it is now. If you want to continue to discuss the actual case of what happened I am more than willing to do so.
Except that your post is to ignore what the law says. Here:
I posted this earlier and was hoping to get a response from those of you who think that Martin was murdered. Reposting to see if anyone can provide the information for me. Trying to see if I am overlooking something. I want to know why people think Zimmerman did not act in self defense.
I am going to attempt to make my point a little more clear.
Following someone does not give them the right to beat you.
If someone hits you and you fall that is assault. That is not a reason to kill them.
If when you are down someone gets on top of you and starts bashing your head into the ground, your life is in danger.
If your life is in danger you have the legal right to use lethal force to defend yourself in any state.
Zimmermans story is that Martin came up on him. Martin hit Zimmerman. Zimmerman fell. Martin got on top of Zimmerman and continued his assault bashing Zimmerman's head into the ground. Martin went for Zimmermans gun.
If Zimmermans story is true then it is self defense.
For those who think it is murder, do you have any evidence that proves Zimmerman's story is false beyond a reasonable doubt. And for the record and alternate account of what might have happened is not good enough. You have to be able to prove it. This is America and that is how our justice system works.
While he was beating the soup out of Zimmerman.
LOL ... another one asked us to use the map and draw conclusions which they suggested. Using their premise, I drew one that apparently does not sit well with some anti-Z folks.
You don't like it ? I'm shocked !!!!!!! .................. not
I dont think anyone doubts why M assaulted Z. I'd have been pissed too. But he seemingly did. And died because of it.
He had every reason to be suspicious of Z. Thats not what we are talking about. The main point of all this mess is, was Z legally allowed to shoot M.
We know what happened immediately before it. Because of the 911 call, Z's statement and the GF statement. The only thing questionable is who threw the first punch. Z says M. No actual evidence disproves that.
In a murder trial, the defendent gets the benefit of doubt.
It doenst. If you pursue someone and they choose to engage in violence, then you can defend yourself.
I dont think it is. SYGL is not appliciable. This could have happened in any state in the country and it would still be self defense.
Because of evidence such as his injuries and eye witnesses.
The bill sponsor came out without many facts about the case and said that Z was not protected based on the initial accusations that he gunned down martin. He has not addressed the assault, or Z's life being in danger.
Looks like you don't know you face from your ass in your own thread. Calling me and many other posters debating you, Anti Z, isn't at all what's going on. We are specifically, well I am specifically debating your reasoning for being so pro Z and your inability to understand this isn't so cut and dry. There isn't a clear victim and assailant in this case.
Shhhhh, that contradicts truisms of Zimmerman haters. He ran Martin down who was desperately trying to get away from Zimmerman and shot the young African-American child point blank thru his bag of Skittles as he begged Zimmerman not to kill him. The police arrived and congratulated him for good coon hunting. That's their story and they're sticking to it.
Z did not approach Martin. Z did not start the physical violence. Z did not invite Martin to continue his assault after Z was no longer a threat to him.
No, it was not. The post to which you responded painted Zimmerman as the possible aggressor. Your response was to quote a section of the law that did not include the specifics of an aggressor using deadly force, which can invalidate the very immunity that you presented.Karl. [...] My response was accurate to the post to which I responded. [...]
Aggression and/or provocation does not have to rise to the level of assault, so you are misrepresenting the statute as written. Furthermore, you did not say it in the post in question (again, where the poster specifically raised it):I have also said several times that should evidence arise that illuminates some such assault initiated by Z upon M, it changes everything.
The evidence thus far, doesn't amount to much of anything. So what so people saw Martin on top of Z. There were no eyewitness who saw the first punch, and none of them saw the shot fired. For all we know, Z could have tried to apprehend Martin for the cops and it turned into a brawl... and some wet spots, grass on the shirt, and skin abrasions don't amount to a life or death situation IMO. One guy required a body bag, and the other didn't even to go to the ER for x rays.
There will be more evidence coming out. This isn't shut and closed.
Except that your post is to ignore what the law says.
The thing I keep going back to, is that Martin could have just continued to his fathers home, could have called police and told them he was being followed, or both... But he didn't... Even his girlfriend told him to run, but he told her no.
To me, any of those choices would have been the right thing to do, but he instead willfully chose confrontation, whether he threw the first punch or not. That choice cost him his life.
No, it was not. The post to which you responded painted Zimmerman as the possible aggressor. Your response was to quote a section of the law that did not include the specifics of an aggressor using deadly force, which can invalidate the very immunity that you presented.
Aggression and/or provocation does not have to rise to the level of assault, so you are misrepresenting the statute as written. Furthermore, you did not say it in the post in question (again, where the poster specifically raised it):
You simply said:
In which you ignored (failed to quote) what the law said about a shooter being the aggressor.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?