Who followed whom?


Do I have anything useful to say about the Zimmerman verdict? No, not really, except that I don’t get it. Martin didn’t stalk Zimmerman; Zimmerman stalked Martin; so I don’t get it.

Or maybe I do, but wish I didn’t.

Update: someone named Julia Wong put it very well in a tweet.

The actions our society condones as “self-defense” are indicative of who is deemed to have a self (be human). This is white supremacy.

I’m afraid I think that’s about right.

Comments

  1. felix says

    I believe that if the jury could have visited the time and place of the ‘incident’ (say in a time machine) then Zimmerman would have been convicted.

    However, the criminal standard of proof is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ and the prosecution was not able to prove that Zimmerman was not acting in self-defence at the time of the shooting.

    Quite simply there was not enough evidence available to determine what actually happened.

    Unfortunately, it is not illegal to carry a gun.
    Fortunately, it is not illegal to follow some one down the street and it is not illegal to approach some one and ask them their business.

    Due process (like freedom of speech) should apply to everybody regardless of whether we like them or not.

  2. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    Thanks for ‘splaining, Felix. It all makes sense and seems just now.

  3. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    No. You’ve already demonstrated that you can’t see outside of system-justification view of the legal process in this case. Just because it’s normal doesn’t make it rational, reasonable, or understandable. I’m not going to spend my time explaining it to you because if you don’t see it already we have nothing to talk about.

  4. felix says

    If your just going to use your fancy language to put me down and waste everybody’s time then why don’t you go an masturbate in a cupboard instead?

  5. says

    Because, you idiot, Zimmerman was the aggressor. If anyone was standing his ground, it was Martin, therefore, self-defense does not apply.

    Self-defense does not apply to the aggressor
    Zimmerman was the aggressor.

    What about that is so hard for you to grasp?

    The only reason Zimmerman walked is because white folks could put themselves in his shoes, but wouldn’t put themselves in Trayvon’s because in their privilege, they couldn’t see how merely existing made someone ‘suspect’, so obviously, Trayvon had to be up to something.

  6. says

    I learned this morning, listening to NPR, that in Florida, the “initial aggressor” DOES in fact have a “duty to retreat” as far as possible before using lethal force in self-defense.

    The verdict was wrong.

  7. says

    I think the issue is that following someone isn’t considered assault. Zimmerman said Martin threw the first punch and the prosecution couldn’t prove otherwise and Florida has a very low bar for when you are allowed to use deadly force to defend yourself.

    The problem is that with a self-defense statute drawn so broadly and vaguely, the difference between self defense and murder isn’t so much your actions as how much the jury sympathizes with the defendant vs the dead person. In most states, if someone threatens you, you have a duty to try to flee or otherwise resolve the situation with no lethal force unless you have no other option (unless you are in your own home, in some cases). In Florida, you can pretty much kill anyone you feel threatened by if you can convince a jury it was reasonable to feel threatened.

  8. slc1 says

    Re Ace of Sevens @ #13

    If Martin was on top of Zimmerman and beating his head against the sidewalk, where was Zimmerman going to retreat to?

  9. thascius says

    Following someone may not be considered assault but it should certainly be considered threatening. We have no way of knowing who threw the first punch, since Martin is dead and Zimmerman’s statements were full of self-serving lies, but we do know that Zimmerman was the one who initiated the confrontation by following Martin in the first place, even after he was advised not to. I think you’re right though, the question was who the jury sympathized more with, and the defense was allowed to paint the victim as “a scary black thug.”

  10. slc1 says

    Re thasciluls @ #15

    We do know that there was a fight and that Zimmerman was getting the worst of it. By the way, saying that Zimmerman’s statement was self serving is correct but that doesn’t mean he was lying. Not all self serving statements are lies.

    The problem here was that, if Zimmerman didn’t have the gun, it is unlikely that he would have gotten out of his car and followed Martin. It was the gun that gave him false courage.

  11. says

    slc1: You are focusing on too-small a section of what happened. The primary difference between SYG and non-SYG is that in SYG you lack a duty to not escalate a situation. So while Zimmerman no longer had the option to retreat by the time Martin was beating him, he got into that situation because he escalated things in the first place. In most states, that would invalidate a self-defense claim, but not in Florida.

  12. thascius says

    We do know that some of Zimmerman’s statements were lies-such as that he didn’t know what street he was on (he’d told the 911 operator), that the 911 operator told him to follow Martin (the 911 operator told him not to), that the 911 operator told him to get out of his car (the 911 operator told him not to). As far as carrying the gun, according the neighborhood watch rules he was not supposed to be carrying one when on neighborhood watch duty. And if he hadn’t gotten out of his car, the fight would not have happened.

  13. says

    Also, Zimmerman said he was unfamiliar with the “Stand Your Ground” statute – a statement contradicted by the professor of a criminal justice course he took, who said that the class covered that law, and that Zimmerman did well in the class.

  14. slc1 says

    Re Ace of Sevens @ #18

    I don’t know why people keep bringing up the stand your ground issue that was completely irrelevant to the trial as Zimmerman never invoked it.

    As for who threw the first punch, Zimmerman has several injuries and Martin, aside from the bullet wound, had none. Thus, if Zimmerman threw the first punch, it was remarkably ineffective.

  15. Anri says

    I believe that if the jury could have visited the time and place of the ‘incident’ (say in a time machine) then Zimmerman would have been convicted.

    However, the criminal standard of proof is ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ and the prosecution was not able to prove that Zimmerman was not acting in self-defence at the time of the shooting.

    Quite simply there was not enough evidence available to determine what actually happened.

    Unfortunately, it is not illegal to carry a gun.
    Fortunately, it is not illegal to follow some one down the street and it is not illegal to approach some one and ask them their business.

    Due process (like freedom of speech) should apply to everybody regardless of whether we like them or not.

    As I have said elsewhere, the problem with this verdict is not that it wasn’t correct under the law.
    The problem with this verdict is that it probably was.

  16. Troubadour says

    For all the pearl-clutching over how badly beaten Zimmerman was by that scary, dastardly, horrible teenage boy Martin, it’s amazing that footage at the police station later that evening showed Zimmerman with a boo-boo on his nose and a scratch on the back of his head. Trivial injuries that he wouldn’t have gotten had he simply followed the command to stay in his vehicle. Zimmerman insisted his head was “slammed into the concrete”, as many as 25 – 30 times, and all there was to show for it was a scratch that barely bled. And bled from the back of his head TOWARD his face, somehow defying the laws of gravity.

  17. says

    We do know that there was a fight and that Zimmerman was getting the worst of it.

    I might have an odd viewpoint, I know my ideas about some things are unconventional… but in my opinion I’d consider being shot dead to be “getting the worst of it.”

  18. hypatiasdaughter says

    #21 slc1
    Why assume that Zimmerman punched Martin as an initial attack?
    A more probable scenario is that Z. ran up to M. and told him to stop and wait for the police. M. may have said, as I would, “Nuts to that. I’m going to my home, which is three doors down. They can talk to me there.” and continued on walking. At which point Z. grabbed M.’s arm or hoodie to stop him and M. punched Z. to make him let go and the fight ensued. Z. had no legal right to detain M. and grabbing M. was an assault on him and at that point, punching someone who assaults you is self defense.
    As an example, check out Buzz Aldrin throwing a punch at Bart Sibrel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wcrkxOgzhU
    No charges were laid on Aldrin because Sibrel was harassing him, then grabbed his arm. Sibrel, like Zimmerman (in my scenario), initiated the fight. Of course, Aldrin is a respected old white guy who has a right not to have people assault him. Martin, meehh, just a black kid who should’ve obeyed when some strange man came up to him late at night and tried to order him around.
    Ya’ know, I can’t help but wonder how Zimmerman managed to pull the gun out of his holster while he was helplessly pinned to the ground and was having his head beaten “20 or 30″ times on a concrete sidewalk? I wonder if the jury asked that question?

  19. hypatiasdaughter says

    And, if I ever heard that someone was patrolling my neighborhood carrying a loaded weapon “for my protection”, I’d tell the fucker to get the hell out of my neighborhood.
    Firstly, I don’t own any property that is worth killing someone over. (And, yes, I have been the victim of a couple of break-ins. It pissed me off, but nothing that was stolen deserved a death sentence.)
    Secondly, I don’t need a self-appointed Rambo wannabe who thinks that I, and everyone else in my neighborhood, is answerable to him, just to protect my home from burglary. The arrogance of someone who claims they have this “right” to control my family and friends makes me enraged. No. No, you don’t. And don’t sugar coat your authoritarian power grab by claiming you are doing it to “protect” me.

  20. hypatiasdaughter says

    #21 slc1

    As for who threw the first punch, Zimmerman has several injuries and Martin, aside from the bullet wound, had none.

    I am also curious how Martin could inflict “several injuries” on Zimmerman in a fight and have none himself. Is it likely that Zimmerman didn’t even land one blow during the struggle? Didn’t Martin have any scraped knuckles or bruises from the punches he threw? Hitting someone can cause injuries just as well as being hit.

  21. says

    Ok, I’ll weight in on this.

    Lets see..

    #1 WithinThisMind
    “Self-defense does not apply to the aggressor. Zimmerman was the aggressor.”

    You are NOT automatically an “aggressor” because you follow a suspicious person. If you are honestly following because you suspect them of something then you are not an “aggressor”. At that point you become a “concerned citizen” who has every right to follow and confront anyone who is acting suspiciously.

    The only reason Zimmerman walked is because white folks could put themselves in his shoes, but wouldn’t put themselves in Trayvon’s because in their privilege, they couldn’t see how merely existing made someone ‘suspect’, so obviously, Trayvon had to be up to something.

    Oh yeah. I see it now. It’s ALL about “white folks” and “privilege”. Do you know how many times I’ve read “privilege” on this FTB website?

  22. says

    #19 thascius
    “We do know that some of Zimmerman’s statements were lies-such as that……”
    “…and Zimmerman’s statements were full of self-serving lies”

    Can you prove those as “lies”?? I bet you can’t….

    “he didn’t know what street he was on…”

    I’ve lived in the same area my whole life and I sometimes can’t remember the name of certain street enough to confidently tell 911 where to do. I’d second guess my memory also. Am I also a liar??

    “….As far as carrying the gun, according the neighborhood watch rules he was not supposed to be carrying one when on neighborhood watch duty.”

    He wasn’t currently on watch duty. He was driving home with his legally licensed firearm and saw someone acting suspiciously and acted accordingly. He called the police and then went to figure out where this guy was and what he was up to.

    “And if he hadn’t gotten out of his car, the fight would not have happened.”
    Sure, if he hadn’t have gotten married, he might have been watching a different neighbourhood. If he got stuck at a stop light he might not have seen Martin, If he… If he… If he….. We don’t live our lives based on “what if’s….” “Zimmerman could have stayed in his car, as the 911 operator advised him to.”

    Yes he was by your own admission “advised” not to follow. He was NOT ordered to stay in this vehicle. As a free citizen he had every right to get out of his vehicle and find out where this suspicious person had gone to. Remember, Trayvon was not heading straight home. I think he left the variety story about 45 minutes before just to walk 10 minutes distance to his home. He actually disappeared and then re-appeared and walked past Zimmerman’s car AGAIN. Meaning maybe Trayvon was stalking him??

  23. says

    #26 Troubadour
    “For all the pearl-clutching over how badly beaten Zimmerman was by that scary, dastardly, horrible teenage boy Martin, it’s amazing that footage at the police station later that evening”

    “…showed Zimmerman with a boo-boo on his nose and a scratch on the back of his head. Trivial injuries that he wouldn’t have gotten had he…..”
    “..And bled from the back of his head TOWARD his face, somehow defying the laws of gravity….”

    Who are you to determine the extent of his injuries? He had swelling throughout his whole head, from his face and nose to the top of this forehead to the side of his head and especially to the back of his head. It takes strong and continuous blows to result in that many different areas of the head to result in swelling.

    Do you know why it bled from the back of his head to the front? Most likely because he was sitting with his head down after the altercation trying to stop his nose bleed and gravity drew the blood from his head injury downwards leaving a trail to the front of his head. Doesn’t that make sense to you? If so, why didn’t you think of that before critiquing it?

  24. says

    #27, Yes Jaffa, you have an odd viewpoint. One was speaking about what happened during the fight, the other is what happened as a result of the fight.

  25. says

    #28 hypatiasdaughter

    “Why assume that Zimmerman punched Martin as an initial attack?”

    Assume? Because there was no evidence brought forward that it didn’t happen that way.

    “A more probable scenario is that Z. ran up to M. and……”

    NO. It’s a scenario that you invented in your head and in no more probable than any other scenario you can invent. The evidence does not lead to that conclusion. It’s just your hypothetical and not a strong one at that.

    “Martin, meehh, just a black kid who……”

    Why would you bring race into this? Zimmerman was Hispanic. Does it really change what happened here?

    “Ya’ know, I can’t help but wonder how Zimmerman managed to pull the gun out of his holster while he was helplessly pinned to the ground and was having his head beaten “20 or 30″ times on a concrete sidewalk?”

    It’s really not as hard as you want to make it sound. If someone is on top of you beating you and you really need to get something from your waistband to defend yourself, you will push and squirm and buck until you get your and on it, even if it means taking a few more shots to the head as you use your hands for something else.
    The prosecutor clearly showed when he used the dummy on the floor that if Martin lost his balance and stepped up with his left foot that there was plenty of space to reach the gun. Watch the video again. When the prosecutor was speaking to the hand to hand combat specialist, he lifted his leg and balanced on his left foot in order to look up and gave clear unobstructed access to the hip that held the firearm.

  26. says

    @hypatiasdaughter

    “As for who threw the first punch, Zimmerman has several injuries and Martin, aside from the bullet wound, had none.” “I am also curious how Martin could inflict “several injuries” on Zimmerman in a fight and have none himself. Is it likely that Zimmerman didn’t even land one blow during the struggle? Didn’t Martin have any scraped knuckles or bruises from the punches he threw? Hitting someone can cause injuries just as well as being hit.”

    Well, you used the correct phrasing when you said that. You said “Hitting someone CAN cause injuries”. You are correct. It CAN but it doesn’t mean it WILL cause visible injury. One thing you missed is that the coroner stated that with no blood flow into the hands after death, it is unlikely that swelling or bruising would appear on Treyvons hands meaning that had he have survived, we might very well have been able to witness swelling on this hands.

  27. Dan L. says

    alandeon@35:

    Why would you bring race into this? Zimmerman was Hispanic. Does it really change what happened here?

    People who aren’t white are also capable of racism.

    As far as getting your head pounded against the sidewalk 20 or 30 times, that would kill most human beings.

    You said “Hitting someone CAN cause injuries”. You are correct. It CAN but it doesn’t mean it WILL cause visible injury.

    How about “will almost certainly cause injuries”? Striking closed-handed almost inevitably leads to bruised and scraped knuckles and broken fingers.

    Who are you to determine the extent of his injuries? He had swelling throughout his whole head, from his face and nose to the top of this forehead to the side of his head and especially to the back of his head. It takes strong and continuous blows to result in that many different areas of the head to result in swelling.

    Who are you to determine the extent of his injuries? That you’re so quick to do so after bemoaning that someone else doing it is unfair demonstrates a lot about your motivations in arguing this.

    I’ve lived in the same area my whole life and I sometimes can’t remember the name of certain street enough to confidently tell 911 where to do. I’d second guess my memory also. Am I also a liar??

    But he did confidently tell 911 which street it was and only afterwards said he didn’t.

    He wasn’t currently on watch duty. He was driving home with his legally licensed firearm and saw someone acting suspiciously and acted accordingly. He called the police and then went to figure out where this guy was and what he was up to.

    There’s no evidence to suggest Martin was actually “acting suspiciously” and so here you are assuming facts not in evidence. Ignoring this and supposing Martin actually was “acting suspiciously” (again, no actual reason to believe that) then calling the police would be “acting accordingly.” “[Going] to figure out where this guy was and what he was up to” was not — even according to the police dispatcher he talked to!

    I think he left the variety story about 45 minutes before just to walk 10 minutes distance to his home. He actually disappeared and then re-appeared and walked past Zimmerman’s car AGAIN. Meaning maybe Trayvon was stalking him??

    Or maybe thought (correctly) that he was being followed and “acted accordingly”. Surely if you think Zimmerman was justified in tracking the kid down you must concede that Martin was justified in trying to avoid being tracked down. If I saw someone following me in a truck I’d take some evasive action too.

    You are NOT automatically an “aggressor” because you follow a suspicious person. If you are honestly following because you suspect them of something then you are not an “aggressor”. At that point you become a “concerned citizen” who has every right to follow and confront anyone who is acting suspiciously.

    Let me guess: you’re white.

  28. Richard Smith says

    Well, alandeon2 has clearly spoken truth to all, and we anticipate their imminent rise to Supreme Justice of Earth.

    Good thing poor defenseless whities have alandeon2 to defend their rapidly diminishing rights. And I say this as one such poor defenseless whitey.

    (I think I need an aspirin for the headache all the eye-rolling #31-36 has caused.)

  29. hypatiasdaughter says

    #35 alandeon2

    “Why assume that Zimmerman punched Martin as an initial attack?”
    Assume? Because there was no evidence brought forward that it didn’t happen that way.

    So, are you saying that is is highly possible that Zimmerman DID punch Martin as an initial attack?
    So anything Martin did would be a response to a physical assault initiated by Zimmerman. Which turns Martin’s actions into self defense. And which might have left some marks on Martin. I think you dug yourself a hole with that one, alandeon2.
    (However, my point was that an assault isn’t necessarily a punch – it could be grabbing someone or their clothing and thus leave no marks. Hell, threatening someone with a gun is an assault but leaves no marks.)

    Swelling may take time to show up, and so wouldn’t appear if Martin died immediately. But scrapes and broken blood vessels (the precursors to bruising) are created at the time you actually hit something and should be visible on the body. Bruises that occur just before or at the time of death can develop for a few days after death. I just cannot imagine someone straddling a person and beating their head on the ground would not get SOME injuries as the person they were attacking tried to fight them off.

    And as to my “improbable scenario”- just how do you think that Zimmerman and Martin met? There are two ways. We know Zimmerman got out of his vehicle and followed Martin. Either Martin realized he was being followed, turned and made an unprovoked attack on Zimmerman ; or Zimmerman accosted Martin, either grabbed him or punched him because he wouldn’t co-operate..
    Zimmerman claimed version 1, because version 2 makes what Zimmerman did legally in the wrong.

    Let me spell it out for you – Zimmerman had no legal right to detain Martin. He did not see him commit any crime or behave in a suspicious manner (such as trying to open car doors or sneaking around the houses). He only saw him walking down a sidewalk after dark. Even a cop couldn’t detain or arrest Martin on that. If he grabbed at Martin to stop him from walking away, that is an assault on Martin. If he punched Martin, that is an assault on Martin. Both mean that Martin could now use force to defend himself.
    Zimmerman claimed that Martin turned and made an unprovoked attack on him. He had to claim that because only that makes what Zimmerman did legal.
    And we have no evidence of which scenario is the truth because the only other person who knows what happened is dead.

    And for someone who thinks my scenario of how Zimmerman approached Martin is “so improbable” (do you think Martin ran around the subdivision looking for Zimmerman instead of Zimmerman looking for him?), you sure are spinning some wild conjectures about how everything went down – “if Martin lost his balance and stepped up with his left foot that there was plenty of space to reach the gun”; “Do you know why it bled from the back of his head to the front? Most likely because he was sitting with his head down”. Yeah, could be. And it could be B.S.

  30. HappyNat says

    alandeon2,

    You apparently need to read about privilege on FTB a few more times because you clearly don’t get it.

  31. says

    Hypatiasdaughter: I don’t know why you can’t see how absurdly farfetched it is that the vigilante wannabe-cop with the record of violent assault, the unauthorized firearm, the MMA classes, and the disdain for police caution would accost the “fucking punk” “asshole” who otherwise might “get away”. I’m pretty sure that’s a clear violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

  32. says

    You know, it’s one thing to agree that the jury reached the correct conclusion, given the law and the instructions given to the jury.

    It’s a whole nother thing to buy the idea that Zimmerman’s actions were in any way defensible. That’s just racist.

    Stop being racist!

  33. says

    You guys never cease to amaze me….

    37 @Dan L.”Why would you bring race into this? Zimmerman was Hispanic. Does it really change what happened here?
    People who aren’t white are also capable of racism.”

    KOFF! Kough cough…. WTF did you just say?!?

    “As far as getting your head pounded against the sidewalk 20 or 30 times, that would kill most human beings.”

    Are you sure? Has it happened to you? Do you know the pressure used for each blow in this case? You can’t say it would “kill most human beings” when you don’t know how hard he was hitting for most strikes. If he was trying to knock him out and not crush his skull then 20-30 blows would NOT kill but Zimmerman didn’t know how much he could take before dying did he?

    “You said “Hitting someone CAN cause injuries”. You are correct. It CAN but it doesn’t mean it WILL cause visible injury”

    I’m not seeing your point here. GZ HAD visible injuries that can be proven which clearly shows he was under attack by Martin right? Even if Martin’s hands weren’t visibly damaged in the attack.

    “How about “will almost certainly cause injuries”? Striking closed-handed almost inevitably leads to bruised and scraped knuckles and broken fingers.”

    This is no offense intended but it’s obvious now that you’ve never been in a fight before. (which I suppose is a good thing). I have. “Broken fingers”?!? Not very likely unless you or your opponent grasps them and bends them or alternately stomps them. I’ve been in fights where my hands were all broken up but I’ve also been in fights where there was ZERO damage afterwards even though the other guy looked like shit the next day. Your logic is flawed there.

    “Who are you to determine the extent of his injuries? He had swelling throughout his whole head, from his face and nose to the top of this forehead to the side of his head and especially to the back of his head. It takes strong and continuous blows to result in that many different areas of the head to result in swelling.
    Who are you to determine the extent of his injuries? That you’re so quick to do so after bemoaning that someone else doing it is unfair demonstrates a lot about your motivations in arguing this.”

    I don’t need to “determine” the extent of his injuries. I have the actual video evidence and investigation that clearly shows his injuries. You do too yet you are determined to ignore that. Why is that?
    I have no “motivations” for arguing this except that I believe I am using logic and you are using emotion, something that is becoming more and more prominent in the FTB community.

    “I’ve lived in the same area my whole life and I sometimes can’t remember the name of certain street enough to confidently tell 911 where to do. I’d second guess my memory also. Am I also a liar??
    “But he did confidently tell 911 which street it was and only afterwards said he didn’t.”

    And your point? He was uncertain but got it right and didn’t memorize what his previous statement were and got it wrong? Is that any reason to call someone a “lair”?

    “He wasn’t currently on watch duty. He was driving home with his legally licensed firearm and saw someone acting suspiciously and acted accordingly. He called the police and then went to figure out where this guy was and what he was up to.
    “There’s no evidence to suggest Martin was actually “acting suspiciously” and so here you are assuming facts not in evidence. Ignoring this and supposing Martin actually was “acting suspiciously” (again, no actual reason to believe that) then calling the police would be “acting accordingly.” “[Going] to figure out where this guy was and what he was up to” was not — even according to the police dispatcher he talked to!”

    You mean according to the *civilian NON-emergency line* call center? They fully acknowledge that they are not the law and that they cannot give commands, only suggestions. It was suggested to Zimmerman that “you don’t need to do that”. But Zimmerman was on the ground and needed to make that final determination himself, not someone 20 miles away at a call center. He did nothing illegal in following Martin whom he felt was acting suspiciously. He felt he needed to know exactly where this “suspicious” person disappeared to so he could point him out to the police when he arrived. THAT is the bottom line.

    “I think he left the variety story about 45 minutes before just to walk 10 minutes distance to his home. He actually disappeared and then re-appeared and walked past Zimmerman’s car AGAIN. Meaning maybe Trayvon was stalking him??”

    Or maybe thought (correctly) that he was being followed and “acted accordingly”. Surely if you think Zimmerman was justified in tracking the kid down you must concede that Martin was justified in trying to avoid being tracked down. If I saw someone following me in a truck I’d take some evasive action too.
    Sorry, the time stamp doesn’t jive for this scenario. He left the Variety store 30 minutes before Zimmerman made the call. He didn’t start “avoiding” him until just before the final incident. Do you not believe that Martin returned and circled his vehicle also? That doesn’t seem like a sign of someone “avoiding” danger. It sounds more like someone acting “suspicious” AND with intent.

    “You are NOT automatically an “aggressor” because you follow a suspicious person. If you are honestly following because you suspect them of something then you are not an “aggressor”. At that point you become a “concerned citizen” who has every right to follow and confront anyone who is acting suspiciously.

    “Let me guess: you’re white.”

    Let me guess; It really, really matters to you doesn’t it…

  34. says

    38 @Richard smith
    “Good thing poor defenseless whities have alandeon2 to defend their rapidly diminishing rights. And I say this as one such poor defenseless whitey”

    Yet another comment about “race”. I almost forgot this was a “black” against “white” thing. Thanks for reminding me. I forgot how privileged I am to be whi… what color am I again?

    Do you have any extra Aspirin, I’m starting to get that headache you were speaking about…..

  35. says

    39 @hypatiasdaughter
    “Why assume that Zimmerman punched Martin as an initial attack?”
    Assume? Because there was no evidence brought forward that it didn’t happen that way.”
    “So, are you saying that is is highly possible that Zimmerman DID punch Martin as an initial attack?”

    Actually, that was me mistyping. It’s obvious from my previous views that I concur that Martin punched Zimmerman and not the other way around.

    “So anything Martin did would be a response to a physical assault initiated by Zimmerman. Which turns Martin’s actions into self defense. And which might have left some marks on Martin. I think you dug yourself a hole with that one, alandeon2”

    Nope. Not at all. You should have known where I stood and understood that it was an error as I got the names reversed.

    “(However, my point was that an assault isn’t necessarily a punch – it could be grabbing someone or their clothing and thus leave no marks. Hell, threatening someone with a gun is an assault but leaves no marks.)
    Swelling may take time to show up, and so wouldn’t appear if Martin died immediately. But scrapes and broken blood vessels (the precursors to bruising) are created at the time you actually hit something and should be visible on the body. Bruises that occur just before or at the time of death can develop for a few days after death. I just cannot imagine someone straddling a person and beating their head on the ground would not get SOME injuries as the person they were attacking tried to fight them off. ”

    Whether you can imagine it or not isn’t the point. The point is that Zimmerman had indeed shown signs of a beating and that is the evidence that showed that Martin was on top striking Zimmerman.

    “And as to my “improbable scenario”- just how do you think that Zimmerman and Martin met? There are two ways. We know Zimmerman got out of his vehicle and followed Martin. Either Martin realized he was being followed, turned and made an unprovoked attack on Zimmerman ; or Zimmerman accosted Martin, either grabbed him or punched him because he wouldn’t co-operate..Zimmerman claimed version 1, because version 2 makes what Zimmerman did legally in the wrong.”

    Actually, I believe version 2 is not “legally in the wrong” but I could be incorrect. I think that you can “detain” someone for the police if you suspect them to be up to no good and that could include grasping their clothing to let them know they are being “detained” I don’t believe this happened and there is ZERO evidence of that possibility. Btw, I’m sure there are many more than just “two ways” but whatever floats your boat.
    As for scenario #1, all the evidence independently lead to that conclusion. From Zimmerman’s initial interviews to the recorded 911 calls (which GZ didn’t know about) as well as forensic evidence and medical reports. You can create any scenario you like but you better have evidence as to the likelihood of it happening some other way. Do you remember what GZ said when the investigators lied to him to see his reaction to the statement that “security cameras caught it all on tape”. GZ’s response? “Thank God”. He wasn’t worried in the slightest that he had lied and would now be discovered. He believed that this fake security tape would show he was innocent as he described. That is not something one would expect from someone intentionally lying don’t you think?

    “Let me spell it out for you – ”

    Oh Please do. You’ve done a wonderful job so far… ;-)

    “Zimmerman had no legal right to detain Martin. ”

    Maybe, maybe not. I’m not sure. It’s irrelevant because there is no evidence showing he did such a thing is there?

    “He did not see him commit any crime or behave in a suspicious manner (such as trying to open car doors or sneaking around the houses). ”

    Your opinion of “suspicious manner” is not the same as everyone’s idea of “suspicious manner”. Sorry, but you can’t equate your view of suspicious on what others might view as suspicious. It doesn’t work that way. Anyway, it was reported live on the dispatch recording that GZ saw TM standing in the rain looking into houses, which is highly suspicious given the amount of break-ins that had occurred that year. Again, your logic is flawed.

    “He only saw him walking down a sidewalk after dark.”

    Not exactly, that’s a misinterpretation of the reported facts. Please be more precise in the future.

    “Even a cop couldn’t detain or arrest Martin on that. ”

    Of course not, but he WOULD be able to detain and question him, ask for ID and possibly even search him. If he had anything illegal then the arrest would be next or he’d be free to go. I think you don’t understand the powers of the police do you?

    “If he grabbed at Martin to stop him from walking away, that is an assault on Martin. ”

    You have NO evidence that it happened that way so your point is moot.

    “If he punched Martin, that is an assault on Martin. Both mean that Martin could now use force to defend himself.

    “If…” You whole opinion is based on “if”?? Do you have evidence that it happened that way or was even more likely to have happened that way? No you do not.

    “Zimmerman claimed that Martin turned and made an unprovoked attack on him”

    Yes he did. Did you ever consider giving the benefit of the doubt in this case? Evidence showed this to be the most likely scenario and the prosecution could not prove otherwise.

    “He had to claim that because only that makes what Zimmerman did legal.”

    OR…. He was telling the truth, but don’t worry your pretty little head with nonsensical ideas like that eh? ;-)

    “And we have no evidence of which scenario is the truth because the only other person who knows what happened is dead.”

    I think you misunderstand what the word “evidence” means…. Evidence is NOT someone’s statement. Evidence is what you find out after that statement that corroborates said statement

    “And for someone who thinks my scenario of how Zimmerman approached Martin is “so improbable” (do you think Martin ran around the subdivision looking for Zimmerman instead of Zimmerman looking for him?),”

    I think it was a combination of the two. GZ followed TM in the car as he made his initial call. TM followed him, returning and circling the vehicle THEN GZ followed him to ascertain where his might have gone in order to report his location to the cops. I also believe an altercation happened in back when the two met up. Neither you nor I know exactly what happened in the moments before the neighbor called 911 and the recording of the incident started but here you are presuming a lot.

    “you sure are spinning some wild conjectures about how everything went down – “if Martin lost his balance and stepped up with his left foot that there was plenty of space to reach the gun”; “Do you know why it bled from the back of his head to the front? Most likely because he was sitting with his head down”. Yeah, could be. And it could be B.S.”

    Yes it could but evidence showed otherwise. Follow the evidence and tell me where I’m wrong about each example. How do YOU think that blood droplet bled from his head injury to the front of his head? Do you have a more likely explanation as to why gravity would do such a thing if he was looking face down?

    You WANT him to be guilty. Why?

  36. says

    I wish there were an edit button. I don’t think I was very clear with this line

    >>People who aren’t white are also capable of racism.”

    >>>KOFF! Kough cough…. WTF did you just say?!?

    I meant to add, “say it ain’t so…. But alas, we’ve yet to find any evidence that GZ was racist, did we?”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>