Zimmerman Trial

gilesfan said:
Who was pursuing who when the fight started?

Also, pursuing someone doesn't equate to starting a fight. That is a presumption.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'll grant that. I just think that lots of people are far too willing to gloss over the fact that Zimmerman's decision to pursue Martin could reasonably be construed as threatening, and that the fact that the court only heard the account of the survivor of the fight should be troubling. The verdict was reasonable in light of the laws of the state, but it's far from establishing the truth of the situation, which is what I'm getting at.
 
While I agree with that, I don't agree with people presuming that Zimmerman was the aggressor without any shred of evidence showing that to be the case. And instead of it being the main contention in the case, it's glossed over as believe that Zimmerman was the aggressor.

If Zimmerman initiated the fight, he got off with at the very least manslaughter. But, with the evidence we have been given, I don't see why people don't believe Zimmermans version of the events.
 
gilesfan said:
While I agree with that, I don't agree with people presuming that Zimmerman was the aggressor without any shred of evidence showing that to be the case. And instead of it being the main contention in the case, it's glossed over as believe that Zimmerman was the aggressor.

If Zimmerman initiated the fight, he got off with at the very least manslaughter. But, with the evidence we have been given, I don't see why people don't believe Zimmermans version of the events.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is presuming Zimmerman is the aggressor. WE're all presuming that the evidence isn't all there because we don't know what happened between Zimmerman stalking Martin and Zimmerman shooting Martin who was on top of him.
 
Julio3000 said:
He was suspended for truancy, tardiness, and possession of a weed pipe. Not fighting. And, FWIW, he had no criminal record.

I will say the ***elry thing looks sketchy. Still, you're talking about teenage BS, for the most part. If every kid who smoked weed and talked tough were a hardened, violent criminal, we wouldn't have enough qualified people to staff all of the prisons we'd need.
Click to expand...

You disappoint me Julio. How easily you dismiss the one but insist everyone else not dismiss stuff about GZ. Pretty rich.
 
zitothebrave said:
I don't think anyone is presuming Zimmerman is the aggressor. WE're all presuming that the evidence isn't all there because we don't know what happened between Zimmerman stalking Martin and Zimmerman shooting Martin who was on top of him.
Click to expand...

Y'all aren't? What's with all the questions about Zimmerman pursuing-stalking him then?
 
BedellBrave said:
You disappoint me Julio. How easily you dismiss the one but insist everyone else not dismiss stuff about GZ. Pretty rich.
Click to expand...

We have only Zimmerman's word that Martin attacked him. We KNOW that Zimmerman made the choice to pursue in his car, and again on foot, against police advice. In highlighting his past—which had not to my knowledge been touched upon here—I'm underscoring the idea that one can make assumptions as easily about GZ as people in this thread have made about Martin.

The fact remains that only one of the two had arrests for violent crime and/or felony criminal complaints made against him.

You said Martin was a thug. That's a pretty loaded term, particularly applied to a black teen. It implies what? Violent criminality? Interesting.

Why is he a thug? Weed? In that case, I guess Jordan Schafer is a thug. Suspension from school for truancy? Guess I'm a thug, too.

I've limited my observations about Zimmerman to criticism of choices and behavior that he indisputably engaged in. I haven't made a sweeping value judgement about who or what he "is."
 
BedellBrave said:
Y'all aren't? What's with all the questions about Zimmerman pursuing-stalking him then?
Click to expand...

I think I've stated it plenty of times. I don't know. Neither do any of us. I am pointing out the fact that there is only one surviving witness, and his story is necessarily self-serving. I don't buy his story. You do. Super.

Either guy could have initiated the physical confrontation. Granted. I'm just perplexed by why you (and others) seem to think it's immaterial that the armed Zimmerman was pursuing the "****ing punk," who was in fact not engaged in any illegal activity.
 
BedellBrave said:
Still disappointed. Oh well.
Click to expand...

How can I help you out here?

You want me to say that truancy, tardiness, and weed—along with a glorification of guns that, well, would seem to cut a pretty wide swath in our culture—represents a grave danger to society?
 
Neither you nor I know if Martin was engaged in any illegal activity.

What reasons do you have for not buying Zimmermans story? Is their any evidence that contradicts the story? Or do you just believe he was a racists thus he must have been the aggressor?
 
What I find very telling is that when he was interrogated by the cops and they lied to him and said it was all recorded by a security camera his response was "thank god". Thats not conclusive but you would expect him to be atleast a little nervous or rattled if he was lying.
 
gilesfan said:
Neither you nor I know if Martin was engaged in any illegal activity.

What reasons do you have for not buying Zimmermans story? Is their any evidence that contradicts the story? Or do you just believe he was a racists thus he must have been the aggressor?
Click to expand...

No reason to believe that he was. None at all. Nothing that he was doing or carrying indicated it.

I allow for the possibility that either guy was the aggressor in the physical confrontation. It's just as likely to have been Zimmerman. I think that his pursuit essentially amounted to an escalation of the situation, which makes him morally culpable, if not legally.

I don't believe that he was a racist thug. His previous calls to police do indicate that he considered young black men (including one "7-9" years old) in his neighborhood as suspicious, but I can't say what was in the guy's head. I think that his statements on the 911 call "...****ing punk. These assholes always get away" could indicate a mindset that he was at least willing to pursue and confront the kid. There have been studies that have shown that people who are armed are more likely to engage in aggressive behavior while driving, presumably because carrying a gun gives them some kind of feeling of "insurance" in case of conflict.

His account of the incident portrays him as being entirely passive. He just stood there while Martin approached him and said TV gangster stuff like "You got a problem? You do now." The kid said "You're gonna die tonight," while he was beating him up? That's video game stuff. GZ didn't open his mouth, didn't go for his gun, didn't take a swing? He did nothing at all until firing the shot? It just doesn't seem likely.
 
cajunrevenge said:
What I find very telling is that when he was interrogated by the cops and they lied to him and said it was all recorded by a security camera his response was "thank god". Thats not conclusive but you would expect him to be atleast a little nervous or rattled if he was lying.
Click to expand...

Good catch.
 
Julio3000 said:
No reason to believe that he was. None at all. Nothing that he was doing or carrying indicated it.

I allow for the possibility that either guy was the aggressor in the physical confrontation. It's just as likely to have been Zimmerman. I think that his pursuit essentially amounted to an escalation of the situation, which makes him morally culpable, if not legally.

I don't believe that he was a racist thug. His previous calls to police do indicate that he considered young black men (including one "7-9" years old) in his neighborhood as suspicious, but I can't say what was in the guy's head. I think that his statements on the 911 call "...****ing punk. These assholes always get away" could indicate a mindset that he was at least willing to pursue and confront the kid. There have been studies that have shown that people who are armed are more likely to engage in aggressive behavior while driving, presumably because carrying a gun gives them some kind of feeling of "insurance" in case of conflict.

His account of the incident portrays him as being entirely passive. He just stood there while Martin approached him and said TV gangster stuff like "You got a problem? You do now." The kid said "You're gonna die tonight," while he was beating him up? That's video game stuff. GZ didn't open his mouth, didn't go for his gun, didn't take a swing? He did nothing at all until firing the shot? It just doesn't seem likely.
Click to expand...

You seem to give TM a lot of benefit of the doubt, but fail to do so with Zimmerman.

There are instances of Zimmerman sticking up for a black homeless man that was beat and he called for police corruption. Martin is also on the phone saying "creepy cracker," correct? Why is Zimmerman considered the racist when there is actual evidence of the other party throwing out a racial slur?

Again, Zimmerman answered every question. He took the police out to the crime scene and described what happened. It was played back along with the recording and both paths of travel between Zimmerman and Martin. Nothing he said showed him to be lying, hiding the truth, or any form of dishonest. I didn't find any evidence that Zimmerman account of the events to be false. As much scrutiny on this case, I would think the pressure would get to him and he would slip up, no?

Again, if you think he was the aggressor, then thats your opinion. I just don't see any evidence to crucify the guy. I just dont agree with how Zimmermans past is being blown out of proportion yet you get no mention of Martins past. And also, this media circus blew up because it was presumed that Zimmerman was white, when in fact he's hispanic. (unless you believe Obama and Tiger are white, ?)

The ignorance on this matter is what really got me. Especially from a lot of celebrities/athletes.
 
Also, Zimmerman's story kept getting more ornate each time he told it. After his first interview he added a direct death threat to the catalog of things Martin allegedly said. The kid allegedly put his hands over Zimmerman's mouth and tried to smother him. The guy is fighting for his life, and he doesn't try to bite him, or anything?

Obviously, he got popped in the face. But Zimmerman said that the kid was "slamming" his head on the concrete. The photos of his injuries are available. Those lacerations could certainly come from hitting his head on the concrete while he was struggling with someone on top of him, but they seem pretty mild for someone who got his head slammed on the concrete repeatedly by someone who had leverage over him and arguably superior strength. Also, Martin is allegedly slamming the head of a furiously struggling 200-lb man into the sidewalk, and yet he has none of Zimmerman's DNA on his fingernails?

None of this is even to necessarily say that Martin couldn't have sucker punched him. I'm just saying that his story doesn't seem likely. I'm sure it happened too fast for him to have perfect recall, and it's unreasonable to expect him to, but he told a story that was laughably one-sided. I'm more inclined to believe that they scuffled—for whatever reason—he got the worst of it, panicked, and fired. Obviously, even that is not grounds to convict him under Florida law. But that doesn't mean that his account of the fight isn't entirely self-serving. No preamble, no talking, no posturing—the kid just rushed him and tried to kill him with his bare hands, all while announcing that he was trying to kill him.

The lead detective who interviewed him recommended a manslaughter charge, which I doubt he'd have done if he believed the story.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top