No one denied that he was on the phone before the confrontation. That doesn't mean he didn't confront Zimmerman. Even Rachel Jenteal testified that Martin spoke first to Zimmerman, saying "What are you following me for?" (notably not saying anything about a gun being pointed at him. As far as I know, the only evidence of that was the PROSECUTOR trying to demonstrate that of course Zimmerman couldn't pull his gun if Martin was on top of him, while cross examining the defense expert who did not testify that he would be unable to take it out. The prosecutor's questions (and reenactments) are not evidence. The defense put forward no such theory (and why would they, they were defending Zimmerman). The prosecution wanted that to be what happened, but presented no evidence to that effect. The closest they got was Rachel Jenteal testifying that she thought Martin was pushed "because the headset fell". That would be true in every self-defense case. I walked into the alley, was attacked, had to defend myself. That would mean walking into the alley put you in a dangerous situation. That simply cannot be the law, because it would eliminate self-defense. You also have Rachel Jenteal's words. She said Martin said he was being followed by a creepy as cracker, then asked him why he was following him. Why would that matter? He could have been on the phone with his mother or a phone sex operator. Someone walking behind you and talking on the phone does not trigger the right to use force against them. Because their right to self-defense is the same as that of other people. You cannot use force against someone that has not used force or created the imminent danger of force against you. Someone following so far behind you that they lose track of you while talking on the phone doesn't enable you to attack them. I would say Martin put him in danger. Until he was attacked, he was walking in his own neighborhood.
Yet, none of that is consistent with someone planning to attack a guy for any reason other than he might feel threatened. Martin was unarmed, shot, and killed, and wasn't able to prevent his own defense. Martin was also residing in the neighborhood at the time and had the right to be returning from the store there. The neighborhood didn't belong to Zimmerman, and his right to be there doesn't supercede Martin's. Martin has been accused attacking first but was denied the chance to present a defense of that because The armed Zimmermann shot and killed the unarmed Martin.
Or he felt enraged that a "creepy ass cracka" was following him, calling the police on him, and not minding his own business. It is perfectly consistent with that. No one said he didn't. If two people are in a place they have a right to be, neither has a right to attack the other. The People of the State of Florida presented Martin's side of it. They failed to meet their burden in proving Martin was not the aggressor. It didn't help their case that all of the physical evidence was entirely consistent with Zimmerman's recounting of events, that Zimmerman had visible injuries to the face and back of the head, that Zimmerman had wet grass stains on his back and Martin had them on his knees, that Martin's knuckles were injured as though from repeatedly punching Zimmerman, that the single shot fired was fired from 2-4 inches away from Martin and in contact with his clothing (as though he was mounted on top of Zimmerman), that the eyewitnesses stated Zimmerman was screaming for help before shooting Martin, exactly as he told police when they arrived, and that Zimmerman immediately gave a voluntary statement to police without counsel, including submitting to a voice stress analysis test and the police determined he was not being deceptive. There is no way to determine with 100% certainty what happened in any situation, but Zimmerman should never have even been tried with this state of evidence.
Again you’re ignoring that Zimmerman himself said he was following a suspicious individual and had been warned not to. This want just him waking around for the sake of walking around. So Zimmerman being suspicious of Martin and deciding to follow him has no bearing on the situation but Martin being suspicious of someone following him means that Martin is the one that is the threat? You made the claim specifically that Martin shouldn’t have been suspicious because Zimmerman was talking to 911. Now you are backtracking from that. If it didn’t matter why did you raise that as an argument that Martin wasn’t justified in considering Zimmerman a threat? You’re basically given the benefit of the doubt to Zimmerman while denying that Martin was the one pursued and also had good reason to be feel threatened. Again neither are LEO so what is the relevance regarding training LEO? And again he himself stated he was in pursuit of an individual he found was suspicious that a dispatcher told him not to. Whether legal or not that is irresponsible.
Martin's language was certainly impolite but he does have reason to feel threatened by someone who was following him. First off the prosecutor overcharged and made several other mistakes. The physical evidence does prove an altercation. At the moment that the shot was fired yes Zimmerman was losing the altercation so yes under reasonable doubt yes he was in fear for his life. What wasn't proved at all though is who actually started the altercation. As you yourself noted earlier in the thread that words can be threatening and we don't have any documentation of what immediately precipitated the confrontation. We only have Zimmerman's account. The cellphone call to Martin's girlfriend only proves that Martin knew Zimmerman was following him and that Martin felt threatened by it. IN other words it is possible that Zimmerman did start the confrontation. Again I will repeat because I believe this is the most important point and ties back to the this thread. It is a fact that Zimmerman believed Martin was suspcious and he CHOSE to follow him and had been warned against it. Yes Zimmerman has a right to be out in public, so does Martin, but this is another example of an action that might be your right and legal but very irrsponsible. Trying to enforce the law is something that should be done with a lot of caution.
Actually, his statement was that he never saw Martin after getting out of his car until he was confronted by him and attacked. No, Martin attacking Zimmerman is what makes him the threat. It didn't matter who he was on the phone with (it happened to be the Sandford police non-emergency number). What was important was that all he was doing was driving, then walking and talking on the phone. Martin didn't know who he was on the phone with (or perhaps even that he was on the phone) but he did know that the only information he had was there was a guy walking, just like that was the information Zimmerman had about him. At that point, neither had legal cause to attack the other. When did I deny Martin was pursued? I said he wasn't "hunted" but gave a whole list of words that could be used, including followed, etc. You cannot attack someone because they are walking behind you. Because the standard for self-defense is the same, regardless of occupation. How is it irresponsible to follow a suspicious person to direct law enforcement to their location? Also, his statement was that he was returning to his vehicle after the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." and then was approached from behind by Martin. This is substantiated by the timing and location of the encounter. There is also a documentary that suggests the key state witness was a fraud: It appears that the woman who testified about being on the phone with Trayvon Martin was lying and the state knew or should have known. The documentarian does a lot of goofy stuff for entertainment value (like talking to a voodoo priest) but the investigation into Rachel Jeantel and Diamond Eugene seems legit based on the documents. He can feel whatever he wants, but you cannot attack someone because they are walking behind you a substantial distance. Zimmerman wasn't trying to enforce the law, he called the police. Are you saying people should not call the police to report suspicious behavior? You are also completely speculating based on absolutely nothing that Zimmerman started a confrontation and that he continued following after the dispatcher told him not to do so. All of the actual evidence supports the acquittal. Zimmerman didn't even testify, so it can't have been based on his testimony.
2nd degree manslaugther “We can confirm that Daniel Penny will be arrested on a charge of Manslaughter in the Second Degree,” reads a statement sent by Doug Cohen, a spokesman for the Manhattan district attorney’s office. “We cannot provide any additional information until he has been arraigned in Manhattan Criminal Court, which we expect to take place tomorrow.”
It looks like there are some formatting issues with your post but to reiterate. Yes there was reasonable doubt so I can understand the acquittal of Zimmerman. That doesn’t mean that he wasn’t behaving irresponsibly. Also again since Martin is dead there is no way to determine what was in his mind or exactly how the situation started other than Zimmerman’s account. Most likely though if Zimmerman had just decided to stay at home or just followed the advice by the dispatcher and stayed kn his car none of this would’ve happened.
Again not surprised. The key issue from what I’ve seen is that there is yet to be evidence that Neely was physically assaulting any of the passengers. That would rule out a justification for using this technique in him.
He doesn't hate white people. If he hates anything, it is corruptions in the system. That is not the same as hating white people - he hates the inequality is a system, that happens to be a patriarchy and a system that is largely controlled by what happens to be white people because the USA was founded by wealthy white men. That does not mean he hates white people - it is lazy to assume that because the system of power is controlled by white people, that he hates all white people. If the system was controlled by black women, there would be black women complaining that he hates black women.
I have seen enough to know that he hates white people. I don’t really care what his stupid reasons are. He point blank said he hates white people. A racist is a racist. Had he said the same thing about any other race, he would’ve been banned from here and he would have zero defenders trying to explain him. He absolutely confirmed his racisim. It’s not up for debate anymore. Dude is a pile of ****.
Second degree manslaughter is the proper charge and there is a good chance he is convicted unless new information comes forward. The victim (and yes he is a victim) did not assault or commit a battery against anyone. He was not armed and no one has come forward claiming that he threatened them other than the assailant (an yes he is an assailant). From what is known, there is very justification for someone to attack and use a dangerous hold against the victim, and certainly not for as long as he did - as he killed the victim. There is a real since of vigilante entitlement by some white males. If someone cannot differentiate between what is and isn't a threat - and what is and isn't excessive force - then they need to not be doing things like a chokehold.
Second degree manslaughter is the proper charge and there is a good chance he is convicted unless new information comes forward. The victim (and yes he is a victim) did not assault or commit a battery against anyone. He was not armed and no one has come forward claiming that he threatened them other than the assailant (an yes he is an assailant). From what is known, there is very justification for someone to attack and use a dangerous hold against the victim, and certainly not for as long as he did - as he killed the victim. There is a real since of vigilante entitlement by some white males. If someone cannot differentiate between what is and isn't a threat - and what is and isn't excessive force - then they need to not be doing things like a chokehold.
Show me where he said he hates white people and the basis he gave. Would he? I don't think so........ because I don't think he says he hates white people. He hates systemic bias and a lack of equity. Pointing out that the system was made by and largely ran by white men, and has benefited white men isn't racist - it is a fact. Why isn't it racist? Because he doesn't inherently hate white people, if the USA was founded by brown people, and the system was founded by brown people, and brown people benefitted from it - he would point that out. How do I know that he would do that? Because he has before, especially when it comes to Islam for example. You are a public school teacher, no?
On a side note - this is also why at some point it gets almost as old hearing conservatives complain about "woke people" as it is hearing self-righteous "woke" folks complain about everything. This thread is a perfect example. There are not posters that are angry that everything is about race for woke people - and these came people complaining that woke people are only concerned about race - are claiming that pointing out inherent inequalities is racist. I don't really have much of a use for either side on this.
I have seen enough to know that he hates white people. I don’t really care what his stupid reasons are. He point blank said he hates white people. A racist is a racist. Had he said the same thing about any other race, he would’ve been banned from here and he would have zero defenders trying to explain him. He absolutely confirmed his racisim. It’s not up for debate anymore. Dude is a pile of ****. It was pretty recent, I can’t remember which thread. I was convinced before that though. I believe I asked him “does a day go by where you don't come on here and spew your hatred for white people?” His response was a flat and hateful “no”. Im actually done with this discussion though. Not wasting more time on that racist.
Quote me. Seriously just quote me. just end it already and post quotes that easily prove your narrative given how much you believe it's a slam dunk.
