You're very demanding of my time, asking me so many questions. I'll humor you, though, this time. I would not recommend "compromising" the law. Depending on the facts of what happened (which we don't know fully), he should be held up against that standard. I'm not in favor of making a "compromise" to charge him with something just because there is racial scrutiny on the case.
Bigtexxx: Can you (amidst all of this lollygagging and name calling) give me a list of vital facts that you feel are missing to give judgment on this case?
Wow... Staying away from D&D threads was a great idea... Bigtex, you pretty much argue like a child. Again and again people have pointed out legitimate facts and articles that supports the claim that Zimmerman in fact was NOT in as much danger as said (a witness claiming she heard Martin cry out for help, only to be corrected by an officer. Seriously who was there at the scene, the lady or the cop?). You show your hypocrisy through what somebody else has pointed out And you again and again dismiss and ignore concrete facts that people bring up (such as the size difference between Martin and Zimmerman, the fact that nothing that could be used as a weapon was held by Martin as he died)? Not to mention it is mentioned in one of the articles that Zimmerman "Called for help" (which a witness contradicts), yet there is no mention of him recalling HOW Martin was dangerous. He never mentioned anything about Martin going for the gun, or a rock or any type of object that can be used as a weapon of any sort. Ignoring the couple of people calling you out without a real post, the ones that actually do you ignore and defer to other quotes that BARELY has a connection with the actual quote people are asking you to answer. You argue like a child, you're stubborn enough that when people provide you information that actually hurts your argument you start to get all butthurt and keep saying people are pulling the race card. Yet you referred to Martin as "The Black", and when somebody pointed this out you simply said you didn't know what was PC and what was not, yet other people pointed the many other things that you could have called Martin without creating controversy You're exactly like one of those kids who believe in one thing, and when other kids at school point out to you that you're wrong you simply shake your head, cover your ears, go "NOPE I DON'T HEAR ANYTHING YOU'RE ALL JUST PULLING THE RACE CARD AND TARGETING ME I'M RIGHT YOU'RE WRONG GO LOOK AT THE THINGS I'VE SAID HATERS GONNA HATE I'M DA BESS". I applaud your stubbornness, but there comes to a point where things point in the other direction and you should open your mind up and free it of bias. If I remember correctly somebody said that in this thread... Rocketsjudoka clearly asks you where there is evidence that Martin was a threat that required deadly force, yet you never provided it... Free your mind of what again? When you have somebody twice your size following you in a car, obviously you're going to ask questions. Some people might just shy and run away, but obviously Martin questioned Zimmerman's motives. So please tell me, if you were approached by a man twice your size who has a weapon (permitted or not) and is provoking you, what the hell would you do? By the way, don't just point out the part where I call you a child and dismiss the rest of my post. It seems like you're very capable of doing that and I'm going to call you out on it every time you do that from now on.
TL;DR Let me know if you provided the necessary facts to come to a conclusion as to whether or not Zimmerman truly acted in self defense: i.e., what happened between Zimmerman confronting Martin and the shot. Until you can do that, you have no basis to prove or disprove of Zimmerman's claim of self defense. Sorry, but you just don't. I've taught many in this thread an important lesson -- not to let your bias creep into your logic and decision making. There are critical facts missing here, but many of you have attempted to use insufficient circumstantial evidence to convince yourself of Zimmerman's guilt. I'm glad our court system operates using a higher standard than you do.
LOL. You actually used a tl;dr in a thread in a DEBATE & DISCUSSION forum? Not to mention I mention EXACTLY why Zimmerman was sketchy and his words (or lack thereof) don't hold up to his story. I would quote but you would just claim it was too long and dismiss it. I don't understand how other people can tolerate you, if this was 14 pages ago I might have just let everything slip but with more information coming you again and again fail to realize that Zimmerman's story is NOT a real story. Dead men don't talk, but witnesses do. Whether it was a visual or audial account, it clearly breaks holes in Zimmerman's story. Would you like to dismiss this argument too? Not to mention never did I once said Zimmerman was definitely guilty, I was simply questioning things like you are, yet you can't answer them.
Sorry, but you still cannot prove with facts what happened between Zimmerman confronting Martin and the shot. "Being sketchy" isn't enough. need more facts, and you cannot provide them based on what I've seen.
I'm not saying HE'S sketchy. I'm saying his STORY is sketchy. There's a different there home boy. Audial witnesses contradict his story, and the only two people who knows exactly what happened (visually) was a man with a gun and a dead kid. If I kill any random person and claim it was self defense am I free to go because nobody saw what happened? There's CLEARLY a contradiction to the man's story through a witness, and it has been pointed out again and again that a cop attempted to correct her story. Please tell me how you can overlook that and not see the faults in his story, not to mention your own arguments? When only two people can see what really happened and one is dead, cops look for WITNESSES to verify events. This is exactly what happened. Give that "no concrete evidence dgaf" **** again and it's obvious that you have no idea what you're talking about.
What about the evidence the police claim they have that supports Zimmerman's self defense claim? Until that is shared, we don't have enough evidence, no matter how bad you personally want to convict Zimmerman. Sorry.
Where have you read that? I see articles that say Police can't refute his self defense claim, but I have yet to see one where it says Police has evidence that SUPPORTS the self defense claim. Source please.
also when I say police can't refute his self-defense claim, I mean they SAY they can't refute it despite a contradicting witness encounter. Note that this is coming from the Sanford police department that has a terrible track record, such as an attempt to cover Justin Collison suckerpunching a homeless man. The only reason he went to court and was sentenced to probation was because people recorded a video of him punching him out and having the video go viral.
Skittles would have killed him..........I laughed my ass off for 10 minutes, BigBenito is a top 3 poster on this site as far as I'm concerned.
http://www.wftv.com/news/news/witness-sanford-police-blew-us-teen-slaying/nLSqk/ The feds might need to get involved. It looks like the cops aint doing their job.
WHAT WE NEED TO KNOW IS WHY ZIMMERMAN REPORTED A SUSPICIOUS TEENAGER IN HIS COMMUNITY. NEITHER IS WALKING DOWN THE STREET IN THE RAIN UNARMED. what, according to your twisted logic, gives this armed man with an arrest record, the right to pursue anyone? a self appointed title of watch captain and a sticker on his window? he had no right to call in the suspicious behavior, he had no right to pursue an innocent teenager, Plain and Simple! while I can't call you a troll, you are trolling this thread. while I won't call you a racist, you are exhibiting racist tendencies and biases. while I won't call you a bigot, you are indeed behaving like one, defending the shooter of an innocent boy while demanding more facts. THERE ARE NO MORE FACTS BECAUSE THE BOY DIDN'T DESERVE TO BE FOLLOWED AND SHOT. I'll say it again, YOU are the common denominator here, not the lack of facts or biased media reports. you act like a child. pathetic.
So what we know is: - Zimmerman initiated the contact to Martin and confronted him - Martin was unarmed - Zimmerman shot Martin dead In my opinion, whether Martin became physical first is only partly relevant. He was unarmed, thus the use of deadly force is excessive in any case (despite the "Stand your ground" law, which seems strange anyway, but that's another matter). The only additional fact that could change my opinion is if they found a gun that Martin pointed at Zimmerman, but that has obviously not happened. Therefore, without additional facts, I can conclude that Zimmerman should have been arrested because he killed a person without being justified by self-defense (even if he thought he was defending himself, the means he used were excessive). As I said, all that is completely regardless of what race either one of them belonged to (Zimmerman looks Hispanic, by the way, despite the German name).
Sounds like Zimmerman confronted him, instigated a fight and lost. Then afterwards in his anger he chased Martin down and shot him dead, execution style. The screams for help that the neighbors heard were of a terrified Martin seeing the guy he had just beaten coming towards him with a gun. That sounds like the timeline of events that will emerge when this murderer finally gets his day in court.
This is pretty much how I understand the self-defense statute. from the article: [rquoter]However, WFTV legal analyst Bill Sheaffer reviewed the statute and said that if Zimmerman was told by 911 to not confront Martin and did anyway, the statute is not on his side. "The use of deadly force in this case was unlawful and a valid arrest could have been made," Sheaffer said. Sheaffer also said that ultimately an arrest could be, and likely should be made, and then the state would decide if the charges stick. "Under the facts, it is above the discretion for Sanford not to affect on arrest and then send it to the State Attorney's Office," said Sheaffer.[/rquoter] You can't start a fight and claim self-defense. The fact that Zimmerman was warned by the police not to confront Martin shows without a doubt that Zimmerman provoked the confrontation. I can see the possibility based on the earlier scenario I laid out that it was self-defense but as more information comes out that seems even less likely.
Everyone has the right to call in what they consider suspicious behavior and to verbally confront someone who they think is suspicious. You don't have the right to use violence against them just on the basis of your suspicion. If not for the shooting this would be nothing more than an overzealous / paranoid person harassing a teenager. Obnoxious but not illegal.
