It's funny how somebody argues that a boy was armed with Skittles vs a man with a gun is irrelevent. Don't bring a bag of skittles to a gun fight. In other words, it's not logical for a kid to go into a gunfight with a bag of candy. If somebody has a gun on you, your 1st instinct is not to attack him.
Well he has a Jew name so I'm going to have to question his faith regardless of anything he might say he believes, believed or any other evidence of his upbringing. Jew name. CASE CLOSED (p.s. "Hussein." )
It isn't relevant because the black wasn't the aggressor. The black could have had an AK47 around his neck ...it's irrelevant. All the facts presented (at this point in time) indicate that Zimmerman was the agressor and only Zimmerman's firearm was utilized in the confrontation. Therefore, Zimmerman cannot claim self defense. Zimmerman did not "stand his ground".
Really? There is? Do you have a link? His nose does absolutely not look broken and I do not see stitches anywhere. I can also not remember any news report that would have said anything about a broken nose or stitches. The kid was on the phone with someone else. He was minding his own business. Why would he call 911 before there was even any confrontation? Again, can you provide a link? I do not remember anything about an eyewitness who would have said that it was Zimmerman who yelled for help. How could a witness see the boy allegedly beating the man, but not the shooting, which happened seconds later? Does not really compute. If I see a fight and someone screaming for help, am I going to look away? See above. I heard the audio. Doesn't sound like Zimmerman in his 911 call. How is that in any way supported by the 911 transcripts? I don't think these are irrelevant. It's not about the skittles, but the fact that he was unarmed. When checking the plausibility of how the fight might have gone, physical strength might be relevant. Personally, I think the facts are pretty clear. At least clear enough to arrest Zimmerman (at this point, possibly even for his own protection...) But that should be subject to the findings at a fair trial. How come it is suddenly clear that the kid assaulted him first? That is not clear at all. And again, where do you get the broken nose from? I agree. Pure speculation. Again, I can't see a broken nose and the injuries (if they happened) could be self-inflicted after the fact.
Yeah, I think so. I mean, so far it sounds like Zimmerman pursued Martin setting up the confrontation. If Martin felt threatened I would think he's justified in defending his life.
That photo of Zimmerman is from 2005, IIRC. Oh, I see someone else has noted that. FWIW, I am not persuaded that the new witness John absolves Zimmerman. I'm still waiting for more facts. Apparently that makes me a racist.
LOL yeah, good point. But he could have been taken to the station for questioning or whatever...but yes, you are right.
I have not read this yet. Perhaps Volokh thinks Zimmerman is guilty. Regardless, I generally enjoy this law blog, so I am posting a link. Lethal Self-Defense, the Quantum of Proof, the “Duty to Retreat,” and the Aggressor Exception
WHAT....THEY DIDN'T GIVE ZIMMERMAN HIS GUN BACK! I AM OUTRAGED. How will the poor folks in that gated community sleep when their "Captain" has been rendered weaponless. Mark my words the blacks will be going in and out for candy and pop at ALL HOURS of the night, without fear!
Those savage and uncivilized blacks are going to destroy that neighborhood! Will anyone think of the children? The non-black children of course.
