According to others though and outside analysis it appears Martin is calling for help. Also just to add it doesn't matter if Zimmerman is calling for help if he started it, getting your ass kicked in a fight you started doesn't constitute self-defense. The core problem to this whole case is nobody knows, but Zimmerman, who actually was the initial aggressor.
According to one witness. There are witnesses who have testified that it was Martin calling for help. And some witnesses who've changed their story or said they didn't know. Of course you choose to ignore evidence which goes against the scenario you've already decided upon.
LOL at the outside analysis. There are experts debunking that technology. The witness I am referring to said Zimmerman yelled for help and he responded to Zimmerman that he was calling 9-11. That's going to be a pretty compelling witness. That aside. If we believe the transcript of the TM's girlfriend's recollection of her call. We know that Martin decided to confront Zimmerman by saying "Why are you following me?". Since Martin was not a permanent resident of that gated community it's not unreasonable that someone might follow him to see what he's up to. And to your point, if nobody knows how the hell are they going to convict Zimmernan of 2nd Degree Murder? Especially when the last words as heard by a prosecution witness before the altercation took place from Zimmerman were "What are you doing here?" Nothing of depraved mind with that statement. The struggle ensued at that point.
With the current evidence, there are no witnesses that can reliably collaborate either way. The issue is the hard evidence completely suggests Zimmerman was on bottom and Martin was on top. Why would Martin be screaming for help when he's beating Zimmermans ass while Zimmerman in on bottom and remaining silent? Only one of them was screaming for help, not both. Again for the hundredth time, its who escalated the situation, not who was screaming for help. It doesn't matter if he was going for skittles. It doesn't matter if he was casing a house. It doesn't matter if Martin was kicking his ass. It doesn't matter if Zimmerman was trying to be a good boy scout. Stop distorting the facts with irrelevant details.
Are you serious? How did we fail MLK's vision? Well, your posts for one certainly fails that vision in trying to put the plight of Barbie blondes on par with groups that have faced a long history of racism and abuse while asserting that some groups are prone to violence. MLK would certainly not approve of your tactics or your premise. Giddy, most rational people understand the difference between a long history of racism and abuse against minorities from police entrusted to uphold the law and random people in the streets committing acts of violence. A riot is the language of the unheard. - MLK
Of course I'm serious. Facts are facts. Some riot. Others do not. MLK would not approve of that. I didn't equate the plights of two groups. I pointed out that there were, in fact, not two groups. It wouldn't surprise me though if there weren't more violent crime committed against Barbie Blondes when you consider domestic abuse, rape et al.... You are just using racism to excuse anything perpetrated on similarly innocent people. MLK and Ghandi both chose non-violent responses; you seem to ignore/forget that. It's a crime for both a cop or a citizen to beat someone within an inch of their life. You make it sound like the cops walked out of the donut shop and found a guy to beat. They were pumped with adrenaline from a high speed chase and close combat trying to subdue King. That does excuse them but it does explain some of their excess force. Does he say that makes it right?
Martin could have been screaming when he saw Zimmerman's gun. Martin could have been screaming for help had Zimmerman initially attacked him. The fact that Zimmerman was getting beaten doesn't mean he wasn't the person the who escalated the confrontation. I'd rather just wait for the trial and examination of the evidence rather than go around now and rule out some of the evidence and accept some of the evidence.
You put their likelihood to commit violence in the same discussion as if their histories within criminal justice gave them each a reasonable likelihood to commit violence after an unfavorable verdict. It's amazing to me how you could say things and then simply deny you said them. This is a constant thing for you. Absolutely ridiculous. At no point did I excuse anything. I asked you why the King and Watts riots took place and I asked you what history of abuse by the criminal justice system exists are it pertains to Barbie blondes. The reason behind something isn't an excuse of it. Now you're just making **** up. A crime is a crime but what would you call an organization that commits crimes for decades with impunity? I'd call that organized crime, the LAPD. Eight officers with clubs beating a man on the ground because they can't handle their adrenaline pump. <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/uy_IlJICcGY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> http://youtu.be/uy_IlJICcGY
It was done in a contrasting fashion because there is no similar likelihood. It was an intended irony because there is, as you so quickly pointed out, no "Blonde Barbie" movement/organization apt to riot when the news is bad for their side. You seem to be culling MLK quotes that you, perhaps, take out of context to justify or excuse riots and violence. I thought he stood for just the opposite? Show me where I said anything but ~"it explains their behavior but does not excuse it...."
MLK laid the path that lead to among many other things the First Black US President being elected. I doubt he would be too thrilled with those who set back race relations by unjustly playing the race card to excuse poor behavior. This case wasn't ever about race. The race card is just a crutch that cripples people who continually play it instead of standing on their own 2 feet.
I hope nobody contributing to this thread is in the jury pool. Seems everyone has made up their minds already. I sincerely hope that impartial jurors can be found to look at the evidence and make the correct ruling based solely on the evidence.
If you think Zimmerman would have acted the same had he seen a Swedish guy aimlessly walking around, you're delusional.
I think at the very least Space Ghost and Refman would be decent jurors. I think there are others as well.
If it were Swedish guys walking around robbing his neighbors, Im sure he would. There is no evidence that Zimmerman profiled by race. Im pretty certain he was profiling those who looked like punks. Regardless, we all profile one way or another. That doesn't make us racists or haters or any other stereotypes one would like to throw in. Its just a fact of life. Thugs tend to be the one doing robberies. Muslims doing terrorist attacks. Whites as serial killers, fraud and embezzlement, ect.. If you think you're any different, you're wrong.
Based on the rest of your descriptions (muslims, whites) is it safe to assume that you use "thugs" as a synonym for "the blacks?"
