Star Witness

[Tunnelcat]

[...

He only had that right if he had IDENTIFIED himself as a guard. He apparently didn't do that. ...

In what country do you think this event took place because there is no such law in Fla, U.S.A. which is where I think it took place.

There's no law, but what happened to just a little common sense? The only other explanations are that either Zimmerman wasn't properly trained to be a guard, obviously he wasn't, or he wanted to have a confrontation just to prove his jobsworth. Macho posturing gone awry.

[CUDA]

witnesses who 'think it looked like', and at that, only saw a small fraction of the event. Hell, I'd give anything to know if Zimmerman was in a position to merely pull the gun and have Martin flee or freeze rather than plug him in the chest. I suspect he was, as it seems impossible to grab a gun whilst pinned onto the ground, but we'll never know.

evidence. stop ignoring it. Try reading the pathologists testimony. That expert says you are wrong

what part of that testimony. The pathologist says Martin was shot at close range.

and that Martin was over Zimmerman when he was shot. Nice omission of the whole testimony

[Will Robinson]

[...

He only had that right if he had IDENTIFIED himself as a guard. He apparently didn't do that. ...

In what country do you think this event took place because there is no such law in Fla, U.S.A. which is where I think it took place.

There's no law, but what happened to just a little common sense? The only other explanations are that either Zimmerman wasn't properly trained to be a guard, obviously he wasn't, or he wanted to have a confrontation just to prove his jobsworth. Macho posturing gone awry.

I've never had training to be a guard and I have no desire to confront suspicious looking people. So please stop making up law and then when called out on it please stop backpeddling it into making unfounded assertions to buttress your weak argument.
By the way, I don't think Zimmerman ever called himself a guard of any kind. He was a neighborhood watch person and that position has no authority and he never said he had any authority. Just a desire to help the police catch bad people. There is no evidence to the contrary...just people making stuff up.

[Spidey]

I think the fact that the jury chose “not guilty” over the available lesser charge of manslaughter, speaks volumes.

(as to the weakness of the prosecution’s case)

[CUDA]

I think the fact that the jury chose “not guilty” over the available lesser charge of manslaughter, speaks volumes.

(as to the weakness of the prosecution’s case)

and to the argument of those against Zimmerman

[woodchip]

conveniently, of course, the one person who could refute that is deceased.

And why do you insist on ignoring the other supporting evidence?

This is not a he's said she said case. There is other evidence involved

not terribly much, CUDA. Really. A voice on a recording, which was claimed variously to be Zimmerman and Martin. Some superficial wounds, not requiring major medical attention on Zimmerman. Oh, and there is that sweatshirt that clearly shows that our hero stuck the gun into the chest of the deceased. Really, there is exactly ZERO evidence, and a lot of suggestive facts that Zimmerman wanted it to be that way, which is why he wasn't where the police instructed him to be either before or after the event.

At times Slick you come across as possibly being intelligent but in this case you remind me of the term "low information voter". Lets look at what you said:

"Some superficial wounds, not requiring major medical attention on Zimmerman."

If you had paid attention to the defense pathologist, you would of discovered, while the wounds to Z's head appeared superficial, the slamming of the head to the concrete may have caused damage to the brain cell axons that could be permanent. The pathologist then went on and gave examples of police arresting people with similar injuries and putting them directly in jail without first taking them to emergency to have them checked out. Subsequently some of those arrested died in the jail cell. As the pathologist put it, the resulting lawsuits for wrongful death by the police were always won by the plaintiffs family...always. Care to keep saying the damage to Z's brain was inconsequential?

Lets now look at your second completely ignorant statement:

"Oh, and there is that sweatshirt that clearly shows that our hero stuck the gun into the chest of the deceased."

Once again find the you tube of the defense pathologist testimony. You'll find out according to the ballistic science that the gun was not shoved against M's body but was in fact some distance away. Powder and burn marks show that the clothes were not tight to M's body but were 2-3 inches away, consistent with M bending over Z and having the clothes drape away from the body. So in short your circus huckster attempt to paint a picture to suck unsuspecting rubes into your tent are really nothing but cheap snake oil.

Really slick, watch the testimony of defenses pathologist and then maybe you can come back here with some intelligent posting.

[callmeslick]

conveniently, of course, the one person who could refute that is deceased.

And why do you insist on ignoring the other supporting evidence?

This is not a he's said she said case. There is other evidence involved

not terribly much, CUDA. Really. A voice on a recording, which was claimed variously to be Zimmerman and Martin. Some superficial wounds, not requiring major medical attention on Zimmerman. Oh, and there is that sweatshirt that clearly shows that our hero stuck the gun into the chest of the deceased. Really, there is exactly ZERO evidence, and a lot of suggestive facts that Zimmerman wanted it to be that way, which is why he wasn't where the police instructed him to be either before or after the event.

At times Slick you come across as possibly being intelligent but in this case you remind me of the term "low information voter". Lets look at what you said:

"Some superficial wounds, not requiring major medical attention on Zimmerman."

If you had paid attention to the defense pathologist, you would of discovered, while the wounds to Z's head appeared superficial, the slamming of the head to the concrete may have caused damage to the brain cell axons that could be permanent. The pathologist then went on and gave examples of police arresting people with similar injuries and putting them directly in jail without first taking them to emergency to have them checked out. Subsequently some of those arrested died in the jail cell. As the pathologist put it, the resulting lawsuits for wrongful death by the police were always won by the plaintiffs family...always. Care to keep saying the damage to Z's brain was inconsequential?

was he taken to the hospital and put under observation? Red bits indicate speculation, which has been my whole thrust.

Lets now look at your second completely ignorant statement:

"Oh, and there is that sweatshirt that clearly shows that our hero stuck the gun into the chest of the deceased."

Once again find the you tube of the defense pathologist testimony. You'll find out according to the ballistic science that the gun was not shoved against M's body but was in fact some distance away. Powder and burn marks show that the clothes were not tight to M's body but were 2-3 inches away, consistent with M bending over Z and having the clothes drape away from the body. So in short your circus huckster attempt to paint a picture to suck unsuspecting rubes into your tent are really nothing but cheap snake oil.

whoa, 2-3 inches? Seriously, Woody, that's your quibble? What a long-range marksman he was.

Really slick, watch the testimony of defenses pathologist and then maybe you can come back here with some intelligent posting.

you might do well to heed your own advice, and then maybe one could enter an intelligent discourse with you.....

[CUDA]

And how does any of this change the fact that it was Martin assaulting Zimmerman and not the other way around?

[snoopy]

I was reading some of the stories on Philly.com this morning about the case....

I don't understand why we're getting so heated about this. Why have large numbers of people decided that they know better than those jurors; that Zimmerman was guilty? Hasn't the system done its job, and determined that there isn't enough evidence to convict Z of anything?

Let me put it another way: For those of you that say that Z should have been convicted of something: how would you re-write the law to make him guilty of a crime?

The whole state of racial tensions in this country is really starting to anger me...

[Will Robinson]

Slick you are so clouded with prejudgment you just made the case for self defense and don't even know it!
You acknowledge the head wounds could be lethal!
Well if Zimmerman was on his back receiving those wounds that you recognize could be lethal, and he shared your assessment, then he had a very reasonable fear for his life!!

And the jury agreed with you, it was self defense.

[Will Robinson]

?...

The whole state of racial tensions in this country is really starting to anger me...

The vast bulk of the bad relations in this country are the direct result of race mongers feeding young minds with a false sense of victimization.

The actual number of instances where a white person acts out in racial bigotry is much much smaller than he number of times black people are taught that white people hate them.
Alleged white hatred is blamed for all sorts of disappointment and failure that black people suffer and as long as there is a complicit media voice and a veritable racepimp-industry pushing that notion large numbers of black people will be infected with a severe emotional handicap.

[Foil]

...Back from the weekend, catching up...

Why have large numbers of people decided that they know better than those jurors; that Zimmerman was guilty?

I'll actually agree with you here. If there's one thing I've learned about my opinion vs. the opinion of a jury, it's that the jury has a much better chance at a good perspective on the people and evidence involved.

-------------

I'm considering splitting this into a separate thread:

The actual number of instances where a white person acts out in racial bigotry is much much smaller than he number of times black people are taught that white people hate them.

Both are a legitimate problem, but to claim that racism against blacks is now "much much smaller" than racism against whites is ludicrous.

[Edit: Personally, I find the oft-repeated lines about "race-baiting" to be just as divisive as what they object to.]

[Will Robinson]

..I'm considering splitting this into a separate thread:

The actual number of instances where a white person acts out in racial bigotry is much much smaller than he number of times black people are taught that white people hate them.

Both are a legitimate problem, but to claim that racism against blacks is now "much much smaller" than racism against whites is ludicrous.

I didn't say that, or at least that wasnt the distinction that I'm trying to make. I'm trying to differentiate the racisim that came from slavery, once slavery was defeated it left the residue of racial bigotry and has been on the steady path to normal levels of human instinctual bigotry. The artificial catalysts are being removed.

It was slaves that were considered less than human and slavery was broken....by white people with a different viewpoint...a very publicized viewpoint of equality.
It was Jim Crow that tried to keep the black man down and it was black and white people together that had beat those with that bigoted stance down. The history of the last 6 decades is rich with the white bigots being called out and ridiculed and the government taking giant strides to eliminate bigotry and make restitution. All done very loud and proud. An alternative, pro-equality viewpoint rose up and that has long since become the american cultures 'official' proper mindset. That is the lesson that the vast majority of all white children are taught today.

Not so in the sub-culture of black america. There is a mindset that is taught that is the constant and widespread cancerous like sentiment that black peoples misfortunes are the fault of white bigots'.
It is the perfect excuse....nothing you do wrong is wrong if it can be traced back to what white people did to your people.

When I was young blacks and whites agreed that a black man will never be allowed to be President. Young black children had to grow up in the 'white mans world' accepting that the white man will hold them down as if Jim Crow was alive and well even though back then it was already dying out. Well flash forward 30+ years and in spite of un-imagined strides toward equality today the same poisonous message is still being programmed into the psyche of young black children. The race pimps are not going to let their little whores go and the chip on the shoulder is weighing heavy as always.

There is no equal and deep rooted effort on the part of white people to blame their current problems on black people. It is much easier for the children of white bigots to grow up and shed their great grandfathers unfounded hatred than it is for a black child to grow up and shed his whole culture's very foundation for explaining/excusing most of their problems. A false narrative that is celebrated and dished up by the President and countless 'leaders' right on down to the average Joe in the hood.

There is a parallel source of this perpetuation of the bigots-are-all-around-you scenario. The political ramifications of being called "racist" has led to a tactic of the left wing of the political spectrum to manipulate and weild the black mans emotional programming like a weapon.

They offer appeasement to a ridiculous degree with the understanding that it keeps the black people rooted on the left politically. In spite of the polarizing effect on america and severely damaging effect it has on the prospects for enjoying equality for blacks in america.

There is certainly a disparity in the percieved racial bigotry in america that has black people seeing the boogey man behind every other comment and eventuallity....

[Foil]

There is no equal and deep rooted effort on the part of white people to blame their current problems on black people.

No?

Although it's not yet deep-rooted, the up-and-coming culture among the white majority is to pin the blame on reverse-racism against them. It's honestly laughable how many white people will decry racial divisive and victimization tactics, while ultimately doing the same thing by playing the "I'm the real victim" and "they're the real racists" cards.

...black people seeing the boogey man behind every other comment and eventuallity...

...and similarly, white people now seeing their version of the racism boogey man behind every other comment and eventuality.

-----

You'll disagree, of course. But it's painfully obvious to me that this white-victim-of-racism stuff is just as ludicrous as the other.

[Will Robinson]

There is no equal and deep rooted effort on the part of white people to blame their current problems on black people.

No?

Although it's not yet deep-rooted, the up-and-coming culture among the white majority is to pin the blame on reverse-racism against them. It's honestly laughable how many white people will decry racial divisive and victimization tactics, while ultimately doing the same thing by playing the "I'm the real victim" and "they're the real racists" cards.

...black people seeing the boogey man behind every other comment and eventuallity...

...and similarly, white people now seeing their version of the racism boogey man behind every other comment and eventuality.

-----

You'll disagree, of course. But it's painfully obvious to me that this white-victim-of-racism stuff is just as ludicrous as the other.

We are both citing anecdotal examples that lead us to our perception but ill bet you I can cite much more powerful voices and many more individual examples of how it is fostered in the black culture than you can show it as being anywhere equally endemic in the white culture.
Even the very phrase "reverse racisism" is ridiculed by mainstream media and acedemia where the same is not true on the other side of the coin...

Can you show me the opposite but equal voice of a US Congressman declaring that black men should be exempt from the laws regarding selling cocaine "because it is the only job the white man has left them to have"!?!?
Maxine Waters D Rep Watts District LA Ca.

How about the current Attorney General stating, flat out, black people are not capable of committing hate crimes against whites. How does that work toward equality and equal justice under the law when the AG directly implies that white people, today, are so culpable of hate as a race that it isn't possible for a racially motivated attack on them to be considered racial?!!

That sends a strong message to blacks that the white devil is an inherent state of being for all white people and their children's children, etc.

Can you show me an example of white people in power/authority today that teach such a lesson with such far reaching effect?!? Teachers with the respect of media and acedemia like Obama and Jackson?

And if you want more I can show you mainstream university courses that take those lessons and venture even deeper into indoctrinating the black student with such hatred that if there ever was a white version the whole school would be shut down and faculty imprisoned for their role in it!

We certainly do disagree but I'm confident your examples are insignificant by comparison.

[Spidey]

"They do it too" seems to be the defense for everything these days.

[callmeslick]

And how does any of this change the fact that it was Martin assaulting Zimmerman and not the other way around?

because that may well have not been the case, if taken from the time Zimmerman left the vehicle. There just is no provable fact, and that's what has been making me nuts. Hell, I'm clearly not OUTRAGED by the outcome of the trial(it was pretty much as I predicted at the outset), nor, given Florida law, do I think it a miscarriage of justice. I don't think Z is a racist, nor do I think he intended to shoot anyone as an overall matter. Still, I read so much blather indicating that the whole thing DEFINITELY took place like this, or that. There simply is no logical, rational way to ever know for sure. And that, at the core, is what the jury found, as well, I suspect.

[Tunnelcat]

[...

He only had that right if he had IDENTIFIED himself as a guard. He apparently didn't do that. ...

In what country do you think this event took place because there is no such law in Fla, U.S.A. which is where I think it took place.

There's no law, but what happened to just a little common sense? The only other explanations are that either Zimmerman wasn't properly trained to be a guard, obviously he wasn't, or he wanted to have a confrontation just to prove his jobsworth. Macho posturing gone awry.

I've never had training to be a guard and I have no desire to confront suspicious looking people. So please stop making up law and then when called out on it please stop backpeddling it into making unfounded assertions to buttress your weak argument.
By the way, I don't think Zimmerman ever called himself a guard of any kind. He was a neighborhood watch person and that position has no authority and he never said he had any authority. Just a desire to help the police catch bad people. There is no evidence to the contrary...just people making stuff up.

One thing that can definitely be said is that Zimmerman subverted the law by assuming the role of law enforcement and taking the situation into his own hands against the advice of the police when he got out of his car. He's nothing but a glorified vigilante who took justice into his own hands. He profiled an innocent person, assumed he was a criminal up to no good and created a situation that shouldn't have even happened. Martin had the right to fight back against what he thought was an unknown assailant. Think that's right in a law abiding country where the wild west, vigilante justice and hangings disappeared years ago?

[callmeslick]

Think that's right in a law abiding country where the wild west, vigilante justice and hangings disappeared years ago?

tell that to black folks in the south. Today.

[Will Robinson]

. ..

One thing that can definitely be said is that Zimmerman subverted the law by assuming the role of law enforcement and taking the situation into his own hands against the advice of the police when he got out of his car. ...

No we can definitely say that didn't happen because if it did Zimmerman would have been found guilty!

. ..He's nothing but a glorified vigilante who took justice into his own hands. He profiled an innocent person, assumed he was a criminal up to no good and created a situation that shouldn't have even happened. ...

No he took the initiative to follow a suspicious looking person and that person took a twisted version of justice into HIS own hands when he decided he was justified in assaulting Zimmerman. And that is why the jury didn't find Zimmerman guilty. They recognized being rude or over zealous isnt illegal but assault is.....

. ..Martin had the right to fight back against what he thought was an unknown assailant. Think that's right in a law abiding country where the wild west, vigilante justice and hangings disappeared years ago?

No. What Martin did is much more the stereotypical Wild West reaction....he took offense to someone looking at him wrong and punched him in the face then he jumped on the guy when he went down and proceeded to beat his head into the cement. THAT is the epitome of Wild West vigilante justice!

Following a guy because you are supposed to watch for suspicious characters and call the police because you are supposed to call the police if you spot one is not in any way being an "assailant" nor "vigilante" nor did he "take the situation into his own hands" since he clearly assessed the situation and called the POLICE! Very UN vigilante...calling the police and asking them to intervene....

[CUDA]

And how does any of this change the fact that it was Martin assaulting Zimmerman and not the other way around?

because that may well have not been the case, if taken from the time Zimmerman left the vehicle. There just is no provable fact, and that's what has been making me nuts. Hell, I'm clearly not OUTRAGED by the outcome of the trial(it was pretty much as I predicted at the outset), nor, given Florida law, do I think it a miscarriage of justice. I don't think Z is a racist, nor do I think he intended to shoot anyone as an overall matter. Still, I read so much blather indicating that the whole thing DEFINITELY took place like this, or that. There simply is no logical, rational way to ever know for sure. And that, at the core, is what the jury found, as well, I suspect.

may well have not been the case based on what???????

The Jurors say that was the case. the expert forensic testimony says that was the case, a review of the injuries say that was the case. that is why the Jury found him not guilt of BOTH charges.

[Will Robinson]

Here is an interesting quote that touches on some of this conversation:

"There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery. Then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.... After all we have been through. Just to think we can't walk down our own streets, how humiliating."

Jesse Jackson

[Tunnelcat]

No. What Martin did is much more the stereotypical Wild West reaction....he took offense to someone looking at him wrong and punched him in the face then he jumped on the guy when he went down and proceeded to beat his head into the cement. THAT is the epitome of Wild West vigilante justice!

How do you even know that. Were you following them and watching the action? Maybe Zimmerman's lawyers should have called you as an expert witness. You have no way of knowing exactly what Martin did, other than the fact Martin had the upper hand in the fight, or how Zimmerman approached him in the first place. We don't even know if Martin WANTED to kill Zimmerman, or just beat the crap out of him. I vote for beat the crap out of him.

Following a guy because you are supposed to watch for suspicious characters and call the police because you are supposed to call the police if you spot one is not in any way being an "assailant" nor "vigilante" nor did he "take the situation into his own hands" since he clearly assessed the situation and called the POLICE! Very UN vigilante...calling the police and asking them to intervene....

He took the situation into his own hands, AND escalated it by getting out of his rent-a-guard-car and following that person, in the dark like a sulking creep, even after he was told not to do so, while carrying a gun. That's a vigilante. He's also got a history of calling the cops about suspicious black males quite a few times. The man likes to cry wolf, or at least talk to 911 operators.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... e-log.html

tell that to black folks in the south. Today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Byrd,_Jr.

Will, black men have that same fear, but sometimes even from white men they know. The white killer said on the day of his execution that he would do it all over again with no regrets. Hatred begets hatred.

[Will Robinson]

No. What Martin did is much more the stereotypical Wild West reaction....he took offense to someone looking at him wrong and punched him in the face then he jumped on the guy when he went down and proceeded to beat his head into the cement. THAT is the epitome of Wild West vigilante justice!

How do you even know that. Were you following them and watching the action? Maybe Zimmerman's lawyers should have called you as an expert witness. You have no way of knowing exactly what Martin did, other than the fact Martin had the upper hand in the fight, or how Zimmerman approached him in the first place. We don't even know if Martin WANTED to kill Zimmerman, or just beat the crap out of him. I vote for beat the crap out of him.

Following a guy because you are supposed to watch for suspicious characters and call the police because you are supposed to call the police if you spot one is not in any way being an "assailant" nor "vigilante" nor did he "take the situation into his own hands" since he clearly assessed the situation and called the POLICE! Very UN vigilante...calling the police and asking them to intervene....

He took the situation into his own hands, AND escalated it by getting out of his rent-a-guard-car and following that person, in the dark like a sulking creep, even after he was told not to do so, while carrying a gun. That's a vigilante. He's also got a history of calling the cops about suspicious black males quite a few times. The man likes to cry wolf, or at least talk to 911 operators.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... e-log.html

tell that to black folks in the south. Today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Byrd,_Jr.

Will, black men have that same fear, but sometimes even from white men they know. The white killer said on the day of his execution that he would do it all over again with no regrets. Hatred begets hatred.

TC
The evidence leads us to believe only Martin hit someone with his fists, was on top and pummeling when the screams were heard and only Zimmerman had any wounds from being hit...so if you have to guess at which one attacked who the evidence leads to Martin beingthe aggressor.

As for a history of calling the police.....neighborhood watchman in a neighborhood that sees a lot of young black criminals....duh....

Martin had a clear path to the home he was staying in, mere moments from safety but didn't go there...he went back....

You are relying on your feelings or something other than the evidence.

[callmeslick]

why people keep insisting Martin 'went back' to confront Zimmerman, when there is only Zimmermans non-cross-examined word on that, eludes me.

[Will Robinson]

why people keep insisting Martin 'went back' to confront Zimmerman, when there is only Zimmermans non-cross-examined word on that, eludes me.

Because so many other things Zimmerman claimed are supported by the evidence and the evidence doesn't support many of the things claimed by the prosecution.
And because even if Zimmerman had moved toward Martin just before they met the evidence strongly suggested Martin began the physical contact with a sudden blow to Zimmermans nose.

The alternative to Zimmermans version was not just weak it was ridiculous and no one wants to convict a man on a ridiculous story. Well, no one who isn't driven by a personal agenda that cares nothing for anyone in the way of achieving their selfish goal does.

[CUDA]

I was watching TV this morning and apparently they have a phone conversation with a witness that claims that Martin initiated the confrontation. I haven't confirmed that but that is what was reported.

[CobGobbler]

What does it matter now cuda? I'm not sure why this trial became another pissing contest for this board, but give it all a rest. Interesting though that a "witness" would come forward AFTER the trial. Why would they not say something until now?

[flip]

I watched a few youtube clips last night, and even they support that Martin initiated the confrontation. He was the first one to speak, He asked "Why are you following me?" and Zimmerman replies "What are you doing around here?" Now if Martin had replied something like "Oh, my dad lives right up here and I'm in town visiting." That right there would have disarmed the whole situation, in spite of Zimmerman following him for no reason, but instead he was offended and elevated the situation. There are several witnesses that saw Martin on top of Zimmerman "Punching him MMA style", his nose was broken, I saw the wounds myself on the back of his head and the guy was screaming for people to help. Sheesh!

[Will Robinson]

What does it matter now cuda? I'm not sure why this trial became another pissing contest for this board, but give it all a rest. Interesting though that a "witness" would come forward AFTER the trial. Why would they not say something until now?

People are still concerned because they know the trial was only a part of the bigger problem. Zimmerman is still in the crosshairs of thugs and the federal government because he is a scapegoat for race baiting hate mongers and a posterboy for self defense.

In the big picture the fates of Zimmerman and Martin are insignificant results of a greater conflict. They are minor casualties in the war to remake America or protect it depending on which team you joined.

[Tunnelcat]

TC
The evidence leads us to believe only Martin hit someone with his fists, was on top and pummeling when the screams were heard and only Zimmerman had any wounds from being hit...so if you have to guess at which one attacked who the evidence leads to Martin beingthe aggressor.

As for a history of calling the police.....neighborhood watchman in a neighborhood that sees a lot of young black criminals....duh....

Martin had a clear path to the home he was staying in, mere moments from safety but didn't go there...he went back....

You are relying on your feelings or something other than the evidence.

Put it this way. If I were a teenaged male with an attitude and someone was following me in the dark without giving me any sign of their intentions, I'd sure as hell be temped to turn around and confront the guy instead of let him follow me home and maybe become a potential danger to my grandparents as well. A lot of you guys here were once teenagers. How well did you control your testosterone driven emotions when you got riled or scared? I bet quite a few of you were easy to anger. My only point is that apparently Zimmerman, who was armed, did not broadcast his intentions when he followed Martin. Zimmerman created the situation, Martin reacted and yes, may have instigated things, but now he's dead because he didn't bring a gun to what he thought was only a fist fight.

[callmeslick]

And how does any of this change the fact that it was Martin assaulting Zimmerman and not the other way around?

because that may well have not been the case, if taken from the time Zimmerman left the vehicle. There just is no provable fact, and that's what has been making me nuts. Hell, I'm clearly not OUTRAGED by the outcome of the trial(it was pretty much as I predicted at the outset), nor, given Florida law, do I think it a miscarriage of justice. I don't think Z is a racist, nor do I think he intended to shoot anyone as an overall matter. Still, I read so much blather indicating that the whole thing DEFINITELY took place like this, or that. There simply is no logical, rational way to ever know for sure. And that, at the core, is what the jury found, as well, I suspect.

may well have not been the case based on what???????

The Jurors say that was the case.

no they didn't. They said, and are still saying in interviews, they just didn't have proof either way. Hell the first vote was 3 for acquittal, 2 for manslaughter, and one for murder, so THEY sure didn't agree with your level of certainty.

the expert forensic testimony says that was the case, a review of the injuries say that was the case. that is why the Jury found him not guilt of BOTH charges.

again, or should I say, still, you persist in absolutes when the crux of the verdict was that neither side could produce absolutes. Hence DOUBT,

[Sergeant Thorne]

A lot of you guys here were once teenagers. How well did you control your testosterone driven emotions when you got riled or scared? I bet quite a few of you were easy to anger. My only point is that apparently Zimmerman, who was armed, did not broadcast his intentions when he followed Martin. Zimmerman created the situation, Martin reacted and yes, may have instigated things, but now he's dead because he didn't bring a gun to what he thought was only a fist fight.

It's hard to explain expectations of civilized behavior to someone who likes to believe that adolescent anarchy is the sanctioned norm. I never would have attacked a stranger when I was young, and I DID have a temper. If we're going to pretend this was a proper fist fight, I would have to ask, aren't you supposed to stop when your opponent is down? Let's all bemoan the fact that the little ★■◆●ing thug didn't have a gun!! I have people in my neighborhood who may care a little too much about what goes on elsewhere in the neighborhood, but no matter how indelicate they are, they don't deserve a beat-down, and they don't deserve to get shot. I find it unreasonable to suppose the Martin should have thought himself in any real danger, when being confronted for suspicious activities. You just can't justify reacting violently to someone who is even overly concerned about the well-being of their neighborhood. Sometimes survival is about making the right choices, and oftentimes the right choices are a product of proper training. I guess someone should have taught this young man how to live in civilized society. In life you pretty much have to give other people a degree of respect, if there is going to be any peace, no matter how they come off.

[Will Robinson]

... My only point is that apparently Zimmerman, who was armed, did not broadcast his intentions when he followed Martin. Zimmerman created the situation, Martin reacted and yes, may have instigated things, but now he's dead because he didn't bring a gun to what he thought was only a fist fight.

And there lies the heart of the matter! 'Martin thought he was justified starting a fight'!!!
He wasn't justified by any custom of civilized society or any law of self defense, etc. he was justified by his programming that anyone who dares consider him a 'problem' based on 'appearance' can be beaten to the ground and have their head pummeled into stone!
That firey anger that is kept stoked by the race mongers is what led him to his doom.

It is highly unlikely that Martin would have seriously hurt or killed anyone on his way home that night....it is highly unlikely he was going to break into a house or rob someone that night. Just as it is highly unlikely Zimmerman intended to cause any harm to Martin that night.....he obviously wanted the cops to question Martin.

What went terribly wrong wasn't a neighborhood watchman calling the cops when he saw the epitome of what he was told to watch for! That was a reasonably expected and lawful thing for him to do in that circumstance.
What went wrong was when Martin did what he was programmed to do. To react in an extreme way to what other people dismiss as a mere inconvenience or insulting presumption on the part of another.

What happened to Martin is a microcosm of what most black Americans are doing to themselves right now! They are reacting like Pavlov's dog to a stimuli designed to evoke a response for the pleasure of their masters.

Of course it is insulting to a young black man to be looked at as being a likely criminal but in a place where the criminals are more likely to be young black men any sense of insult has to be reconciled with the possibility the offender has a reasonable cause for his suspicion. Something short of violent attack would be your best reaction. Empathy grace and humility would win you fortunes of good will in that scenario.

However if you have only been taught that you should have extreme indignation at any sign of suspicion...that any sign of suspicion is only because the offender is a racist peckerwood...or racist rapist...etc...that you have the weight of millions of tortured slave ancestors to avenge....that you are justified in striking out with venemous vulgarity and even violent assault at the temerity of someone recognizing you to resemble previous criminals that frequent the area...
Well, then you are doomed if you think you can operate safely in today's world with that kind of chip on your shoulder! Worse case scenario you might end up dead.

[woodchip]

Zimmerman created the situation, Martin reacted and yes, may have instigated things, but now he's dead because he didn't bring a gun to what he thought was only a fist fight.

So what you are saying TC is you would feel much better if Martin had a gun, pulled it and shot to death that creepy ass cracker following him? Of course if Martin had we never would of heard about it as it would never of hit the national news.

[CobGobbler]

You are quite correct woodchip, had it happened that way the court would have refused to allow Martin to use the stand your ground law and he'd be another black man on death row and we wouldn't have heard a bit about it.

[Will Robinson]

You are quite correct woodchip, had it happened that way the court would have refused to allow Martin to use the stand your ground law and he'd be another black man on death row and we wouldn't have heard a bit about it.

Yes, and that is the way it should be, regardless of his race by the way.
Shooting someone because they followed you and seemed to suspect you of something is certainly no cause for ANY kind of self defense or Stand Your Ground...be it punching them to the ground and bashing their head onto the cement OR pulling a pistol and shooting them!

So what point did you think you were making, it seems to be that you merely stated the obvious and none of it is counter to the jury's acquittal of Zimmerman.

[woodchip]

Except Cob, Martin would of just shot Zimmerman without being attacked by him. Thats the difference. Suggest you understand what Stand your Ground means.

[CobGobbler]

Eh Will, like I said, I really don't care about this case. The outcome was as I figured it'd be. Oh well, just asking a few questions here and there. In all honestly, all I got out of this case was a clear picture of just how bad you all hate Obama. Once he said something, you all had to be on the other side of it. It just seems so ass backward to me that the Dirty Harry-wannabe neighborhood watch douche patrolling the streets with a gun initiated every part of the fight, stalked the kid, provoked the fight, and pulled the trigger somehow got to be the victim in all of this. Z did the right thing, he called the police, that's ALL neighborhood watch people are supposed to do. Had the police shown up, they would have found out exactly what Z did moments after he shot the kid, that there was no danger.

Clearly this is all moot...kinda boring to talk about anyways. Can't we go back to some topic where Obama killed Jesus and Democratic cuts to defense were the reason Bane was able to take over Gotham City?

[Will Robinson]

Eh Will, like I said, I really don't care about this case. The outcome was as I figured it'd be. Oh well, just asking a few questions here and there. In all honestly, all I got out of this case was a clear picture of just how bad you all hate Obama. Once he said something, you all had to be on the other side of it. It just seems so ass backward to me that the Dirty Harry-wannabe neighborhood watch douche patrolling the streets with a gun initiated every part of the fight, stalked the kid, provoked the fight, and pulled the trigger somehow got to be the victim in all of this. Z did the right thing, he called the police, that's ALL neighborhood watch people are supposed to do. Had the police shown up, they would have found out exactly what Z did moments after he shot the kid, that there was no danger.

Clearly this is all moot...kinda boring to talk about anyways. Can't we go back to some topic where Obama killed Jesus and Democratic cuts to defense were the reason Bane was able to take over Gotham City?

No, lets keep talking about the stuff you just made up and why you feel compelled to make up stuff to support your otherwise untenable take on reality.
I'm definitely curious since there are a number of people who do that anytime they perceive someone questions their leaders.