Shot for getting skittles

Which were erroneous.

So, Zimmerman's mistakes were when he was a teenager. And, Martin's were when he was a teenager.

Yet, only one was allowed to lived out his teens.

Everyone makes mistakes in their youth. No one is denying that. I've said from the beginning that being a teenager is not grounds to be shot - so I've conceded this point from the get-go - that Martin probably wasn't squeaky clean.

Yet, I'm the village idiot because I also refuse to accept that Zimmerman is squeaky clean.

No, you're the village idiot because you're stupid and seem to thrive on emotion.

Because they have been clearly shown to be false, by the fact that the gun had only been shot once. That much is not based on testimony, but on clear, physical evidence. There was no warning shot.

Absolutely. None of that changes anything for me.

Not because of anything to do with anybody's past, be it years or weeks ago.

The one and only thing that matters in any of this is which one of them initiated physical violence.

Doesn't make any difference which one of them projects the more "deserving" image, who we can portray as more "innocent or guilty" in the court of public opinion, and based on peripheral matters no less.

Who physically attacked, and who physically defended himself. That's it.

The articles I read mentioned a warning shot. I did read those, though, within a few days of the incident so it's possible stories have changed.

And as an addendum, before anyone suggests reading this thread in case this has been addressed, fuck reading this whole thread.

Edit: and Googling has confirmed that one shot was indeed fired based on ballistic evidence. My bad y'all, I haven't had the time to follow this completely.

You think the rate of speed that you're traveling somehow reduces the danger the other person poses to you?

It reduces the display of aggressive intent, anyway. Makes it more difficult to simply walk away from the confrontation to avoid violence.

The point is, one was a teenager acting like a teenager and the other was an adult acting like a teenager.

Sure, if all else is constant. I mean, if you take off running, surely the guy following you won't run.

This dumb fuck ignored the cops advice, got out of his car and followed the kid. What's the next step?

Isn't that what Trayvon Martin attempted to do, as per George Zimmerman's 911 call? Yet somehow Zimmerman caught up with him, as if he was...chasing him?

Life?

or some overzealous neighborhood watchman?

And sometimes, acting like a teenager can get you killed, and no one is a criminal for it.

I didn't see what happened, but a 17 year old football player is capable of beating someone within an inch of his life. Unless Zimmerman put the kid in a position where he had absolutely no other choice but to fight, then he did not deserve to be attacked, and if a fight was going really badly for him, he had every right to defend himself by whatever means necessary.

There is no standard more lenient than "cornered with no other option" for Treyvon to be right in attacking Zimmerman.

There is no standard more lenient than "beaten to the point of serious injury, possibly death" for Zimmerman to pull a firearm and use it.

It does not matter what led up to it. They both had a choice right up to the instigation of violence. All that matters is who attacked whom.

You can only speculate on any but the vaguest outline of those events.

Does ignoring a 911 operators completely optional advice by itself mean that Zimmerman deserved to be attacked and is responsible for everything that happened as a result? No, it fucking doesn't. Period.

He hasn't played football in several years. and even if he did, not all football players are rock solid muscle. You are bigger than most of the guys on the football team in my high school.

How do you know Trayvon had a choice to back out of the violence?

I don't think that specifically was one of the questions I personally asked.

Earlier, I posted this:

Now the latest account posted fills in some details of what had been out before.

Originally, the news account was that Zimmerman claimed he was ambushed from behind.

Now the version is that Martin and he exchanged words, then Martin charged him.

That's a pretty major change IMO. Now it could be that the original media reports were just erroneous/incomplete and Zimmerman's story has always been that he and Martin exchanged words that led to Martin attacking him.

But if not, it suggests inconsistency, which suggests the possibility of falsehood.

The talk-then-attack version is at least more facially credible than "he ambushed me from behind" version.

The latest account is as follows:

This is obviously inconsistent with what the girlfriend heard.

It also seems inconsistent with the person who is on the 911 call talking about how they always get away, and how he believed this person was dangerous.

What makes more sense: Zimmerman truly said to Martin he didn't have a problem with him after complaining to the 911 operator that Martin seemed to be on drugs to him and about how they always get away, after following Martin for some distance? Or Zimmerman did have a problem with Martin and lied about it after the fact to make himself seem less guilty?

Then I wonder: why did Zimmerman reach for his cell phone? To call back 911 presumably. But what was he going to tell them?

Also, I wonder something we'll never know the answer to: Could Martin have thought Zimmerman was going for a gun instead of his cell phone? It's something that's not uncommon that cops mistakenly think that a person is pulling a gun when they are getting a phone or something.

How far apart were Zimmerman and Martin when they had this conversation? How did Martin close the distance quick enough to punch Zimmerman in the nose, when, presumably Zimmerman was on guard from the suspicious person he had been following?

Does it make sense that Martin had knocked Zimmerman to the ground and was on top of him, repeatedly pounding Zimmerman's head to the concrete, after which Zimmerman apparently retained the presence of mind to pull his gun and shoot Martin in the chest? Wasn't Zimmerman supposedly pinned down, or close to it at this point? How did he get an arm free to get his gun without Martin being able to stop him?

Strikes me as odd that after being knocked to the ground and having his head pounded to the ground repeatedly he didn't want to go to the hospital.

Can't be that many years when there were only 17 to choose from. And there doesn't seem to be any dispute that Zimmerman was in much worse physical condition.

Size isn't everything. Especially when there's a huge difference in reach and stamina.

I freely admit I don't know that. I also don't know that he didn't have a choice to back out. And I refuse to assume either way based on spotty news reports. I'm not giving anyone the benefit of the doubt, and I'm not excusing anyone based on the sympathetic image they project.

According to Zimmerman's claims (which cannot be proven, but which cannot be disproven, either), he never "caught up with him." He gave up pursuing him, then Martin (for some unknown reason) stopped trying to escape, came back, and violently attacked him without warning and without there being any provocation at that time.

I am not convinced of that story, because it does not appear to make real good sense, but there is no hard evidence whatsoever to contradict it (at least, none that is available to us at this point) so, according to the principle of "innocent until proven guilty," Zimmerman has to be considered legally innocent until and unless something else comes out.

I still think he was unwise to follow the kid in the first place, though. Should have kept an eye on him from a distance if he thought the kid was a threat, and stayed in his vehicle until the police arrived.

And you can only speculate on what I can potentially speculate on.

Per the 911 call: Zimmerman is in a car following Martin. 911 operator says "hey we don't need you following him." Martin agrees that he shouldn't follow him.

Minutes later the two encounter each other. If Zimmerman didn't follow him as he apparently conceded not to do, he must have been chasing him. It makes no sense for Martin to double back and start chasing Zimmerman after initially running the fuck away from him.

Nope. Martin broke contact with Zimmerman. According to Martin's girlfriend he insisted on "walking fast" when she entreated him to keep running.




Martin had outpaced Zimmerman and was out of sight by the time the 911 call ended. The confrontation would have to have taken place further down from where it occurred. If Martin had run around the corner of the building and then began "walking fast" towards the south. As his girlfriend claims he said he was doing. Now if Martin had instead run around the corner of the building and stopped. Then it makes sense for the confrontation to have taken place where it did.

Even if he lied about that, saying "Yeah, I've got a fucking problem with you" does not mean you deserve to be attacked, and does not mean that you have any less of a right to defend yourself.

A big weight advantage makes more of a difference on the ground. Just ask Kimbo Slice.

I probably wouldn't, and I have both health insurance and the means to pay the co-pay.

I'm not sure I follow, sandbagger. Your post seems to agree with my post that Martin was trying to get away. What exactly are you trying to say?

Because you are biased in favor of the minority kid with the innocent face, proceeding from the assumption of victimhood.

Minus that bias, the fight coulda gone either way. Anything could have happened.