Why Did Zimmerman Shoot Martin?

Excon said:

Irrelevant.
We have the evidence to go on.


I accept the evidence that is uncontested by other evidence.
That is how this works, unlike say making things up to believe like saying; "Zimmerman was warned by the police dispatcher not to intervene."
You see, in order

Unable to accept reality is a flaw that resides with them.


:lamo
No. He acted in self defense.
Nothing exists to contradict that.


You mistake being pro-law, pro-evidence, pro-legal argument and anti-false claim, with being pro-Zimmerman.


That is not what you previous post says.
The fact that you failed to address it's refutation also says otherwise.

Click to expand...

Ex, you use "that's irrelevant" more time than Bayer has aspirins.

I really don't care what you think is irrelevant. You still don't personally definitively know what happened. That's a fact.

Removable Mind said:

Ex, you use "that's irrelevant" more time than Bayer has aspirins.

Click to expand...

Irrelevant.
Not my fault folks bring up irrelevant bs.

If it is not irrelevant point it out. It is that simple.

Removable Mind said:

I really don't care what you think is irrelevant. You still don't personally definitively know what happened. That's a fact.

Click to expand...

iLOL
I know what the evidence says and that is all that matters for these discussions.
Saying a person does not know in regards to arguments of the evidence is actually as dumb as it is irrelevant.

If you have evidence that actually contradicts the known evidence, provide it instead of making things up like you did.

As it stands we know what happened. The evidence tells us.

Excon said:

Irrelevant.
Not my fault folks bring up irrelevant bs.

If it is not irrelevant point it out. It is that simple.



iLOL
I know what the evidence says and that is all that matters for these discussions.
Saying a person does not know in regards to arguments of the evidence is actually as dumb as it is irrelevant.

If you have evidence that actually contradicts the known evidence, provide it instead of making things up like you did.

As it stands we know what happened. The evidence tells us.

Click to expand...

Your "irrelevants" are "irrelevant". The evidence is in dispute based on a stubborn prosecutor's belief over how to charge Zimmerman, which turned out to be a significant mistake.

Removable Mind said:

Your "irrelevants" are "irrelevant". The evidence is in dispute based on a stubborn prosecutor's belief over how to charge Zimmerman, which turned out to be a significant mistake.

Click to expand...

1. Wrong.
If you can point out how something is relevant that isn't I would love to see it.

2. You are making a false claim.
There is nothing available to dispute the actual evidence.

Nothing exists to contradict the evidence that he acted in self defense.
No other charge based on the evidence would negate that.

blackjack50 said:

That is actually an important factor in this case as it made jury selection incredibly difficult. Something for the media to consider. It also influenced politicians to push law enforcement as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

It was a messed up situation. He was tried in public by irrational emotional nutters. It's not hard to believe due process turned up something different.

Objective Voice said:

1) Zimmerman said he could see that Treyvon had his hand in his waistband. He noticed that from a great distance away while he was still in his truck which was parked about a block away from the street he eventually walked to in order to obtain a street address to approximate his location in relation to where Treyvon went. Yet, he didn't see Treyvon coming out from between the apartment homes in a wide open area? I don't know if this reenactment is suppose to approximate the time in which the attack occured, but if it does wouldn't you think Zimmerman would have noticed Treyvon given the distance he had to cover from the apartment homes to the spot where he was attacked? And even if it's not, don't you think Zimmerman would have noticed Treyvon anyway given his previous example of having such keen eye-sight?

Click to expand...

Why do you not pay attention to the evidence?
Great distance? No.
We know it was dark and that there was illumination that made it possible for others to see color in that walk-through between the the apartments. That does not mean that illumination reached into all the recesses of the environment, like around corners.
All you had to do was pay attention to the evidence to figure that out.

It leaves only two possible reasons Trayvon was not in sight. He had made it out of visible range or he was hiding. Neither of which bodes well for Trayvon then attacking Zimmerman after he passes the area for a second time going back to his vehicle, as it indicates premeditation on his part.


As for another avenue in which you are not paying attention. His name is Trayvon, with an "a", not an "e".

Objective Voice said:

2) Zimmerman said he had a flashlight on him that didn't work as he went looking for Treyvon, but at no other point (that I'm aware of) does he mention the flashlight except here. I'm curious about that because depending on its size, wouldn't you think he'd have used it as a weapon against his attacker? You'd think he'd used whatever he had in his hands at the time to defend himself, but Zimmerman doesn't mention the flashlight again that I'm away of. Why? Does anyone know if a flashlight was ever recovered from the scene and turned in to evidence?

Click to expand...

Assuming as you are doing that an attacked person is going to strike back instead of flee, is absurdity. You can not assume either way unless there is evidence to suggest such.
Nor is it relevant to what occurred when he acted in self defense. You just cant get around that with all this irrelevant bs.

Objective Voice said:

3) If Treyvon confronted Zimmerman along the sidewalk, how did they end up fighting by that tree in the grass approximately 10 feet away especially if Treyvon sucker punched him where he stood when he initially confronted him? It doesn't make sense to me that the location of the altercation would shift some 8-10' away if Zimmerman was punched and knocked on his back per his written testimony right where he was confronted on the sidewalk as he was walking back to his truck.

Click to expand...

And again, not paying attention to the evidence and not realizing that this was a very dynamic situation.

Objective Voice said:

5) In this video re-enactment at the 12:28-33 mark, Zimmerman admits that his firearm was [in his holster] "on his

hip". In his written statement, Zimmerman said he unholstered his weapon. How does Treyvon then throughout all that chaos suddenly take notice of his weapon AND reach down and across the right-side of Zimmerman's body to retrieve his weapon?​

Click to expand...

Objective Voice said:

I think the combination of Zimmerman believing Treyvon was getting the upper hand and by his own admission during the re-enactment he believed he was about to pass out from his head being slammed into the concrete and nearly being sufficated, George Zimmerman reached down, unholstered his gun and shot Treyvon Martin point blank in the chest.

Click to expand...

Yeah, well you apparently believe a lot of crap that is not supported by the evidence.
Go figure.

In a nutshell.
His head was being slammed and he was calling for help and trying to squirm away. (It was during that head slamming that he though his head was going to explode and though he would lose consciousness.)

At which point because he was yelling for help, Trayvon covered his nose and mouth and told him to shut the **** up.
He tried squirming away again.
The squirming caused his jacket had move up and exposed his firearm.

Nothing here is implausible.
So all you have is your lack of understanding.

Objective Voice said:

But for me, there are still too many unanswered questions.

Click to expand...

There are no unanswered question relevant to the outcome of this case.

Objective Voice said:

I personally think George Zimmerman went looking for a fight and he found one.

Click to expand...

This is you making something up to believe that is in direct contradiction of the available evidence.

Objective Voice said:

Treyvon was getting the best of him and in that decisive moment when he believed he was going to die from a vicious attack and near suffocation with a verbalized threat to his life, George Zimmerman remembered he was armed. He then unholstered his weapon and shot Treyvon Martin. Now, to be totally fair I can understand Zimmerman taking this course of action. It's just that some things just don't add up to me and that's why I think Treyvon was murdered.

Click to expand...

Even under the bs make believe scenario you suggest, it was still self defense and not murder. Do you really not understand that?

Objective Voice said:

I just don't think Zimmerman was telling the truth about what exactly transpired.

Click to expand...

What you think conflicts with the evidence and is therefore irrational.

Objective Voice said:

However, it does make one wonder who was the true aggressor?

Click to expand...

It does not make one rational person wonder such.

Excon said:

1. Wrong.
If you can point out how something is relevant that isn't I would love to see it.

2. You are making a false claim.
There is nothing available to dispute the actual evidence.

Nothing exists to contradict the evidence that he acted in self defense.
No other charge based on the evidence would negate that.

Click to expand...

Ahhhhh, the famous Excon "WRONG!". I anticipated your posting it.

No, I'm not wrong. You, nor anybody in this forum, has all of the facts, or even all of the necessary evidence, to accurately acquit or convict.

Pubic opinion is a powerful influence. It got to you.

Removable Mind said:

Ahhhhh, the famous Excon "WRONG!". I anticipated your posting it.

Click to expand...

:lamo
Irrelevant.

Removable Mind said:

No, I'm not wrong. You, nor anybody in this forum, has all of the facts, or even all of the necessary evidence, to accurately acquit or convict.

Click to expand...

Yes you are Wrong.
No evidence contradicts the known evidence.

And yes we do have all the evidence.
Again, it was made available and the trial was televised. You simply speak nonsense.

Removable Mind said:

Pubic opinion is a powerful influence. It got to you.

Click to expand...

iLOL
Now you are showing you know not of what you speak, and the point you think you are making, funny enough, is also irrelevant to this discussion.

Excon said:

:lamo
Irrelevant.


Yes you are Wrong.
No evidence contradicts the known evidence.

And yes we do have all the evidence.
Again, it was made available and the trial was televised. You simply speak nonsense.


iLOL
Now you are showing you know not of what you speak, and the point you think you are making, funny enough, is also irrelevant to this discussion.

Click to expand...

Irrelevant! Every point you've made - irrelevant. Why? You know why. :yes:

Thanks....

Removable Mind said:

Irrelevant! Every point you've made - irrelevant. Why? You know why. :yes:

Thanks....

Click to expand...

Wrong as usual.
Maybe if you put more time into making valid arguments instead of deflecting from answering their refutations you wouldn't be. :shrug:
Such is life.

Excon said:

Wrong as usual.
Maybe if you put more time into making valid arguments instead of deflecting from answering their refutations you wouldn't be. :shrug:
Such is life.

Click to expand...

Yeah, such is life. Denial works well for you.

Removable Mind said:

Yeah, such is life. Denial works well for you.

Click to expand...

Stop with the nonsense.
You are the only one in denial here.
You have even failed to refute what has been presented, especially in reply to your own arguments. Do you not realize that is classic denialism on your part?

Removable Mind said:

But you don't know for a fact why Martin was on top. Where's any evidence that Martin was breaking any laws?

Click to expand...

The attack that DID happen. There was a witness who saw Trayvon's arms moving in downward directions (did not see actual contact) on Zimmerman from the top, heard Zimmerman yelling for help, and from there you have to understand that Trayvon could not back a self defense claim. He was on top, beating on someone on the bottom, someone yelling for help, and so on.

You have to try and show that Trayvon was acting in self defense and the only evidence we have...does not support that argument very well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

antiquity said:

Why do you and liberal consider 60 Million voters idiots? Don't you know one of the many, many reason Hillary lost the election was because she that the same thing.

Click to expand...

Because you guys voted for a life long big government liberal as president over 15 other candidates, many of them vastly more conservative than Trump. There's absolutely no way in hell you guys can even claim to be conservatives after voting for Trump. I'll ask you the same questions I've asked other Trump supporters. Prior to 2011, what conservative positions did Trump hold? Can you name me 3? Hell, even 1?

And Hillary lost because she was a bad candidate running in an election year that was very anti establishment. She lost for the same reasons Jeb Bush didn't win the GOP nomination. She failed to energize her base.

antiquity said:

I am a conservative and I also think Zimmerman is now a piece of crap but that has do with the shooting, trial or the evidence presented. The fact is Martin was a piece of crap before he was shot.

Click to expand...

Seems to me Zimmerman has always been the same. And I think it speaks volumes that Trump, of all people, doesn't think highly of Zimmerman.

Mason66 said:

Thought, a long time ago.

You don't know what he thinks now about this.

Click to expand...

Probably still believes the same. That said, since he's forced to pander to you since you put him in office, he may say differently.

blackjack50 said:

The attack that DID happen. There was a witness who saw Trayvon's arms moving in downward directions (did not see actual contact) on Zimmerman from the top, heard Zimmerman yelling for help, and from there you have to understand that Trayvon could not back a self defense claim. He was on top, beating on someone on the bottom, someone yelling for help, and so on.

You have to try and show that Trayvon was acting in self defense and the only evidence we have...does not support that argument very well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

The legal definition of self-defense is often a matter of perspective, and if I'm a kid being followed by a stranger, my first instinct is to protect myself.

Zimmerman may have been acting in self-defense, but imho, so was Trayvon. It was a terrible situation exacerbated by the fact that Zimmerman wanted to play Batman, and a kid got killed because of it.

Puigb said:

Probably still believes the same. That said, since he's forced to pander to you since you put him in office, he may say differently.

Click to expand...

WOW, I put him in office.

I am more powerful than I thought.

Now how do I use this new found power?????

Kobie said:

The legal definition of self-defense is often a matter of perspective, and if I'm a kid being followed by a stranger, my first instinct is to protect myself.

Zimmerman may have been acting in self-defense, but imho, so was Trayvon. It was a terrible situation exacerbated by the fact that Zimmerman wanted to play Batman, and a kid got killed because of it.

Click to expand...

I can't agree with that. Self defense is not a "matter of perspective." It is a matter of facts and there is a line. I can understand and I am not in full disagreement on your position (as I have made my disdain for Zimmerman clear at this point I hope). If you are on top of a person and striking them, and they are screaming for help...at that point? You lose the ability to claim self defense.

And I think that is where the "matter of perspective" ends. Why? Because Zimmerman could have been an aggressive ass. It fits the profile. But if I were to stop someone from harming me...and I put them down on the ground and I gain the full mount position...I can't say that I'm acting in self defense if I start beating on them while they are begging for help. I just can't see that as an act of self defense at that point. Even trying to view it from my shoes. But that is made difficult by the fact that I have vastly superior training than either of the 2 in these incidents (I have been practicing martial arts since I was 16 and grappling since 2010).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Kobie said:

The legal definition of self-defense is often a matter of perspective, and if I'm a kid being followed by a stranger, my first instinct is to protect myself.

Zimmerman may have been acting in self-defense, but imho, so was Trayvon. It was a terrible situation exacerbated by the fact that Zimmerman wanted to play Batman, and a kid got killed because of it.

Click to expand...

Your narrative, as well as your idea of what Trayvon was doing, is off.

Trayvon had been looking into other people's homes. That is being up to no-good.
He didn't like being observed.
He took off running and was not observed in the area when Zimmerman passed by.
He was either laying in wait to attack, or he came back into the area in which he had already left to attack Zimmerman. Neither scenario suggests being scared and neither is self defense on Trayvon's part.

And a resident looking out for the community is not playing batman.
Calling the police on a suspicious person is not playing batman.
Following that suspicious person so you can gather as much information you can about them, and to point them out to the police when they arrive, is also not playing batman.

Kobie said:

The legal definition of self-defense is often a matter of perspective, and if I'm a kid being followed by a stranger, my first instinct is to protect myself.

Zimmerman may have been acting in self-defense, but imho, so was Trayvon. It was a terrible situation exacerbated by the fact that Zimmerman wanted to play Batman, and a kid got killed because of it.

Click to expand...

There is a simple problem with that claim. The only witness to hear Martin's perspective, Jeantel has stated that Martin ran and was behind the house he was staying at. He also interrupted his phone call with Jeantel to take a call from Chadwick, and nothing in his conversation with Chadwick indicated fear. Jeantel has also stated in interviews that she believes Trayvon threw the first punch. Couple that with both Zimmerman and Jeantel stating that Martin spoke first "Why you following me?/You have a problem?" and you have an indication that Martin started the fight. Furthermore, you have statements from Zimmerman who said, when asked why he didn't identify himself, that it was not his job to confront suspects, but of the police. This seems to be corroborated by the fact that the confrontation occurred close to the intersection in the alley, and not near to Martin's house.

In all fifty states, for classic self defense you have a duty to retreat. Once you have retreated, you can't come back to the place you retreated and start a fight. It is no longer self defense. In states with stand your ground, the duty to retreat has been removed, but if you do retreat, you can't return to the place you fled and claim that you are standing your ground. It stopped being your ground once you removed yourself from that area. Zimmerman was in the T talking to the dispatcher and stated twice that Martin had run away and was out of site. For legal purposes, he has established where his ground was. Martin, through Jeantel, has established that he ran away, lost Zimmerman and made it to the back of the house he was staying at. The act of him returning to the T does not indicate fear, and does not allow either classic self defense or stand your ground. Those are legal facts based on the evidence presented by both sides.