Cross-posting FTW:
Laying aside, for the moment, the larger point that Angie's contentions are mutually exclusive, are any of them even true?
Angie wrote:
Jr. should realise that it was GZ that started the altercation by getting out of his car and pursuing after Trayvon...
Getting out of his vehicle is not illegal. Following someone is not illegal, and does not meet the legal standard (reasonable fear of imminent bodily harm) necessary to justify as self-defense Martin's use of force against Zimmerman. Even so, there is no evidence that Zimmerman actually *pursued* Martin. Zimmerman lost visual contact with Martin before he ever got out of his vehicle. There is no evidence that Zimmerman ever went any farther than the point at which he last saw Martin.
Angie wrote:
when he was advised not to...
Once again: simply untrue. Zimmerman was never told not to get out of his vehicle. He was already out of his vehicle when the NEN operator said, "we don't actually need you to [follow him]". And there is no evidence that Zimmerman failed to comply with that statement.
Angie wrote:
...therefore GZ started the fight.
Non-sequitur. The person who started the fight is the person who was the initial, physical aggressor, period. Getting out of one's vehicle is not physical aggression. Following someone is not physical aggression. The State is on record, in court, stating that they have no evidence to prove who was the initial aggressor, nor do they have any evidence to refute Zimmerman's claim that Martin was the initial aggressor.
Angie wrote:
It's not as if Trayvon drug GZ out of the car and started pounding on him, GZ had every opportunity to avoid a confrontation with Trayvon.
Straw man. Zimmerman had every right to be where he was, and to be doing what he was doing. He was under no legal requirement to "avoid a confrontation".
Angie wrote:
He was not LE, and should of called it in with his crazy suspicions, and then left well enough alone.
Where is the statutory requirement that Zimmerman do so? Where is the evidence that he did anything otherwise?
Angie wrote:
Trayvon had every right to punch, kick, etc. to get rid of the menacing figure...
"Menacing" usually has specific, statutory meaning. Where is the evidence that Zimmerman was "menacing" Martin?
Also: even assuming Zimmerman was the initial aggressor, what statute gives Martin the right to pin Zimmerman to the ground, prevent him from getting up and escaping, and continuing to beat him while Zimmerman is screaming for help for nearly a full minute?
Angie wrote:
...that wrongly profiled him that evening...
Profiling is not an illegal act. Even so: where is the evidence that Zimmerman "profiled" Martin?
Angie wrote:
...trying to do Trayvon harm.
Where is the evidence that Zimmerman *intended* to "do harm" to Martin?
Angie wrote:
And as it turned out GZ just didn't then have the right to shoot Trayvon killing him, as is what ensued.
Even assuming that Zimmerman was the initial aggressor - a contention for which there simply is no evidence whatsoever - Zimmerman *still* had the right to use lethal force in self-defense. Helpfully, the Florida statutes specifically include a section detailing the justifiable use of lethal force in self defense by an initial aggressor. Zimmerman clearly had expressed his intent and desire to leave the confrontation (multiple attempts to get up, at least 40 seconds of sustained screams for help), and given the nature of the Martin's beating of Zimmerman, Zimmerman was reasonably in fear for his life or imminent bodily harm.
Angie wrote:
It's so simple and i don't understand why these people just don't get it.
Indeed, it is quite simple when one constructs theories of what happened, if one is utterly unencumbered by the necessity to provide evidence to support such theories.
Angie wrote:
GZ was the aggressor right from the start, and Trayvon had every right to protect his life against that aggressor that was carrying a concealed weapon, when all Trayvon had to defend himself with was a bag of skittles, a can of tea, and his fists.
Keep repeating it. Maybe it'll magically become true eventually.
Angie wrote:
The Zimmerman's will not face the truth because they want to turn a blind eye to the fact that one of theirs murdered a teenager in cold blood.
Not even the State is arguing a first-degree murder, but clearly, it's not a bridge too far for Angie.
Angie wrote:
They want to turn a blind eye just like some of the members of the SPD did to this horrific crime, when they wanted it all to just go away...
Where is the evidence that the SPD "turned a blind eye" to this case? Where is the evidence that the SPD's investigation was insufficient?
Angie wrote:
...and tried to pretend that the black kid deserved it, because why? Because Trayvon was a black child? and they saw him as being inferior, i'll bet that's why, with some of that Departments racism in their veins.
Here it is: what this case boils down to. Without any evidence whatsoever, they play the race card.
I still haven't heard any explanation for why the SPD Good Ol' Boys club would circle the wagons to protect the very person who gave the entire department a very public black eye over race. But the Martin supporters simply ignore the very existence of Sherman Ware.*
Angie wrote:
...I hope everyone that tried to cover this crime is investigated and held accountable and punished.
Agreed! Let's start with Corey, Bondi, and BDLR.
Angie wrote:
Exactly, and GZ started the fight, that is so obvious even a 5th. grader could work it out, LOL.
Would a 5th grader understand the significance of Martin successfully eluding Zimmerman's visual contact? Would a 5th grader understand the significance of Martin reaching the vicinity of Brandi Green's house, over 100 yards away from the location of the altercation? Would a 5th grader understand the significance of Zimmerman being at the location of the altercation at the end of his NEN call? Would a 5th grader understand the significance of the physical altercation taking place approximately 2 minutes after the end of Zimmerman's NEN call? Would a 5th grader understand the significance of the debris field from the sidewalk "T" to Martin's body, spreading *toward*, rather than *away from*, the direction of Brandi Green's house?
Angie wrote:
Trayvon had no reason to get in a fight, he was on the phone to his girlfriend, minding his business, and GZ had fed up can't let another one get away issues, again very obvious who was feeling aggressive that night.
Yeah, Zimmerman really sounded especially aggressive on the NEN call, when he related that Martin was approaching his vehicle. And Zimmerman was feeling so aggressive that he failed to leave a single, physical mark on Martin's body.
Angie wrote:
What a shame he wasn't drug & alcohol tested, seeing as he shot someone who was unarmed to death.
Where is the evidence that SPD would have had probable cause to suspect Zimmerman was under the influence of alcohol or drugs?
* Side note:
guess what judge was involved in the sentencing of the Sanford police officer's son in that case?
Quote:
A Sanford police lieutenant's son who was captured on video, sucker-punching a homeless man outside a bar, knocking him out, on Monday pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor and was placed on a year of probation.
Justin Collison, 22, of Sanford, had been charged with felony battery and disorderly conduct, but his family paid an undisclosed sum to the homeless man, Sherman Ware, and Ware asked prosecutors to drop the case.
They didn't. When court started Monday morning, Assistant State Attorney Russ Bausch insisted that Collison spend 30 days in jail in addition to a year on probation. Collison said no.
The two sides left that to Circuit Judge Debra Nelson, who came up with her own solution: She sentenced him to 30 days in jail then suspended that, saying he'd only be locked up if he fails to follow through on the conditions of probation.
Login
FAQ
Do not go gentle into that good night.
I should have noticed that...
