Nonsense. I'm pointing out a perfectly valid scenario under which Zimmerman would be not guilty of murder.kiki5711 wrote:
seth,
you twist everything around to make it look like that night martin was indeed NOT supposed to be in that neighborhood, didn't look anything but suspicious when he saw zimmerman, didn't have a right to fight back, and Zimmerman had ALL the rights, to follow him, kill him.
you can twist anything into the total opposite. it's nowhere near a common ground point of view as I described.
Fact: Martin was NOT a resident of the community.
Fact: Zimmerman WAS a resident of the community.
Fact: Zimmerman had a right, as a resident of the gated community to watch for and approach intruders whom he did not recognize as other legal residents and ask them what they were doing in the private, gated community.
Fact: Martin was an INVITED GUEST of a resident of the community, and therefore had a right to be inside the community.
However, Zimmerman had no way of knowing this, so he was fully authorized to approach Martin and check on his bona fides to be where he was, just as I would be fully authorized to approach a trespasser on my ranch who turned out to be an invited guest of my mother that I was not aware of.
There may well have been some racial component to Zimmerman's suspicion, but then again it's hardly unknown for six-foot tall black teenagers to commit either property crimes or muggings, so Zimmerman's suspicion was not entirely unreasonable under the totality of the circumstances. If Martin had been white rather than black, and things had turned out exactly the same way, there would not be nearly so much accusation-tossing and pre-judgment going on, now would there?
We don't know what Zimmerman said to Martin, or if that conversation might have provoked some anger or resentment in Martin which triggered the alleged attack on Zimmerman, but unless Zimmerman pulled his gun and threatened Martin with death or serious bodily harm, no amount of insult, real or perceived, would justify Martin attacking Zimmerman at a later time, which appears to be the case, according to the dispatch tapes. If Martin felt he had been threatened by Zimmerman, his proper recourse absent an imminent threat justifying self defense (which does not appear to be plausible given the timeline of the dispatch tapes) would be to call the police himself and make a complaint, which would have gotten his side of the event on tape. He made no such call that I'm aware of.
I'm speculating here, but what I think happened is that Zimmerman approached Martin and said or shouted something at Martin which caused Martin to run away. Zimmerman then called the police and headed back for his truck while arranging to meet the police near the clubhouse. Meanwhile, I speculate that Martin became enraged at Zimmerman's actions and turned back and attacked Zimmerman from behind, as Zimmerman claimed, intent on redressing the perceived or actual slight or "dissing" with violence. I speculate Martin struck Zimmerman, knocked him to the ground and began pummeling him and banging his head on the concrete sidewalk. At this point, Zimmerman, who was evidently screaming for help felt he had no choice but to shoot Martin in self defense.
This is a perfectly plausible sequence of events, and it would hardly be implausible that Martin might become enraged at being "disrespected" and might resort to violence. It wouldn't be the first or the last time such a thing has or will happen.
Or, Zimmerman may have approached Martin, had words with him and shot him down in cold blood.
But that doesn't seem very plausible given the evidence even in the public record, much less in the possession of the police.
I think the 2nd Degree Murder charge is politically motivated and is based on the prosecutor trying to stem a potential race war by booting the case to the jury on the weak theory that Zimmerman either instigated the conflict by approaching Martin in the first place, or did not have sufficient justification to use deadly force when Martin attacked him.
Time will tell, but all I'm doing is refuting your particularly weak reasoning with another perfectly plausible theory of the events.
