Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Leave George Zimmerman alone!

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

It is a reasonable possibility that Martin thought Zimmerman was interested in assaulting (not raping) him. That might be worth a short discussion.

Isn't that really the question? Whether Martin, at any point, might have considered himself in danger to the point where he was justified in engaging in "self-defense"? And... had events transpired slightly differently, maybe we would be confronted with a case where an alive Martin sought to justify his actions (whether leading to Zimmerman's death or not) because he was being followed, was confronted, perhaps saw a gun, thought this Zimmerman guy was reaching for it for some malicious reason, and reacted to save his own life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your proposition "there are instances of rapists following, stalking, watching their victims" and subsequent posting of that article has no relevance to the claim that Trayvon (a 17 year old 5'11 male) may have reasonably thought that George Zimmerman was going to rape him. You are diverting the issue.

 

Your proposition should be: There are instances of young adults being raped by older men. And then post an article like this one: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/man-abducted-from-train-and-raped-1557478.html.

 

However, my response would be: It is very uncommon as it only happens on rare occasions, so it wouldn't be a proper or reasonable profiling of George Zimmerman. And if Trayvon did really believe that GZ was a rapist, his proper response would be to avoid confrontation as it would be very unlikely that GZ would be able to rape him unless he had some sort of weapon. In every example of men raping other men that I have read, there was the use of a weapon - either a knife or a gun - used as a threat to force them to comply.

Feel free to quote a specific post where I specifically said that proposition means Trayvon thought Zimmerman was going to rape him. When you can't find such a post wherein I made that claim, then feel free to address the actual claim made by aleph_1 in #143, that is, that the proposition "there are instances of rapists following, stalking, watching their victims" has no basis in reality. Also I specifically said in point number 3 in the post above yours that I wasn't making the claim you think I am here, yet you chose to post anyway. Which we can only deduce that either you didn't read it before you posted, which is wrong, or that you chose to post anyway, which is also wrong.

 

Now you say that yes, rapes of this type do occur, but they are rare and Trayvon shouldn't have wished for a confrontation then. And this is true, but remember, according to the testimony of Jeantel, who was on the phone with him before the confrontation, Trayvon didn't want Zimmerman to follow him home to his father's house, where his little brother was located, or to his girlfriend's house. All of this, of course, has been mentioned before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the question is whether George Zimmerman initiated force or not.

And... a person must make a judgement as to whether or not someone else is initiating force... to know whether self-defense is justified, just as I've said. (Read for comprehension, not for pointless dispute, if it is possible to you?) He must assess the situation and judge whether or not he is in physical danger. Martin had to make that judgement.

Had Martin survived and said, "He'd been following me. I saw he had a gun and he went for it. I had to take him out; it was self-defense." Well... that would wind up in a court, again, to assess the details, wouldn't it? And maybe Martin's story wouldn't hold up. But from a self-defense perspective, if that's what actually transpired, that sounds pretty reasonable to me. If I thought someone was drawing a gun on me, I guess I'd act to protect myself.

Unless you mean to contend that reaching for one's gun doesn't constitute an initiation of force (given the relevant context like a confrontation on the streets, being followed, etc.; not at a gun show or shooting range)? But if you think that a person must wait for a gun to be pointed at his head to resist with force (when it is far too late), or perhaps wait for the bullet to penetrate his skull (for there is no "physical contact" beforehand), then you misunderstand both the initiation of force and self-defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And... a person must make a judgement as to whether or not someone else is initiating force... to know whether self-defense is justified, just as I've said. (Read for comprehension, not for pointless dispute, if it is possible to you?)

I understand what you're saying fine. I understood from your previous post too. You think that Zimmerman's guilt or moral worth somehow depends on what Trayvon Martin thought.

It doesn't. Whether Trayvon Martin thought Zimmerman is about to nuke the whole neighborhood, or whether he was thinking about unicorns, is entirely irrelevant to whether Zimmerman is guilty of initiation force against him, by threatening or assaulting him.

If you want to indict Zimmerman, prove that he did something wrong. Stop going off on tangents about what Martin may or may not have thought. It doesn't make the slightest of difference.

I've seen no evidence that Zimmerman threatened or assaulted Martin, before he got punched.

 

Unless you mean to contend that reaching for one's gun doesn't constitute an initiation of force

The implication that Zimmerman reached for his gun before he was attacked is a lie.

P.S. In the past, you've promised never to engage me again, because you don't like how I constantly contradict you. Not only have you failed to keep your promise, but you keep engaging me not by addressing my arguments, but by questioning my motives.

I'm not looking to start arguments with you for the sake of arguing. I'm simply correcting you. The reason is that you rarely say anything I consider true or rational.

If I was really motivated by looking for arguments, why wouldn't I be contradicting eveyone? SoftwareNerd for instance posts more than you do, and I read everything he posts. How come I rarely get into arguments with him?

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

But if you think that a person must wait for a gun to be pointed at his head to resist with force (when it is far too late), or perhaps wait for the bullet to penetrate his skull (for there is no "physical contact" beforehand), then you misunderstand ....

1) Treyvon was pounding Zimmermann's head into the ground. There is NO justification for that when he could have pinned Z to the ground and called for help.

2) Your point is thereby moot and unrelated to rhe reality of the situation.

3) Martin won the Darwin award the old fashioned way. He earned it.

Edited by aleph_1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Feel free to quote a specific post where I specifically said that proposition means Trayvon thought Zimmerman was going to rape him. When you can't find such a post wherein I made that claim.

 

I didn't claim that is what that proposition meant. I claimed that that proposition meant that it was reasonable thought. Remember, you were the one that responded to me.

 

 

I am amazed that people are even entertaining the idea that it was a reasonable thought that George Zimmerman was potentially a rapist of a 5'11 black almost fully-grown 17 year old.

 

 

I think it's a reasonable statement, if your friend calls you and tells you someone is following and watching you, a reasonable response might be, hey, maybe it's some kind of rapist, you should probably be careful. Of course it does not follow that you should break the person's nose and slam their skull into the pavement.

 

And I don't think it is a reasonable statement.

 

then feel free to address the actual claim made by aleph_1 in #143, that is, that the proposition "there are instances of rapists following, stalking, watching their victims" has no basis in reality. 

 

It's not that that proposition has no basis in reality, it's that it isn't relevant to what we are talking about.

 

 

Also I specifically said in point number 3 in the post above yours that I wasn't making the claim you think I am here, yet you chose to post anyway. Which we can only deduce that either you didn't read it before you posted, which is wrong, or that you chose to post anyway, which is also wrong.

 

Maybe you didn't read my post because I didn't claim that you said Trayvon thought Zimmerman was going to rape him. Maybe I can deduce that you either didn't read it before you posted or that you chose to post anyway.

 

Anyway, this is getting a bit tiring.

Edited by thenelli01
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

No, the question is whether George Zimmerman initiated force or not.

This is two different ways of phrasing the same question.

George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin to death.  Period.  The only relevant question is whether that was justified or not.

Given that Trayvon Martin initiated physical violence, the same question translates into: was THAT violence justified?  Would Zimmerman's actions have OBJECTIVELY provided grounds for Martin to attack in self defense?

And no; self-defense does not need to happen AFTER violence has been initiated; preemptive force IS defensive force.  Corpses cannot defend themselves.

 

Featherfall and Don Athos have identified the only part of this issue that's worth any further examination.  However, given the extent of Zimmerman's injuries and the nature of the attack, I would consider the answer to their question to be plainly self-evident.

 

Pinning someone down as you beat their skull against the pavement is not an act of self-defense.

 

Feel free to quote a specific post where I specifically said that proposition means Trayvon thought Zimmerman was going to rape him. . .

. . . . .

. . . but remember, according to the testimony of Jeantel, who was on the phone with him before the confrontation, Trayvon didn't want Zimmerman to follow him home to his father's house, where his little brother was located, or to his girlfriend's house. All of this, of course, has been mentioned before.

2046, are you asserting that or not?

If not then let's stop equating "creepy-ass cracker" with "rapist" and concede that it's an arbitrary assumption- not that it's baseless, but that it's an improbable scenario amongst many other more logical ones.

The premise that Martin thought he would be raped is a manufactured possibility, specifically concocted in order to fill the gap between "Martin brutally attacked Zimmerman" and "Zimmerman is a murderer".

 

If you disagree then that's your prerogative, but please stop trying to do so without actually doing so.

 

 

Had Martin survived and said, "He'd been following me. I saw he had a gun and he went for it. I had to take him out; it was self-defense." Well... that would wind up in a court, again, to assess the details, wouldn't it? And maybe Martin's story wouldn't hold up. But from a self-defense perspective, if that's what actually transpired, that sounds pretty reasonable to me.

 

Yes. . . And had Martin knocked him on his ass and then ran away, it would be a perfectly reasonable defense.

But that is not what he did.

 

That said, the question of who should be guilty if he HAD acted in self-defense is worth discussing further and likely has some interesting implications.  But in this specific case the evidence presents no such complications.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The REAL issue is that it was legal for Zimmerman to carry a gun (ie a point and click death machine) for self defence purposes.

Okay, then.

If you're assaulted by some masculine monstrosity who just towers above you, would you rather have a pistol or a pretty pink can of mace?

 

Guns are point-and-click death machines; yes.  That's actually the entire purpose of a gun.

But if you take guns away from people, such point-and-click conflicts will revert to contests of speed, strength and raw aggression.  And if you think it's terrible that people get shot to death in their homes, today- just take away their guns and watch them get stabbed in broad daylight.

 

Murder will exist so long as irrationalism does; all such laws can determine is who dies and how.  Think the implications through for just a few minutes.

----------

 

Tadmjones nailed it several posts ago- the ONLY question relevant to this case is whether Zimmerman or Martin initiated the force which turned lethal.

Answering that question entails many, many peripheral questions which it depends on, but that's all we need to decide.  Period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is two different ways of phrasing the same question.

So why did you rephrase Don Athos's question right here, from

Isn't that really the question? Whether Martin, at any point, might have considered himself in danger to the point where he was justified in engaging in "self-defense"?

to

Would Zimmerman's actions have OBJECTIVELY provided grounds for Martin to attack in self defense?

Could it be because you don't think that's the same question?

Not to mention that even your version is much, much more vague than simply asking "Did Zimmerman initiate force or not?".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't claim that is what that proposition meant. I claimed that that proposition meant that it was reasonable thought. Remember, you were the one that responded to me.

 

 

 

 

 

And I don't think it is a reasonable statement.

 

 

It's not that that proposition has no basis in reality, it's that it isn't relevant to what we are talking about.

 

 

 

Maybe you didn't read my post because I didn't claim that you said Trayvon thought Zimmerman was going to rape him. Maybe I can deduce that you either didn't read it before you posted or that you chose to post anyway.

 

Anyway, this is getting a bit tiring.

So if you didn't claim I said that, but you responded to me anyway to tell me that's wrong, what was the point? Are we just posting to people to tell them all the things they didn't say that are wrong? How does that make sense? This is a great example of unethical posting, a discussion is not a game like baseball or something wherein you can try to score points or engage in "pointless dispute" as DA says, it's a search for the truth. There is no reason to pretend statements into existence just so you can disagree with them.

 

 

 

2046, are you asserting that or not?

If not then let's stop equating "creepy-ass cracker" with "rapist" and concede that it's an arbitrary assumption- not that it's baseless, but that it's an improbable scenario amongst many other more logical ones.

The premise that Martin thought he would be raped is a manufactured possibility, specifically concocted in order to fill the gap between "Martin brutally attacked Zimmerman" and "Zimmerman is a murderer".

Uh well, let's see, there's a little thing called the quote function. Find the quote function and hit quote on precisely the words were you are seeing that I am 'equating "creepy-ass cracker" with "rapist"' and we can help you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is two different ways of phrasing the same question.

Thank the heavens -- finally someone who can have a reasonable conversation!

 

George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin to death.  Period.  The only relevant question is whether that was justified or not.

Given that Trayvon Martin initiated physical violence, the same question translates into: was THAT violence justified?  Would Zimmerman's actions have OBJECTIVELY provided grounds for Martin to attack in self defense?

And no; self-defense does not need to happen AFTER violence has been initiated; preemptive force IS defensive force.  Corpses cannot defend themselves.

Agreed on all counts.

 

Featherfall and Don Athos have identified the only part of this issue that's worth any further examination.  However, given the extent of Zimmerman's injuries and the nature of the attack, I would consider the answer to their question to be plainly self-evident.

 

Pinning someone down as you beat their skull against the pavement is not an act of self-defense.

I generally agree with this, though I don't know whether it answers the question of whether Martin's initial attack was an initiation of force, or undertaken in self-defense. I believe that an action which may start out as legitimate self-defense might be taken "too far."

I'm not proud to say this, but knowing myself -- and knowing my anger -- if I were in a situation where I felt like someone genuinely meant to threaten my life (or my wife or daughter), and I got the upper hand in a confrontation, I might be poorly disposed to let him walk away from the attempt. He might have to shoot me to get me off.

 

Yes. . . And had Martin knocked him on his ass and then ran away, it would be a perfectly reasonable defense.

But that is not what he did.

That said, the question of who should be guilty if he HAD acted in self-defense is worth discussing further and likely has some interesting implications.

I agree.

 

But in this specific case the evidence presents no such complications.

That may well be the case, though I don't think it totally amiss to wonder about Martin's motivations, or to consider whether Zimmerman did anything provocative, even if unintentionally. I was led to wonder about whether Martin may have thought Zimmerman was reaching for a weapon, moreover, by his statement that he was reaching for his phone -- together with the fact that he had a weapon, which he subsequently did draw and fire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if you didn't claim I said that, but you responded to me anyway to tell me that's wrong, what was the point? Are we just posting to people to tell them all the things they didn't say that are wrong? How does that make sense? This is a great example of unethical posting, a discussion is not a game like baseball or something wherein you can try to score points or engage in "pointless dispute" as DA says, it's a search for the truth. There is no reason to pretend statements into existence just so you can disagree with someone.

I don't think this is fair, at all. Name one thing that I said was wrong that you didn't say. And be sure to quote me instead of making stuff up.

My point for posting was to clarify for you why your proposition and proof were irrelevent to the issue of whether this was a reasonable thought, which you stated it was in your first response to me.

Then I was explaining why it is unreasonable profiling and not a reasonable thought as you claimed.

I have no interest in unethical posting, or trying to one up anyone. My history of posts prove this as they are all centered around getting a better understanding of a topic or legitimate disagreements.

You seem to be the one upset that you are wrong so you insist on attacking me instead of addressing my comments or citing me honestly.

Edited by thenelli01
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your reply that my point is moot is moot and unrelated to the reality of my post. Wanna keep it rollin'? We can get some more useless verbiage in here, I know it!

 

Well I'm not down with the ad hominem, but I think this is something productive to focus on. Might be a good time to bring up the old thread Objectivist's impotent debate tactics 'Often times, when I raise an objection to something, the Objectivist will say something like, “You are being irrational,” “You are incapable of grasping reality,” “Your ideas are not consistent with reality” etc. Sometimes I’ll also get a real response included but that’s not guaranteed.' Of course this kind of thing is all too common, it's tantamount to sitting there telling the person that, in your mind, they're wrong, rather than simply explaining where you thing they go awry, and in a less confrontational manner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I'm not down with the ad hominem...

It's not to your point, so I'll only note for accuracy's sake that not all insulting language (if that's what you mean) is ad hominem. Here, my identification that useless verbiage is useless verbiage (or "impotent" if that's deemed more pleasant) is not the basis for any kind of argument, actually.

But moreover, on being "down" with what I said, aren't you? 'Cause I don't mind saying that I'm tired of the vision of "morality" which would hold that folks like Nicky can be as insulting as he chooses, and the right thing to do is to never call him on it, or reply in kind. If that were a policy that we enforced here -- if polite discourse were the norm, and expected, and required -- that would be another thing altogether; I would simply delete 95% of Nicky's posts (even when I agree with him on substance) and be done with it. But I'm over replying to him on the issues and getting kicked in the crotch for it, and that goes for everyone else who does that same sort of bs, too.

Aleph comes in and tells me that my point is "moot"? I'm supposed to pretend like that's worthwhile? Valuable? Friendly? Anything other than a waste of space (at best) and an insult, at worst? Pretending that things are other than what they are is what is moot, and I'm not going to pretend any longer, for anyone's sake. If someone comes up and offers garbage like that, they need to hear about it. Moot my ass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay here is the quote in #149

Your proposition "there are instances of rapists following, stalking, watching their victims" and subsequent posting of that article has no relevance to the claim that Trayvon (a 17 year old 5'11 male) may have reasonably thought that George Zimmerman was going to rape him. You are diverting the issue.

 

So if you didn't think I was claiming "Trayvon (a 17 year old 5'11 male) may have reasonably thought that George Zimmerman was going to rape him." even though I (1) never said this anywhere, and (2) explicitly disclaimed this in #148, right above yours, then why did you feel the need to let me know this, and how am I "diverting the issue"? Are you just posting to let me know all the things that I didn't say that are wrong? Again, how does that make sense? I never claimed one can deduce "Trayvon (a 17 year old 5'11 male) may have reasonably thought that George Zimmerman was going to rape him" from "there are instances of rapists following, stalking, watching their victims," so why do you feel the need to tell me that I'm "diverting the issue"? Are you going to say that you know I didn't say this, but you just wanted to let me know just for gee whiz sake?

 

Here's how the actual proposition came about, which wasn't a diverting at all.

 

You: How did people think Zimmerman was plausibly a rapist of Trayvon

Me: Well I think it is a reasonable reaction to your friend calling you and telling you that someone is following you to go, oh hey, maybe it's some kind of rapist or something, you should be careful

You: I don't think that's reasonable, because Trayvon is tall and black (?? okay...)

Snerd: (some stuff)

aleph_1: there is no basis in reality for believing that someone following you might be a rapist

Me: I would think most everyone knows of instances of people being followed and later raped, why here's an instance (links)

You: That has nothing to do with anything!

 

Well sure, that link doesn't have anything to do with Trayvon, it's just an instance of a following-then-raping, which aleph (the person to whom I was responding) was the one who claimed there is no basis for that in reality. Make sense? So, you're saying, there is basis for that then? Either there is basis for it, or there isn't? Is there? If there is, then we can move on from aleph's objection. If there is basis in reality for having observed instances of following-then-rapings, then it seems to me to follow that the statement "if some stranger is following your friend who calls you, you might reasonably reply that there is a possibility that it could be a rapist" or at least someone with less than reputable intentions, and the basis of that would be the simple and common inductive observation that following-then-rapings are known to occur. It is a different question at to whether Trayvon could have thought Zimmerman was capable of raping him, and to that, we have already seen responses.

Edited by 2046
Link to comment
Share on other sites

. If that were a policy that we enforced here -- if polite discourse were the norm, and expected, and required -- that would be another thing altogether; I would simply delete 95% of Nicky's posts (even when I agree with him on substance) and be done with it.

 

Fair enough, I think most everyone would be okay with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh well, let's see, there's a little thing called the quote function. Find the quote function and hit quote on precisely the words were you are seeing that I am 'equating "creepy-ass cracker" with "rapist"' and we can help you.

I thought it was necessarily implied because, were it not for that interesting piece of testimony (in which a racial slur was purported to mean "rapist, or something") I do not know of a single fact which would support the claim that Zimmerman was perceived as a rapist.

Yes, rapists probably do tend to stalk their targets- as do muggers and LDS Missionaries.  I inferred the well-publicized segment of that girl's testimony to be the critical piece of information which singled that possibility out, above all others.

 

Anyway, this is getting very far from the topic and I don't care to carry it further.

 

 

Could it be because you don't think that's the same question?

 The only difference between the two is the addition of "Objective;" because the conjunction of Aquarius with my big toe is not a valid reason to attack someone.

 

If Don Athos disagrees with that addition then I stand corrected; otherwise it seemed clearly implicit to me.

 

 

Thank the heavens

 

You're welcome.  =P

 

 

I generally agree with this, though I don't know whether it answers the question of whether Martin's initial attack was an initiation of force, or undertaken in self-defense. I believe that an action which may start out as legitimate self-defense might be taken "too far."

I'm not proud to say this, but knowing myself -- and knowing my anger -- if I were in a situation where I felt like someone genuinely meant to threaten my life (or my wife or daughter), and I got the upper hand in a confrontation, I might be poorly disposed to let him walk away from the attempt. He might have to shoot me to get me off.

Actually, you may have a point.  This does merit further inquiry.

 

But alright; for this specific case I sincerely doubt that Martin was afraid of anything more than getting caught.  Honestly, I really don't care to discuss the issue itself much further, but I think that given the full context of his life, Zimmerman's actions and his own, it's almost certain that he was well aware of the situation.

 

A full evaluation of that night, however, would be required to determine that with certainty- and that's what I no longer care to do.

 

But we should probably start another thread about the broader point (perceived threats and objective self-defense); but something about hypothetical people with fictional names who don't carry all of this baggage.

I would thoroughly enjoy that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought it was necessarily implied because, were it not for that interesting piece of testimony (in which a racial slur was purported to mean "rapist, or something") I do not know of a single fact which would support the claim that Zimmerman was perceived as a rapist.

Yes, rapists probably do tend to stalk their targets- as do muggers and LDS Missionaries.  I inferred the well-publicized segment of that girl's testimony to be the critical piece of information which singled that possibility out, above all others.

 

Well I don't think it far from the topic because it seems quite appropriate to talk about Trayvon's possible motivations for confronting Zimmerman. Now sure, keep in mind, this isn't my invention, like I just came up with this, this is the testimony of the Jeantel, who was on the phone with him during the time Zimmerman was following him. Whether this is just a post hoc rationalization of what happened, or whether this is actually what Trayvon was thinking we don't know.

 

But if you want, we can change my original claim to something like this:

 

The following is, in my estimation, a reasonable exchange:

 

Person: Hey, there is some creepy stranger following me

Friend: Why, there is a possibility, based on common inductive evidence, that the person following you could be someone including, but not limited to, a rapist, a mugger, a robber, a stalker, a Mormon missionary, or person of general ill intent. I think you should proceed with caution

 

Now I would think this to be totally uncontroversial, but others have objected based on the following arguments:

1. Trayvon is tall and black, which makes him less likely to be victimized

2. there is no inductive evidence that rapists follow their victims

3. why, you can't be serious, that's a stupid statement, you're a moron basically

 

So, I hope it should be clear that I continue to hold to my position that that was a reasonable response to have to someone telling you a creepy person is following them, if even in vernacular. Now the only response I think worthy of response is number 1, and the response has already been provided numerous times: according to the testimony of Jeantel, who was on the phone with him before the confrontation, Trayvon didn't want Zimmerman to follow him home to his father's house, where his little brother was located, or to his girlfriend's house, thus he confronted Zimmerman instead.

 

Of course it does not follow from this that Trayvon should proceed to slam Zimmerman's head against the pavement, but nonetheless, I think it reasonable, if even we are to believe Jeantel's testimony at all, which I don't put all that much weight behind.

Edited by 2046
Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of the above has anything to do with the specific legal case, the one in which Zimmerman was charged with second degree murder.

Well I can't see that being true. It surely has something to do with it, namely because we are in a discussion about the case and about the events in the case. Is that okay with you? Sure, it doesn't have anything to do with whether Zimmerman was guilty of second degree murder, but did anyone say otherwise? Please cite where someone made an argument to the effect "the above, ergo Zimmerman is guilty" so that we can correct that for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The following is, in my estimation, a reasonable exchange:

 

Person: Hey, there is some creepy stranger following me

Friend: Why, there is a possibility, based on common inductive evidence, that the person following you could be someone including, but not limited to, a rapist, a mugger, a robber, a stalker, a Mormon missionary, or person of general ill intent. I think you should proceed with caution.

In general, yes; that would be a perfectly rational exchange.  It even would've been rational for Martin to have thought that, if he dropped quite a bit of context- he was, after all, stoned out of his gourd.

I think there was much more to it than that, which is what my objection is; I think it's much more likely that Martin knew what Zimmerman was up to full well.  The other objections you listed aren't really worth supporting or refuting; their validity seems fairly self-evident.

 

As to whether or not Martin thought he was in physical danger, that's not an altogether pointless line of reasoning; I do see how everything else depends on that (or, in the very least, almost everything else).  But that's not going to be a quick or simple matter to figure out beyond reasonable doubt.

 

It seems, at a cursory glance, absurdly improbable that Martin actually thought his rights were in danger.  And a cursory glance is all I intend to give it.

---

 

I've been hearing about this case nonstop for far too long and it grows tiresome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The OP is about the specific legal case, so .. I think your comments are literally 'off topic', but hypothecticals can always be fun

Well these comments are about the specific legal case too, and the events surrounding and discussed within, namely during the testimony presented in the specific legal case, and thus I rather believe they are not off topic or randomly manufactured hypotheticals just for fun, but thank you for your ex cathedra pronouncements.

 

And HD fair enough, no one is forcing anyone to participate. It is of course also likely that Martin saw Zimmerman as a meddler, "someone who think they a police" as Jeantel also said, and so wanted to put him in his place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...