Zimmerman trial: Neighbor testifies Trayvon Martin was straddling Zimmerman moments before fatal gun - Polidicks

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;41228477]THERE IS ALSO NO EVIDENCE THAT MARTIN CONFRONTED ZIMMERMAN, which is the only context in which Zimmerman's claim of "self defense" holds up. For the umpteenth time, why do you think that everybody talks about Zimmerman's right to self defense but nobody at all talks about Martin's right to self defense?[/QUOTE] Evidence that Zimmerman was the first aggressor = 0 Evidence Trayvon was the aggressor = Zimmerman's testimony You casually discard his story yet Zimmerman is the only person alive to recall the entire event and every witness has reinforced that story.

So anyone mind pointing to the evidence that Zimmerman was waving his gun about? Because I sure don't remember any, nor do I think Trayvon would have attacked him if he was pointing a gun at him.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;41228506]Except for the fact that nothing does. Zimmerman left his house, got in his car, and then left his car on foot to pursue Martin. "He was a member of the neighborhood watch" is not an acceptable excuse for going after somebody who had every right to be there. If you were being followed by a large man (possibly visibly wielding a gun) in the middle of the night you might make some rash decisions too.[/QUOTE] You can follow someone at night, you can confront someone at night. I can't beat the fuck out of anyone who follows me. Why would Zimmerman sit there supposedly yelling for help if he approached Martin with a gun with intent to kill?

[QUOTE=Lamar;41228493]Because you're not allowed to pummel the living daylights out of someone for just approaching you.[/QUOTE] You're also not allowed to shoot someone for "looking suspicious" so somebody sure fucked up along the way. Why are we only considering the possibility that Martin was the one who fucked up? Why is the burden on him to react appropriately to Zimmerman, who, by all accounts (admonitions from the police department to stay in his car, etc) acted inappropriately?

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;41228419]Where is your evidence that Zimmerman was confronted by Martin instead? Neither argument has evidence. I'm just asking why the statement "Martin punched Zimmerman in self defense" is [I]fucking unfathomable[/I] to most people while the statement "Zimmerman shot Martin" in self defense is perfectly reasonable.[/QUOTE] If there is such a lack of evidence leaning towards any hypothesis on what happened then why are you so inclined on picking a side and defending it ? Both sides fucked up in some sort of way since it ended up in such a clusterfuck of a situation, but as far as evidence and testimony goes, Zimmerman got attacked by Martin and he fought back, end of story. Whether he triggered the fistfight to begin with or not and how inappropriate his behavior was is irrelevant.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;41228369]Like seriously why does everyone accept that Zimmerman has a right to shoot somebody in self defense (the question of whether or not it actually was self defense notwithstanding) but nobody, even for a moment, wants to re contextualize it as Martin having the right to punch a guy in self defense?[/QUOTE] I find it hilarious how you have repeatedly claimed, indirectly or otherwise, that everyone else is being unreasonable when you have repeatedly made every possible effort to leap to any number of ridiculous contrived conclusions. You insist that so many events happened, and you have repeatedly shown that you know absolutely fucking nothing about the case and the circumstances. So many of your "facts" are random things you've pulled out of your ass.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;41228419]Where is your evidence that Zimmerman was confronted by Martin instead? Neither argument has evidence. I'm just asking why the statement "Martin punched Zimmerman in self defense" is [I]fucking unfathomable[/I] to most people while the statement "Zimmerman shot Martin" in self defense is perfectly reasonable.[/QUOTE] neither argument has evidence therefor my argument is the correct one

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;41228543]You're also not allowed to shoot someone for "looking suspicious" so somebody sure fucked up along the way. Why are we only considering the possibility that Martin was the one who fucked up? Why is the burden on him to react appropriately to Zimmerman, who, by all accounts (admonitions from the police department to stay in his car, etc) acted inappropriately?[/QUOTE] Good gravy, no one is only considering the possibility that Martin fucked up. If you have been watching the trail you would see that almost all of the testimony that has taken place has supported Zimmermans account.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;41228543]You're also not allowed to shoot someone for "looking suspicious" so somebody sure fucked up along the way. Why are we only considering the possibility that Martin was the one who fucked up? Why is the burden on him to react appropriately to Zimmerman, who, by all accounts (admonitions from the police department to stay in his car, etc) acted inappropriately?[/QUOTE] None of us are claiming that Zimmerman shot Trayvon for looking suspicious, nobody.

[QUOTE=acds;41228538]So anyone mind pointing to the evidence that Zimmerman was waving his gun about? Because I sure don't remember any, nor do I think Trayvon would have attacked him if he was pointing a gun at him.[/QUOTE] Anybody mind pointing to the evidence that Zimmerman was standing in the bushes looking at porn on his phone when Martin turned around and came towards him? It's almost as if you're constructing a very specific set of circumstances that would have to be met in order for Martin to be innocent while giving Zimmerman carte blanche in the realm of behaviors that were acceptable for him.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;41228591]Anybody mind pointing to the evidence that Zimmerman was standing in the bushes looking at porn on his phone when Martin turned around and came towards him? It's almost as if you're constructing a very specific set of circumstances that would have to be met in order for Martin to be innocent while giving Zimmerman carte blanche in the realm of behaviors that were acceptable for him.[/QUOTE] What is your point even ? It's like you're trying to defend Trayvon but have no clue how to proceed and why you should even do that.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;41228591]Anybody mind pointing to the evidence that Zimmerman was standing in the bushes looking at porn on his phone when Martin turned around and came towards him? [/QUOTE] Where did you even get that from? No one is even claiming that was a possibility. He could have approached without the gun out.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;41228419]I'm just asking why the statement "Martin punched Zimmerman in self defense" is [I]fucking unfathomable[/I] to most people while the statement "Zimmerman shot Martin" in self defense is perfectly reasonable.[/QUOTE] because zimmerman would not instigate such an encounter with trayvon. trayvon had a height advantage, and could easily overpower zimmerman in hand-to-hand combat. if zimmerman had actually tried to attack trayvon pre-emptively, he would have pulled out his gun, at which point trayvon would not have had the chance to punch zimmerman in the first place. if trayvon was on top of zimmerman, punching him, the only reasonable conclusion to make is that trayvon took the initiative and attacked zimmerman.

[QUOTE=Neo Kabuto;41228626]Where did you even get that from? No one is even claiming that was a possibility. He could have approached without the gun out.[/QUOTE] It's just an example. What he's saying is that the reasonable reactions to 'someone walking towards you' and 'someone walking towards you with a gun' are very different. Who walked towards who and how is kind of important when evaluating the conflict that followed.

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;41228630]because zimmerman would not instigate such an encounter with trayvon. trayvon had a height advantage, and could easily overpower zimmerman in hand-to-hand combat.[/QUOTE] I had no clue Trayvon was taller than him. Just shows how the media portrayed them.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;41228543]You're also not allowed to shoot someone for "looking suspicious" so somebody sure fucked up along the way. Why are we only considering the possibility that Martin was the one who fucked up? Why is the burden on him to react appropriately to Zimmerman, who, by all accounts (admonitions from the police department to stay in his car, etc) acted inappropriately?[/QUOTE] well good job zimmerman didn't shoot trayvon for "looking suspicious" he shot him because trayvon was on top of him, pummeling him

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;41228657]well good job zimmerman didn't shoot trayvon for "looking suspicious" he shot him because trayvon was on top of him, pummeling him[/QUOTE] If Trayvon could easily overpower Zimmerman, how exactly was Zimmerman able to get his gun out and fire?

[QUOTE=Neo Kabuto;41228652]I had no clue Trayvon was taller than him. Just shows how the media portrayed them.[/QUOTE] well to be honest, only a few inches. I don't think zimmerman would be able to judge it from his range. the more important aspect was that regardless of his height, trayvon probably had the advantage in terms of physical strength due to his youth compared to zimmerman.

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;41228630]because zimmerman would not instigate such an encounter with trayvon. trayvon had a height advantage, and could easily overpower zimmerman in hand-to-hand combat. if zimmerman had actually tried to attack trayvon pre-emptively, he would have pulled out his gun, at which point trayvon would not have had the chance to punch zimmerman in the first place. if trayvon was on top of zimmerman, punching him, the only reasonable conclusion to make is that trayvon took the initiative and attacked zimmerman.[/QUOTE] This all predicates on the argument that Zimmerman is a reasonable person which conflicts with the [i]established fact[/i] that Zimmerman left his car to go after Martin on foot despite being told not to by the police dispatcher he was on the phone with.

[QUOTE=Megafan;41228670]If Trayvon could easily overpower Zimmerman, how exactly was Zimmerman able to get his gun out and fire?[/QUOTE] Just because your overpowered it doesn't mean you are completely immobile.

[QUOTE=Megafan;41228670]If Trayvon could easily overpower Zimmerman, how exactly was Zimmerman able to get his gun out and fire?[/QUOTE] not impossible. if they were struggling on the ground, zimmerman probably got lucky and managed to push trayvon off himself for just long enough for him to unholster his gun. there's a difference between trayvon having the tactical advantage, and trayvon winning.

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;41228671]well to be honest, only a few inches. I don't think zimmerman would be able to judge it from his range. the more important aspect was that regardless of his height, trayvon probably had the advantage in terms of physical strength due to his youth compared to zimmerman.[/QUOTE] That seems at least a little presumptuous.

[QUOTE=Megafan;41228696]That seems at least a little presumptuous.[/QUOTE] Again, notice how people are constructing elaborate series' of events that would have to be matched in order for Martin hitting Zimmerman to be justified, while "Zimmerman shot him in self defense" is the baseline that is to be accepted as fact until specificaly disproven.

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;41228694]not impossible. if they were struggling on the ground, zimmerman probably got lucky and managed to push trayvon off himself for just long enough for him to unholster his gun. there's a difference between trayvon having the tactical advantage, and trayvon winning.[/QUOTE] That is possible, but it assumes the first part (where Trayvon wouldn't have been able to hit Zimmerman, have him on the ground, and all that if in fact Zimmerman was pointing his gun at him) is true.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;41228680]This all predicates on the argument that Zimmerman is a reasonable person which conflicts with the [i]established fact[/i] that Zimmerman left his car to go after Martin on foot despite being told not to by the police dispatcher he was on the phone with.[/QUOTE] >Dispatcher: Are you following him? >Zimmerman: Yeah >Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that. >Zimmerman: Ok

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;41228702]That specific moment right there is the single most damning evidence as to the nature of Zimmerman's character we have.[/QUOTE] If that is the most damning evidence as to the nature of Zimmerman's character then the Defense has this in the bag.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;41228680]This all predicates on the argument that Zimmerman is a reasonable person which conflicts with the [i]established fact[/i] that Zimmerman left his car to go after Martin on foot despite being told not to by the police dispatcher he was on the phone with.[/QUOTE] Once again for the trajillizobazillonth time, there is nothing saying he kept following him. [editline]28th June 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=SigmaLambda;41228702]Again, notice how people are constructing elaborate series' of events that would have to be matched in order for Martin hitting Zimmerman to be justified, while "Zimmerman shot him in self defense" is the baseline that is to be accepted as fact until specificaly disproven.[/QUOTE] Possibly disobeying an emergency dispatcher, what a sick son of a bitch

[QUOTE=BusterBluth;41228735]Once again for the trajillizobazillonth time, there is nothing saying he kept following him.[/QUOTE] Except for the fact that Zimmerman was not sitting in the driver's seat of his car when he shot Martin, because that is where he made the call.

[QUOTE=Megafan;41228696]That seems at least a little presumptuous.[/QUOTE] I don't really think so. Again, it was in the dark, so while Trayvon is disadvantaged by finding it hard to see what he's hitting, Zimmerman can still locate the gun through touching. and we know that Zimmerman's injuries were to the upper body. If that were the case then Trayvon would not be concentrating on Zimmerman's arms and waist. fist fights are a clusterfuck

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;41228702]That specific moment right there is the single most damning evidence as to the nature of Zimmerman's character we have.[/QUOTE] Then it's a real shame that for the prosecution, character evidence is inadmissible in a criminal trial unless the defense has "opened the door" to it. Besides, following someone looking suspicious when told not to doesn't imply he would also just shoot the guy.