idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
His injuries weren't serious enough to be tended to before they brought him to the station, according to the reports. They are definitely using exaggerated language. Doesn't mean his nose couldn't have been broken, technically, but a cracked bone isn't anything like what they want us to picture.
And, again, no one denies that they fought.
Now. A week ago?
I don't know why you are dwelling on that--it isn't important. No one owes you an apology, because no one ever denied that he could have been injured.
Fair enough. I dwell on it because there were people who seemed to think that Zimmerman just chased Martin down and shot him in cold blood and not after a struggle in which Zimmerman was on the loosing side. It's kinda relevant because the position of those defending Martin keeps shifting. First it was a cold blooded killing and there was no fight. Then it shifted to Martin being the victim who couldn't possibly have defended himself from the much larger and stronger older man and was just trying to defend himself and run home. Now, it's Martin was participating in the fight, and was continuing that fight long past the point of self-defense, but it's justified because Zimmerman started it, or gave him no choice, or something.
You do not know this
The point is that Trayvon didn't initiate their encounter...
. Holy ****!
... he didn't bring firearms into the picture, and he had every right to be there.
Irrelevant *and* so did Zimmerman. The issue is only about who started the physical fight, not who was following whom, or who initiated a conversation, or whatever other stuff you keep spinning this into. What matters is who physically laid hands on the other first.
We don't know who started the fight and, frankly, that doesn't even matter.
Um... Yes, it does. It's the only thing that does. If Martin started the fight, then Zimmerman is 100% in the right here. More to the point, we can only prove that Zimmerman is in the wrong if we can prove that he started the fight. And there is zero evidence for that. This is why the police didn't press charges. There's no evidence to refute Zimmerman's claim of self defense, and a **** of a lot of evidence that shows that at Martin choose to continue the fight. There is not a single eye witness account which shows Zimmerman as the aggressor.
Yet, you choose to assume he was. Why?
Zimmerman voided his ability to claim self defense by putting Trayvon into a situation where he had legitimate reason to fear for his life. If he initiated the fight, it simply makes him even more culpable. If he didn't, it's still his fault for forcing a minor into a situation where his life could be forfeit.
That's not how the law works though. You don't get to deck someone because they walk up to you and ask you a question. Period.
Seriously, your "who started the fight" argument isn't working, because no one cares. Why? Because it doesn't matter. Zimmerman was the aggressor of the whole conflict...
Patently false. Every eye witness account places Martin as the aggressor. No eye witness account places Zimmerman as the aggressor. While we can't say just by looking at who's on top at the end of a fight who started the fight, we can also only go based on the facts we have. At no point did any witness observe Zimmerman on top or in an aggressive position (until after he fired his gun). You're leading with your assumption and inventing facts to match.
... even if he had not initiated the fight, because had he not stalked the kid in his car there wouldn't have been a conflict.
Irrelevant. That's like saying "if he hadn't looked at me funny, I wouldn't have had to beat him up, so it's not really my fault"
Do you even hear yourself? This is ridiculous. The lengths you're willing to go to excuse Martin's behavior is frankly astounding. Nothing Zimmerman did justified Martin assaulting him. You don't get to deck someone because they're following you, or asking you a question.
And, according to Zimmerman's statement (which is now being released by his lawyer), he had lost sight of Martin and was returning to his car when Martin jumped him. If this is true, then it wasn't even that Zimmerman chased the kid down, or that Martin was trying to get away. Martin may have actually circled around and stalked Zimmerman and jumped him.
Do I know that for a fact? Of course not. But again, in the absence of any solid facts regarding how the physical altercation started, we can't assume that Zimmerman is at fault. The law does not work that way. Edited, Mar 26th 2012 2:56pm by gbaji