Actually, it is relevant because it may tell us about your prejudices and whether they color your other responses.Because it is irrelevant.
In the transcript of Zimmerman’s 911 call (“He ran”)What?
In what report is this little gem?
Here’s an article: Experts: Neighborhood watches shouldn't be armed - CBS NewsYou know the rules of the neighborhood watch program that this neighborhood participated in?
Can you link to them? Post them?
That because he murdered the other witness. And since then, we have learned he beats up women. So I don’t think I would take him very seriously as a truthful person.His is the only witness to all of the events.
And his story was checked out by police, they also administered a lie detector.
He was shown to be truthful. Not just from the analysis, but also from the police investigation
Following someone through the dark while armed is presenting yourself as a threat to the person that is being followed. Martin had the right to defend himself. It’s just a darn shame he didn’t take advantage of his Second Amendment rights or we wouldn’t be having this conversation today.The basis of the lawsuit is that the person who testified to that was not, in fact, not the person allegedly on the phone with Martin, and, as a small matter, following someone isn’t a crime.
Well, we can look at what Zimmerman said in the 911 call and determine that Martin would think he was in danger. Martin stares at him. Martin ran. Zimmerman kept following him. Of course, Martin would think he was in danger.I don’t claim intimate knowledge of Martin’s or, for that matter, Zimmerman’s thoughts in the run up to the incident, and thinking your in danger isn’t sufficient justification for pounding someone’s head into the pavement.
Because we can analyze what happened and realize that the fault lies with Zimmerman.Why should we assume that the fault lies mostly with Zimmerman rather than Martin? Because the media presented it that way?
You can’t analyze anything without access to all the facts, and if all you have to go on is the media representation of those facts then you have no way of knowing where the truth lies. If Zimmerman’s lawsuit goes to court we should find out a lot more about what really went on. I don’t know what is true and what is fable…and neither do you.Because we can analyze what happened and realize that the fault lies with Zimmerman.
Well, I do have access to all the available facts through the internet. It is the analysis of those facts that make me believe that Zimmerman was at fault and murdered Martin. Now, it seems to me that the people claiming that Zimmerman did nothing wrong are simply following the interpretation of the facts given to them by the right wing media and they should seek out the real facts as well as use critical thinking skills to decide for themselves what happened instead of depending on the Fox News interpretation.You can’t analyze anything without access to all the facts, and if all you have to go on is the media representation of those facts then you have no way of knowing where the truth lies. If Zimmerman’s lawsuit goes to court we should find out a lot more about what really went on. I don’t know what is true and what is fable…and neither do you.
I guess we’ll see if the suit goes forward.Well, I do have access to all the available facts through the internet.
Apparently the jury at Zimmerman’s trial was looking at a different set of facts when they acquitted him of all charges.It is the analysis of those facts that make me believe that Zimmerman was at fault and murdered Martin.
I could see the possibility of someone having reasonable doubt (a high barrier needed for conviction) and I do not think the prosecutor of the case did a good job.Apparently the jury at Zimmerman’s trial was looking at a different set of facts when they acquitted him of all charges.
How did Martin know he was armed? Florida is a “concealed carry” state, not an “open carry” one. Do you think Martin had enough familiarity with firearms and thugs that he could just tell by observation that they were “carrying”? That certainly puts a different spin on the characterization of Martin as an “upstanding citizen”.Following someone through the dark while armed is presenting yourself as a threat to the person that is being followed.
Wow…you’ve managed to take an even more extreme position on the right to self defense than the NRA. Even they wouldn’t go so far as to assert a right to kill someone for looking sideways at you.Martin had the right to defend himself. It’s just a darn shame he didn’t take advantage of his Second Amendment rights or we wouldn’t be having this conversation today.
I don’t remember Zimmerman threatening Martin in the 911 call.Well, we can look at what Zimmerman said in the 911 call
What specifically did Zimmerman say in the 911 call that implied a threat to Martin?and determine that Martin would think he was in danger.
Which, according to you, would have justified Martin shooting Zimmerman. That’s a pretty extreme position, that just feeling you’re in danger is a valid justification for shooting someone, but that getting your head pounded against the concrete isn’t.Martin stares at him. Martin ran. Zimmerman kept following him. Of course, Martin would think he was in danger.
Oh, that’s a cute little dig you got in there on the dead child. “Familiarity with firearms and thugs…putting a different spin on … Martin as an “upstanding citizen”.”. Way to show your prejudices.How did Martin know he was armed? Florida is a “concealed carry” state, not an “open carry” one. Do you think Martin had enough familiarity with firearms and thugs that he could just tell by observation that they were “carrying”? That certainly puts a different spin on the characterization of Martin as an “upstanding citizen”.
I guess I misunderstood what is meant by “Second Amendment Rights”. Now I know that you think it is code to kill someone.Wow…you’ve managed to take an even more extreme position on the right to self defense than the NRA. Even they wouldn’t go so far as to assert a right to kill someone for looking sideways at you.
He acted in a threatening manner. He saw Martin staring at him. Martin cuts between houses to avoid the man watching him in the car. The man in the car gets out of the car to follow him. Martin runs. From Zimmerman’s breath shortening, it seems like Zimmerman ran after him. That is acting in a threatening manner.I don’t remember Zimmerman threatening Martin in the 911 call.
Read above.What specifically did Zimmerman say in the 911 call that implied a threat to Martin?
Again, I didn’t realize that, when gun rights advocate talk about Second Amendment Rights, they mean to kill someone.Which, according to you, would have justified Martin shooting Zimmerman. That’s a pretty extreme position, that just feeling you’re in danger is a valid justification for shooting someone, but that getting your head pounded against the concrete isn’t.
State laws in Florida prohibit anyone under 18 from owning or carrying a firearm.. It’s just a darn shame he didn’t take advantage of his Second Amendment rights or we wouldn’t be having this conversation today.
You have not even bothered researching applicable gun laws.Well, I do have access to all the available facts through the internet.
That seems unconstitutional. After all, a 17 year old can be followed through a development by an armed man, but the child has no ability to defend himself except with his hands and ends up killed as result.State laws in Florida prohibit anyone under 18 from owning or carrying a firearm.
As a 17 year old, Martin would have no legal access to a weapon.
The exception being expressed permission and under direct supervision of a parent during a sports activity, or hunting, or legal recreational activity.
In other words, Martin could not be legally armed at the time.
What applicable gun laws did I need to research to form my opinion?You have not even bothered researching applicable gun laws.
Yet you have already formed your opinion.
How about the one that tells us Zimmerman had to conceal his weapon.What applicable gun laws did I need to research to form my opinion?
I knew the weapon had to be concealed. It doesn’t mean that Martin didn’t know that Zimmerman was armed.How about the one that tells us Zimmerman had to conceal his weapon.
Martin could not simply look and see if Zimmerman was armed.
It is a distinct possibility that Martin knew that Zimmerman was armed, even with applicable laws. What is without a doubt was that Zimmerman was acting in a threatening manner towards Martin by leaving his car to follow Martin and chasing after Martin when Martin ran.You have had your opinion colored throughout this thread by the false belief that Martin knew Zimmerman to be armed. Research into the applicable laws would have told you otherwise.
It was within the realm of possibility, therefore it was.It is a distinct possibility that Martin knew that Zimmerman was armed, even with applicable laws.
Where did I say it was? Your bias is showing by misinterpreting (intentionally?) what I am saying.It was within the realm of possibility, therefore it was.
Your bias is showing.
And I never will., you have never answered why you think Martin was acting suspiciously by walking through his neighborhood at 7 PM.
Do you wish to recant claiming Martin knew Zimmerman was armed?Where did I say it was