"They always get away" can imply quite a number of things, such as he wanted the police to catch Martin -- which is why he called the police. It doesn't really imply that he wanted to fight at all.
Cherry picking.
Anyway: you say he was "spoiling for a fight" but that his actions aren't those of a manipulator.
More or less.
But you are aware that he called the police, right? Before the confrontation?
Yes - I've even referenced the conversation several times, something you would know if you were paying attention.
So he would have to be either colossally stupid or utterly brilliant to make that call and then go pick a fight, right? He guaranteed that he would be caught!
Or neither. You're presenting it as a false dichotomy, it's not.
No, I just said it is possible. I understand that it is. But the point is, "possible" isn't enough. I notice you ignored the part of that which contained that point, then asked "so what?". Ignoring my point won't make it go away. Maybe if I say it louder: POSSIBLE IS NOT ENOUGH.
Whether or not it being possible wasn't the point I was addressing. Go back, re-read what you said, retain it as context, and reconsider my response.
No, it's not. We even used the same word base ("relevant"). But I'll expand:
1. The fact that Zimmerman did not have his gun out prior to the physical confrontation tells us clearly that he did not go into the situation intending to kill Martin.
Whether or not he went into the situation intending to kill Martin is irrelevant because that's not the claim I made. The only claim I made was that he intended to pick a fight, that he was spoiling for a fight.
2. The fact that Zimmerman got all of the beating makes is more likely that Martin was the aggressor than Zimmerman.
No it doesn't, the only thing it neccessarily demonstrates is that he was significantly outclassed. More to the point, I don't recall ever suggesting that Martin threw the first punch, all I said was that he intended to pick a fight or that he was spoiling for a fight. Do you understand the important difference between these statements?
Zimmerman put himself in a position where a confrontation was possible or inevitable with a demonstrably aggressive attitude.
You said these are irrelevant. They aren't. They are critical pieces of the basis of the decision.
What I said, and have elaborated further, is that they're irrelevant in determining whether or not Zimmerman was being aggressive or spoiling for a fight. I didn't say that "The facts of what happened in the seconds leading up to the shooting [are] irrelevant."
There's a significant difference there.
Again, yes, it is possible that Zimmerman picked the fight.
And that's the only thing I have actually said - is that in my opinion it seems likely that Zimmerman had a larger role in provoking the confrontation then KWHilborn credits him for, KWHIlborn seems to think that Zimmerman was an innocent bystander or something.
Do try and keep up with the conversation you're interjecting yourself into the next time you choose to do so.
The evidence does not "preclude" it. But burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defense. The evidence must preclude the possibility that Martin picked the fight and it doesn't. You're looking at the burden of proof backwards.
No I'm not. You've interjected yourself into someone elses conversation and have, apparently, not understood what was said. Or you have, but your so busy with whatever agenda that you've got that you've failed to recognize the assertions for what they are. I work for the government. I have practical experience in the levels and burden of proof. I also understand the level of proof required by the defense and what their job is.
Um...we're talking about whether Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter here.
That's the overall topice of the thread, yes, however, there are a number of dicussions within that topic. One of which is the one you have chosen to interject yourself within. The only point that I was making was that the evidence we have available suggests that Zimmerman behaved aggressively.
If nothing he did prior to shooting the gun was a crime, then none of it supports a manslaughter verdict.
I haven't commented on that yet, one way or the other The only thing you have at this point is the assumptions you have made based on whatever your personal agenda is.
But, if you want me to, I will, I have a personal, shall we call it, ethical, issue with the idea that one man can provoke a fight with another man, then shoot them and kill them when the fight they have provoked exceeds their ability to control it, and claim that they acted in self defense. While it might be true at a
technical level, I consider that to be a travesty and abuse of the defense.
I also live in a jurisdiction where we recently did away with the self-defense clause for some charges after a case in which a guy stabbed his girlfriend 32 times in the chest with a chefs knife (in her bedroom) and claimed self defense because she came at him with a pair of scissors (he was the only witness to the actual events btw).
Reworded: You're trying to say that pursuing Martin before shooting him makes Zimmerman a murderer. But pursuing (following) someone is not a crime, so it does not add weight to a murder/manslaughter charge.
I've said or suggested no such thing - even in my clarification of my personal position. Everything you've attributed to me has so far has been your agenda rather than anything I have actually said.
