Did you also steal stuff?
Judges limit the scope of what happened to the actual incident, they throw out or rule inadmissible long back ground stories for both sides. Unless there is a very good reason to do so.
In fact in the George Zimmerman case, it amounted to the final seconds that really mattered. At that point he was lying on his back, with Martin sitting on his chest bashing his head into the concrete, he had no way to retreat and the question in those seconds was did he have a concern serious bodily harm would happen which would justify self defense by deadly means.
The scope of this is going to start with did they have any justification to go after Ahmaud Arbery related to something immediate, it seems not and everything from there is downhill to the defendants.
what do you mean also, i haven’t seen any evidence he stole anything
1 Like
Nope. Neither did Arbery.
Not only is there no evidence, nobody (relevant - I’m sure there are plenty of internet morons who have) has even made the claim.
Not that time. Was he jogging when he stole a tv from Walmart? 
Listen, I’m out. AA is dead and I have stated many many times that he shouldn’t be. Also stated that the dipshits who chased and shot him were not defending themselves and deserve jail time. Nuff said.
1 Like
Totally irrelevant, but ok. We know he didn’t steal shit from the site. We know the defendants didn’t know he was on site that day.
and we three agree that
One thing I’ve never understand about the Martin shooting death is what were his legal options when he found himself being followed home by a stranger at night on a darkened sidewalk?Try to outrun his pursuer to the front door of his house 65 meters away? Call 911? Confront the person stalking him and ask him what he wanted?
Stand your ground wasn’t an option for Martin apparently.
A stand-your-ground law (sometimes called " line in the sand " or “no duty to retreat” law ) provides that people may use deadly force when they reasonably believe it to be necessary to defend against deadly force, great bodily harm, kidnapping, rape, or (in some jurisdictions) robbery or some other serious crimes (right of self-defense). Under such a law, people have no duty to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense, so long as they are in a place where they are lawfully present. Stand-your-ground laws cannot be invoked by someone who is the initial aggressor or otherwise doing something illegal. The exact details vary by jurisdiction.
This one is ludicrous. There’s not even enough probable cause for an actual policeman to stop and detain him much less three racist thugs from an overzealous neighborhood watch.
1 Like
Your assuming it was Zimmerman who confronted Martin, the timeline and details that came out in the trail indicate Zimmerman was on his way back to his car and Martin passed right by his house doubled back and confronted Zimmerman.
I know that’s not what the media reported and without getting into the weeds of it the jury believed Zimmermans version of events and that it was Martin who threw the first punch.
Doesn’t make Zimmerman a good guy nor does it mean Martin deserved to die, nor does it take away from the tragic loss of life and the pain and suffering the Martin family had to endure.
But “stand your ground” was a media red herring, it had nothing to do with the case and at the moment of shooting with Martin sitting on Zimmermans chest, it would have been impossible for Zimmerman to retreat, which is the point of contention in stand your ground.
1 Like
If Zimmerman had given up following Martin and was retreating that justifies the finding of innocence. I didn’t pick that up as the case in the news media reports I read.
He didn’t assume that at all - he said what are his options with Zimmerman following him, which definitely happened.
There’s no indication of that based on jury interviews iirc - they didn’t believe there was enough evidence to convict, not that his version was what happened.
It was part of the jury instructions, and some jurors considered it.
I don’t blame you or anyone who as part of the public who reacted angrily, there were a lot of lies being thrown around by the media, fortunately 10 years on and the public at large is much more wise.
In the case of the the Ahmaud Arbery trial, it seems like they have the facts on their side and didn’t need to manufacture a false narrative.
Just to clarify, Zimmerman was retreating and Martin started following him and then jumped him?
1 Like
Nobody but Zimmerman knows what actually happened.
Did Zimmerman claim Martin started following him?
People looked into the details of the dispatch calls, mapped them out and created a timeline, very detailed. We can do a detailed analysis if we like, but multiple sources had came to the same conclusion. I would link one or two, but is just going to derail the thread.
The media was being very dishonest and was pushing a particular narrative not unlike the Kyle Rittenhouse case where we saw clearly the prosecutor making absurd arguments and we saw the media called out for blatant lying over the past 18 months.
We are much wiser to this now, almost nobody was at the time of the Trayvon Martin case.
I don’t doubt that. Makes it hard to tell fact from narrative unless you have a lot of free time on your hands to dig out the truth.
1 Like
He says he was following Martin, but stopped, and Martin confronted Zimmerman on his way back to his vehicle.