Quote:
Originally Posted by cookie monster
I'm not so sure why everyone is just assuming Martin started the fight because he won. The only person claiming that Martin threw the first punch is the guy who's life depends on who threw the first punch. Is it that far fetched that he lied to protect himself? Who wouldn't? People will lie about having a few beers as to not lose a drivers license for 90 days, imagine what people are capable of saying when they have the next 40 years of ass-rape and laundry to look forward too?
The fact that the arresting officer doubted Zimmerman's side of the story and recommended charges tells me that Zimmerman was lying. The police are trained to make assumptions on truth or lies. A trained professional doesn't believe him. That should mean more I think.
Look at the past of both guys. Zimmerman had 2 altercations in his past logged on police reports. One was for putting hands on a woman, the other was for putting hands on a police officer who was removing his drunk friend from a bar. This doesn't make Zimmerman any kind of menace to society, but it does show in the past he as resorted to putting his hands on another person when things get heated.
Look at Martins past. He had been suspended three times from school. One was for truancy. The second for getting caught writing WTF with a sharpie on a friends locker. When school officials looked thru his bag for the sharpie, they found it, but also found a screwdriver and jewelry. He said he bought the jewelry from a friend. The police confiscated the screwdriver, checked if the jewelry had been stolen (it was not) and Martin was suspended for the graffiti and the screwdriver. Third time was for a plastic baggie that had marijuana residue in it.
Nothing in Martins past shows him to be a violent or aggressive person. He has never been in trouble for fighting, never been in trouble for back talking or being aggressive to wards a teacher. In fact during the 'screwdriver incident' Miami-Dade police have said Martin was quite co-operative when asked about the jewelry.
In my opinion it's the kid who got chased for doing nothing wrong that has the right to not run anymore and STAND HIS GROUND and confront aggression with aggression. Not the guy who confronts an innocent person and then kills him for losing the fight.
So looking at it like that, logic should tell you that if anyone was the aggressor, its the guy with a slight history of being aggressive who stopped his truck and chased a teenager, versus a kid with no history of violent or aggressive behavior who was walking to his dads house after buying candy.
Ps- this isn't a court of law, so I'm not basing anything I'm saying on law. Just right or wrong.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redtown
I thought you were done with this.
The word assumption was at the heart of your entire 10,000 word post. You were all fuked up then just as you still are. Numerous others have said you were all fuked up and even a cop said so.
Do you still want to go on with this? Or are you done now?
|
The heart of my entire post eh?
I don't think one person said I was "fuked up". They disagreed with the use of the word assumption, but most people agreed with the post in general.
Obviously you didn't bother to read my original post. It was much more about the past of both people involved and how one had no past history of violence and the other had a few instances of putting his hands on people, including a cop and a woman. Using this logic, I said it wasn't fair to just assume Martin started the fight.
The 'assumption' part came into play when I mentioned how the lead detective didn't believe Zimmermans story. It had very little to do with the point I was making.
If you thought I was done then why did you bother to call me a 14 year old girl? Why not just let it go like I was trying to do? My guess is because you get some weird thrill being a troll and picking fights on the internet.
Oh btw here you go, maybe this will help..
http://reviews.in.88db.com/index.php...s-a-techniques