1) Martin was buying skittles and a drink at a local store, then walked
home. He had the right not to be harassed by anyone, including
Zimmerman.



2) Zimmerman claims that Martin was suspicious, so he called 911.
However unfounded, Zimmerman had a right to make the call.



3) Zimmerman started following Martin in the truck. To a point,
Zimmerman had a right to do this -- that is, he can't violate traffic
laws.



4) Martin STILL has the right not to be harassed, now specifically by
the creepy guy in the truck. If this had gone on for very long, Martin
could have called the cops on Zimmerman, with far more cause than
Zimmerman had for his 911 call. But Martin had no OBLIGATION to call
the cops, and the truck-stalking didn't go on long enough to qualify as
harassment, anyway.



5) Zimmerman got out of his truck, in his words, to stop one of those
"f****** punks.... always getting away." This is where Zimmerman's lies
-- established by facts presented in court, e.g., his claim to be
walking around looking for an address easily visible from where he
parked -- begin to erode his excuses for killing Martin.



6) Martin was walking home, talking to Jeantel on the phone. He is
worried about the "creepy-azz" guy following him. (Note to folks
obsessed with race: it's the first part, "creepy" not the noun it
modifies, which is significant here.) Martin had every right to be
where he was, doing what he was doing. Zimmerman had NO right -- none,
zip, zero -- to interfere with Martin in any way.



7) Zimmerman approaches Martin -- that's what the EVIDENCE presented to
the court says: Jeantel's testimony that Martin said "s***, there he is
again". Martin had the right to defend himself -- this is what Stand
Your Ground means. That is, UNLIKE Zimmerman (who had initiated and
escalated the confrontation while carrying a deadly weapon against an
unarmed person, thus creating an "imminently dangerous" situation),
Martin had no legal obligation to flee or even refuse the provocation
that Zimmerman had created.



8) Zimmerman claims that Martin bloodied his nose, knocked him down,
then held his hands over Zimmerman's nose and mouth during a life and
death struggle that ended when Zimmerman shot Martin dead. THAT IS NOT
POSSIBLE without leaving blood, snot, and saliva on Martin's hands.
Since no such evidence was found, it is clear that Zimmerman is lying.
But what IS clear -- even from Zimmerman's own claims -- is that he
initiated and escalated an "imminently dangerous" situation in which
MARTIN -- but not Zimmerman -- had a right to self-defense.



9) Since Martin did NOT have a deadly weapon in his possession (no, he
didn't bring the sidewalk with him), and since Zimmerman DID, and since
it was Zimmerman who initiated and escalated the confrontation, it is
Martin, not Zimmerman, who had the right to defend himself. Zimmerman
had NO right to create the confrontation

On 7/5/2013 1:16 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
Martin had no legal obligation to flee or even refuse the provocation

No lawyer, even a crazy, disalusioned lawyer, could even imagine such a
cockamamie situation. Nope, this fiction is classic Loogie.

On 7/5/2013 1:16 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
Martin had no legal obligation to flee or even refuse the provocation


What does "refuse the provocation" mean?

In article , says...

On 7/5/2013 1:16 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
Martin had no legal obligation to flee or even refuse the provocation

No lawyer, even a crazy, disalusioned lawyer, could even imagine such a
cockamamie situation. Nope, this fiction is classic Loogie.

You've never heard of the stand your ground law in Florida? Or was you
under the impression that it's only for vigilante cop wannabes? Now,
please do tell, what is "cockamamie" about the fact that Martin had no
legal obligation to flee or even refuse the provocation?

In article ,
says...

On 7/5/2013 1:16 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
Martin had no legal obligation to flee or even refuse the provocation


What does "refuse the provocation" mean?

It means to leave. Sheesh.