Zimmermann at it again

end of the road

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

The kid was a scumbag, like it or not and if he hadn't been somewhere he shouldn't have been he might still be alive.

who said he was somewhere he shouldn't have been? even if he was somewhere he supposibly should have been and he came into contact with zimmerman he would have been shot

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

Lets not loose the run of ourselves hand wringing for a dead scumbag.

he was murdered because of the colour of his skin by a piece of vermin who was involved in domestic violence and other violent crimes so i think a bit of hand ringing is fine

end of the road

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

people keep wanting to play the race card.

yeah, we treated people like **** for god knows how long because of the colour of their skin and were surprised that even to this day many don't trust us

BattleCorp

end of the road wrote: »

who said he was somewhere he shouldn't have been? even if he was somewhere he supposibly should have been and he came into contact with zimmerman he would have been shot

he was murdered because of the colour of his skin by a piece of vermin who was involved in domestic violence and other violent crimes so i think a bit of hand ringing is fine

You are talking bollix. Trayvon Martin wasn't murdered. He was killed in self defence. That's what the court found.

Now, if you have any more evidence than the court had, why didn't you supply it at the time of the trial.

I'm not saying who was right or wrong in this case, because I think both Zimmerman and Martin were both wrong. They both did dumb sh1t.

It wasn't murder, it was self defence. The circumstances leading up to the act might be fcuked up because of the actions of both parties, but murder it certainly wasn't.

Grayson

This first 45 seconds of this pretty much sums up how I feel about the case.

To Sum up the video....

You can go to florida

You can get a gun.

You start following an unarmed kid who's doing nothing.

You call the police. The police tell you not to follow the kid.

You follow anyway.

You start a confrontation with said kid.

If at any point you feel threatened you shoot the kid.

And according to Florida you did your best.

Dyr

You guys could form a religion such is your ability to ignore facts, call yourselves the trayvonites.

BattleCorp

Grayson wrote: »

This first 45 seconds of this pretty much sums up how I feel about the case.

To Sum up the video....

You can go to florida

You can get a gun.

You start following an unarmed kid who's doing nothing.

You call the police. The police tell you not to follow the kid.

You follow anyway.

You start a confrontation with said kid.

If at any point you feel threatened you shoot the kid.

And according to Florida you did your best.

And my oversimplified version............. you can shoot anybody you like in self defence as long as they are the same colour as yourself. Anything else and it's a racist crime. :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

Grayson

BattleCorp wrote: »

You are talking bollix. Trayvon Martin wasn't murdered. He was killed in self defence. That's what the court found.

Now, if you have any more evidence than the court had, why didn't you supply it at the time of the trial.

I'm not saying who was right or wrong in this case, because I think both Zimmerman and Martin were both wrong. They both did dumb ****.

It wasn't murder, it was self defence. The circumstances leading up to the act might be fcuked up because of the actions of both parties, but murder it certainly wasn't.

It was self defence. Those skittles has preservatives that could have really hurt Zimmerman if he'd been forced to eat them. Hell, he could have lost a filling.


Let me get this straight, you're saying that if I start a fight, then if I kill the guy it's self defence? Wanna meet somewhere in florida and we'll sort this out with good old fashioned fisticuffs? . No firearms of course. I swear I won't bring one.

At the point where the gun went off the guy might have feared for himself, but only because he started a fight with someone.

Grayson

BattleCorp wrote: »

And my oversimplified version............. you can shoot anybody you like in self defence as long as they are the same colour as yourself. Anything else and it's a racist crime. :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

If you shoot someone of the same colour it's definitely not racism. But if you shoot someone of a different colour it may or may not be racism.

I think the main racism bit came into it because the Florida authorities didn't bother filing charges at first. They just ignored it.


I love the daily show

Arawn

Grayson wrote: »

It was self defence. Those skittles has preservatives that could have really hurt Zimmerman if he'd been forced to eat them. Hell, he could have lost a filling.


Let me get this straight, you're saying that if I start a fight, then if I kill the guy it's self defence? Wanna meet somewhere in florida and we'll sort this out with good old fashioned fisticuffs? . No firearms of course. I swear I won't bring one.

At the point where the gun went off the guy might have feared for himself, but only because he started a fight with someone.

what is your definition of starting a fight??? neighbourhood watch leader watching an unknown kid in the neighbourhood??

end of the road

BattleCorp wrote: »

Trayvon Martin wasn't murdered.

yes he was, and zimmerman got lucky

BattleCorp wrote: »

He was killed in self defence. That's what the court found.

no he wasn't

BattleCorp wrote: »

It wasn't murder

yes it was

BattleCorp wrote: »

it was self defence.

no it wasn't, zimmerman is a piece of vermin who just got lucky

BattleCorp wrote: »

murder it certainly wasn't.

it was

BattleCorp

Grayson wrote: »

It was self defence. Those skittles has preservatives that could have really hurt Zimmerman if he'd been forced to eat them. Hell, he could have lost a filling.


Let me get this straight, you're saying that if I start a fight, then if I kill the guy it's self defence? Wanna meet somewhere in florida and we'll sort this out with good old fashioned fisticuffs? . No firearms of course. I swear I won't bring one.

There is no proof that George Zimmerman started the physical end of things. Zimmerman challenged Martin, fair enough (no law against that). Martin ran away. Zimmerman followed from a distance and then lost sight of him.

Here is where things go hazy. If Martin ran away, why didn't he keep running and head to where he was going? If he had done this, he would probably be alive today.

Zimmerman claims that he lost sight of Martin and then Martin pretty much jumped him and that was what started the physical fight.

Witnesses saw the fight and seemed to back up Zimmerman's claims.

Unfortunately there are no witnesses to who started it, so we are left with no option but to believe Zimmerman's recount of events.

Grayson

BattleCorp wrote: »

There is no proof that George Zimmerman started the physical end of things. Zimmerman challenged Martin, fair enough (no law against that). Martin ran away. Zimmerman followed from a distance and then lost sight of him.

Here is where things go hazy. If Martin ran away, why didn't he keep running and head to where he was going? If he had done this, he would probably be alive today.

Zimmerman claims that he lost sight of Martin and then Martin pretty much jumped him and that was what started the physical fight.

Witnesses saw the fight and seemed to back up Zimmerman's claims.

Unfortunately there are no witnesses to who started it, so we are left with no option but to believe Zimmerman's recount of events.

See, you say there's no way of knowing who started the fight. I'd be willing to bet that it was aggression from Zimmerman that did it. Even if he didn't throw the first punch he started it. Hell, he started it the moment he started stalking an unarmed teenager who was doing no wrong.

valknut

end of the road wrote: »

who said he was somewhere he shouldn't have been? even if he was somewhere he supposibly should have been and he came into contact with zimmerman he would have been shot

he was murdered because of the colour of his skin by a piece of vermin who was involved in domestic violence and other violent crimes so i think a bit of hand ringing is fine

He most certainly was not murdered cause of his skin colour. He had a black friend as well as working with disadvantaged black kids. Also Zimmerman was Hispanic.

Arawn

Grayson wrote: »

See, you say there's no way of knowing who started the fight. I'd be willing to bet that it was aggression from Zimmerman that did it. Even if he didn't throw the first punch he started it. Hell, he started it the moment he started stalking an unarmed teenager who was doing no wrong.

stalking?? did he follow him for weeks?? because that is what stalking is. you make it sound like he is a predator with the sole purpose to kill

Bogota

valknut wrote: »

He most certainly was not murdered cause of his skin colour. He had a black friend as well as working with disadvantaged black kids. Also Zimmerman was Hispanic.

Oh yeah I forgot hispanics are incapable of being racist :rolleyes:

I've a black friend, I'm not a racist! :rolleyes:

His own cousin has said he was openly racist against black people.

valknut

Bogota wrote: »

Oh yeah I forgot hispanics are incapable of being racist :rolleyes:

I've a black friend, I'm not a racist! :rolleyes:

His own cousin has said he was openly racist against black people.

Perhaps, but there is a lot of evidence to show he was quite OK with African Americans

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZNiPoCGz8c&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Grayson

Arawn wrote: »

stalking?? did he follow him for weeks?? because that is what stalking is. you make it sound like he is a predator with the sole purpose to kill

Stalking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalking

Stalking is unwanted or obsessive attention by an individual or group toward another person. Stalking behaviors are related to harassment and intimidation and may include following the victim in person or monitoring them. The word stalking is used, with some differing meanings, in psychology and psychiatry and also in some legal jurisdictions as a term for a criminal offense.
According to a 2002 report by the National Center for Victims of Crime, "Virtually any unwanted contact between two people [that intends] to directly or indirectly communicates a threat or places the victim in fear can be considered stalking"[1] although in practice the legal standard is usually somewhat stricter.

And at least one the the five I placed in bold below is relevant.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/stalking

stalk 2 (stôk)
v. stalked, stalk·ing, stalks
v.intr.
1. To walk with a stiff, haughty, or angry gait: stalked off in a huff.
2. To move threateningly or menacingly.
3. To track prey or quarry.
v.tr.
1. To pursue by tracking stealthily.
2. To follow or observe (a person) persistently, especially out of obsession or derangement.
3. To go through (an area) in pursuit of prey or quarry.

Dyr

oh Lawds, If only zimmerman had been facing you trayvonites in court, he'd be convicted for sure.

MadsL

This is the same cousin, I take it, who make sexual allegations against him but so far has failed to come forward and actually lodge a complaint or provide any evidence of sexual abuse?

That cousin?

jill_valentine

Grayson wrote: »

This first 45 seconds of this pretty much sums up how I feel about the case.

To Sum up the video....

You can go to florida

You can get a gun.

You start following an unarmed kid who's doing nothing.

You call the police. The police tell you not to follow the kid.

You follow anyway.

You start a confrontation with said kid.

If at any point you feel threatened you shoot the kid.

And according to Florida you did your best.

Then, just to really ice it all, the good people of Florida will pay $300,000 of your legal costs for inconveniencing you.

MadsL

Grayson wrote: »

I love the Daily Show

So do I. I wonder when it coming back instead of this pale imitation.

John Oliver isn't funny, and he has been bleating an unfunny anti-gun agenda for some time now.

Arawn

Grayson wrote: »

Stalking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalking





And at least one the the five I placed in bold below is relevant.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/stalking

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Stalking


legal definition

MadsL

jill_valentine wrote: »

Then, just to really ice it all, the good people of Florida will pay $300,000 of your legal costs for inconveniencing you.

Do you suppose that people found not guilty should have to pay their legal costs?

Seriously, is that what you propose?

MadsL

end of the road wrote: »

yes he was, and zimmerman got lucky

no he wasn't

yes it was

no it wasn't, zimmerman is a piece of vermin who just got lucky

it was

"No, it isn't" etc etc

Do the facts of a court's decision mean nothing to you?

MadsL

end of the road wrote: »

a piece of vermin who was involved in domestic violence and other violent crimes so i think a bit of hand ringing is fine

What domestic violence? What violent crimes?

The ones you made up?

jill_valentine

MadsL wrote: »

Do you suppose that people found not guilty should have to pay their legal costs?

Seriously, is that what you propose?

Nope. It just rubs salt in the wounds, especially given his legal fundraising from supporters. The guy created a confrontation out of thin air and then shot a teenager to death; and the state is not only absolutely fine with him doing that, they're cool with absorbing a giant financial cost associated with it.

I know that's a necessary function of the legal system, it just makes for a fittingly stinky garnish on this almighty crap sandwich of a story.

Still though, it's true to say that he is indeed as Not Guilty as OJ Simpson - an interesting thing for his supporters to keeping noting so vocally in the same breaths as they'll cite things Trayvon Martin was never convicted of.

MadsL

jill_valentine wrote: »

Nope.

Then, respectfully, get over it.

It just rubs salt in the wounds,

You think that even though he was found not guilty, he should be punished in some way?

The guy created a confrontation out of thin air

Were you there?

and then shot a teenager to death;

In self-defence. When the 17 year old was on top of him.

and the state is not only absolutely fine with him doing that, they're cool with absorbing a giant financial cost associated with it.

You realise the consequences of being found guilty. This isn't a game. Defending yourself on murder charges isn't cheap.

I know that's a necessary function of the legal system, it just makes for a fittingly stinky garnish on this almighty crap sandwich of a story.

There are far more odious cases of legal costs being awarded, this is not stinky in any measure.

Still though, it's true to say that he is indeed as Not Guilty as OJ Simpson - an interesting thing for his supporters to keeping noting so vocally in the same breaths as they'll cite things Trayvon Martin was never convicted of.

What has OJ to do with this case? As for things people have never been convicted of domestic violence and violent crime are two things being thrown around in this thread as things Zimmerman is supposed to have done but was never convicted of.

BattleCorp

jill_valentine wrote: »

Nope. It just rubs salt in the wounds, especially given his legal fundraising from supporters. The guy created a confrontation out of thin air and then shot a teenager to death; and the state is not only absolutely fine with him doing that, they're cool with absorbing a giant financial cost associated with it.

The state is fine with that because he broke absolutely no laws, according to them. There was a lot of pressure to find Zimmerman guilty. Even Obama was looking for a guilty verdict. Yet, with all the pressure to find a guilty verdict, there was no proof that a crime was committed.

In other words, he acted lawfully.

it just makes for a fittingly stinky garnish on this almighty crap sandwich of a story.

I'll agree with you there that it was an almighty crap sandwich of a story.

MadsL

Grayson wrote: »

You can go to florida

You can get a gun.

You start following an unarmed kid who's doing nothing.

You call the police. The police tell you not to follow the kid.

You follow anyway.

You start a confrontation with said kid.

If at any point you feel threatened you shoot the kid.

And according to Florida you did your best.

1. When did the police say that?
2. When did GZ start a confrontation? By walking in his own neighbourhood?

Mardy Bum

MadsL wrote: »

1. When did the police say that?
2. When did GZ start a confrontation? By walking in his own neighbourhood?

He managed to start one with his father in law and his wife and managed to threaten them with a gun despite the fact she lied in court to help him. He didnt even have the decency to attend her trial even though she was at his everyday. He also visited a gun factory just to provoke a reaction and he still never even attempted to sympathise with TM family even after he got off.

It doesn't take Inspector Clouseau to figure out that this guy is not to be trusted.

MadsL

Mardy Bum wrote: »

He managed to start one with his father in law and his wife and managed to threaten them with a gun despite the fact she lied in court to help him. He didnt even have the decency to attend her trial even though she was at his everyday. He also visited a gun factory just to provoke a reaction and he still never even attempted to sympathise with TM family even after he got off.

It doesn't take Inspector Clouseau to figure out that this guy is not to be trusted.

So deflection of the questions. I take it you cannot/will not answer them.

Mardy Bum

MadsL wrote: »

So deflection of the questions. I take it you cannot/will not answer them.

Is GZ violent. Yes GZ is violent. His recent actions are an example of this. I am just talking about the man's character. He is a scumbag. Have you heard his wife's 911 call? The guy is a gun nut who has seemingly provoked a group of gun wielding cheerleaders who want to live vicariously through him as he goes from place to place threatening people with guns.

MadsL

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Is GZ violent. Yes GZ is violent. His recent actions are an example of this. I am just talking about the man's character. He is a scumbag. Have you heard his wife's 911 call? The guy is a gun nut who has seemingly provoked a group of gun wielding cheerleaders who want to live vicariously through him as he goes from place to place threatening people with guns.

Utter nonsense.

The wife has just filed for divorce. She then manages to expose his new location to the press by dialling 911.

He has received several death threats. Could be a reason he carries a gun ya think?

She then fails to press charges.

Hmmm....

Now - two questions above. Any answers?

MadsL

Mardy Bum wrote: »

He managed to threaten them with a gun

When did he do this? Any witnesses?

Mardy Bum

MadsL wrote: »

Utter nonsense.

The wife has just filed for divorce. She then manages to expose his new location to the press by dialling 911.

He has received several death threats. Could be a reason he carries a gun ya think?

She then fails to press charges.

Hmmm....

Now - two questions above. Any answers?

He arrived at her house with a gun and proceeded to threaten her father so yes I suppose she "exposed" his location. So going to a gun factory and taking pictures is something a normal decent person does after killing someone?
She lied for him in court so she obviously likes/liked the guy somewhat.

You took everything that GZ said to the dispatcher as the truth but you don't believe Shellie when she said

“He’s in his car and he continually has his hand on his gun and he keeps saying, ‘Step closer.’ He’s just threatening all of us with his firearm.”

except he didnt arrive at her house with a gun, she has changed her story to state her and her father NEVER saw a gun. Police found NO gun. Lying mare should be prosecuted for wasting police time.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57602315-504083/george-zimmerman-update-police-release-dash-camera-video-in-alleged-domestic-dispute-report-says/

MadsL

Mardy Bum wrote: »

He arrived at her house with a gun and proceeded to threaten her father so yes I suppose she "exposed" his location. So going to a gun factory and taking pictures is something a normal decent person does after killing someone?
She lied for him in court so she obviously likes/liked the guy somewhat.

You took everything that GZ said to the dispatcher as the truth but you don't believe Shellie when she said

So it turns out I was right not to believe her. I seem to have the better instincts.

I expect we will find Zimmerman paid for the iPad and she decided to keep it after the separation.

I tend not to take anything either partner in a divorce says as the truth.

Now - care to answer the questions I asked?

Zimmerman has also offered up CCTV of the incident.

Mardy Bum

MadsL wrote: »

So it turns out I was right not to believe her. I seem to have the better instincts.

I expect we will find Zimmerman paid for the iPad and she decided to keep it after the separation.

I tend not to take anything either partner in a divorce says as the truth.

Now - care to answer the questions I asked?

Although CBS affiliate WKMG reports that Zimmerman's attorney, Mark O'Mara, said Zimmerman had a gun holstered to his body.

Fairly conflicting reports. GZ's dad probably gave them a nice pay off.

Arawn

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Fairly conflicting reports. GZ's dad probably gave them a nice pay off.

i love how you get proven wrong then makec wild accusations to deflect

Mardy Bum

Arawn wrote: »

i love how you get proven wrong then makec wild accusations to deflect

How was I proven wrong? There are conflicting reports and the police have yet to conclude their investigation?

My assertion that GZ is a scumbag lies mainly with his actions following the trial and his goading of TM parents by having photos taken and refusing to even offer any sort of sympathetic response to the incident.

MadsL

Mardy Bum wrote: »

How was I proven wrong? There are conflicting reports and the police have yet to conclude their investigation?

Has he been charged with brandishing?

My assertion that GZ is a scumbag lies mainly with his actions following the trial and his goading of TM parents by having photos taken and refusing to even offer any sort of sympathetic response to the incident.

That's some impressive victim blaming.

Still no word on my questions above?

Mardy Bum

MadsL wrote: »

Has he been charged with brandishing?



That's some impressive victim blaming.

Still no word on my questions above?

The questions were posed to another poster's post which I have not read.

GZ was the victim:rolleyes:...gun nut cheerleaders living vicariously through a man who thinks he can take on the world because he has a gun. Merika.

I'm out.

MadsL

Mardy Bum wrote: »

The questions were posed to another poster's post which I have not read.

Huh? You quoted my questions above. Then deflected from them???

GZ was the victim:rolleyes:...gun nut cheerleaders living vicariously through a man who thinks he can take on the world because he has a gun. Merika.

I'm out.

Yeah, insults - so much better than debating facts.
'Merika indeed - so much easier to lazily label a nation so you don't have to think.

stretchdoe

Only followed the original case half-interestedly, but was interested in the outcome and in the commentary around it.

It's funny and kind of sad, that there are some people who jumped through hoops to try and portray a teenager who was shot dead as being some kind of monster, with scant evidence beyond suggestions of the kind of teenage misdemeanor's common to many teenagers the world over, yet insisted that Zimmerman, despite' a more obvious wealth of evidence suggesting that he possibly isn't the most salubrious of characters, is something of a hero and his word beyond reproach.

It's almost like that they were looking at this case from a somewhat jaundiced perspective..

MadsL

stretchdoe wrote: »

Only followed the original case half-interestedly, but was interested in the outcome and in the commentary around it.

It's funny and kind of sad, that there are some people who jumped through hoops to try and portray a teenager who was shot dead as being some kind of monster, with scant evidence beyond the kind of teenage misdemeanor's common to many teenagers the world over, yet insisted that Zimmerman, despite' a more obvious wealth of evidence suggesting that he possibly isn't the most salubrious of characters, is something of a hero and his word beyond reproach.

It's almost like that they were looking at this case from a somewhat jaundiced perspective..

What evidence?

So far we have had -
he sexually molested his cousin - no charges brought.
He was inolved in voilent crime - no evidence or charges.
He threatened his ex-wife with a gun - no gun found and no charges brought
He's a racist - by the same cousin accusing him of sexual assault, but not going to the police and filing charges.

So what "obvious wealth of evidence" is being "ignored"

MadsL

Wife shows up to collect some things with her father. GZ videos what is being taken and they get in a fight about an iPad. He claims she hit him with it, she claims he had a gun.
She gets hysterical and dials 911.
Broken iPad found and no gun found.

Seems to be the sum total.

Apart from SZ now changing her story.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/police-chief-zimmermans-wife-wont-press-charges-even-though-she-said-he-threatened-with-gun/2013/09/09/ac73bba4-19b8-11e3-80ac-96205cacb45a_story.html

stretchdoe

MadsL wrote: »

What evidence?

So far we have had -
he sexually molested his cousin - no charges brought.
He was inolved in voilent crime - no evidence or charges.
He threatened his ex-wife with a gun - no gun found and no charges brought
He's a racist - by the same cousin accusing him of sexual assault, but not going to the police and filing charges.

So what "obvious wealth of evidence" is being "ignored"

Didn't say there was any 'evidence' regarding the trial itself.

However:

Evidence of Martin being a 'thug' who was 'asking for it' and must have been the 'instigator' of violence, when followed by the gun-packing Zimmerman, someone who'd been told, in his recorded interaction with the police, that there was no need to follow him, yet did so, signing off in an obviously agitated state with the words 'these people always get away it..'.

1. He had pictures on his phone of him smoking some dope.
2. He's been in a fight at school and was suspended.
3. He was pictured wearing a 'grill' on his teeth: sure sign of an irredeemable thug, for those disposed to believe such a thing

But of course, it must obviously be the case that Martin was an out of control mad-man, and all these suggestions of Zimmerman perhaps being a bit 'un-balanced', and there are more instances than you listed, are obviously without substance..

He must be the most put-upon of martyr since Jesus Christ; continually finds himself in situations where he's being 'persecuted' through no fault of his own.

MadsL

stretchdoe wrote: »

Didn't say there was any 'evidence' regarding the trial itself.

However:

Evidence of Martin being a 'thug' who was 'asking for it' and must have been the 'instigator' of violence, when followed by the gun-packing Zimmerman, someone who'd been told, in his recorded interaction with the police, that there was no need to follow him, yet did so, signing off in an obviously agitated state with the words 'these people always get away it..'.

1. He had pictures on his phone of him smoking some dope.
2. He's been in a fight at school and was suspended.
3. He was pictured wearing a 'grill' on his teeth: sure sign of an irredeemable thug, for those disposed to believe such a thing

But of course, it must obviously the case that Martin was an out of control mad-man, and all these suggestions of Zimmerman perhaps being a bit 'un-balanced', and there are more instances than you listed, are obviously without substance..

He must be the most put-upon of martyr since Jesus Christ; continually finds himself in situations where he's being 'persecuted' through no fault of his own.

More diversion and deflection.

What evidence, an "obvious wealth of evidence" that GZ isn't a 'salubrious' character are you referring to? You can't just make that statement and then waffle about TM when asked to back it up. What 'evidence' are you talking about? What 'situations' are you referring to?

Also

"1. He had pictures on his phone of him smoking some dope.
2. He's been in a fight at school and was suspended."

What part of that is false?

stretchdoe

MadsL wrote: »

More diversion and deflection.

What evidence, an "obvious wealth of evidence" that GZ isn't a 'salubrious' character are you referring to? You can't just make that statement and then waffle about TM when asked to back it up. What 'evidence' are you talking about? What 'situations' are you referring to?

Also

"1. He had pictures on his phone of him smoking some dope.
2. He's been in a fight at school and was suspended."

What part of that is false?

Neither part of that relating to Martin is false.

However, certainly regarding a teenager, i don't believe that that is evidence, and he was never charged with or convicted of any crime before, of someone being a less than 'salubrious character'.

That's a matter of opinion, i suppose.

But having dipped in and out of this thread since its inception, i'm pretty sure that you, unless i'm mistaking you with another poster, continually cast aspersions on Martin's character and suggested that this was important regarding the unclear matter of what transpired in their altercation.

You seem to be quite happy to point to extraneous 'circumstantial evidence' that you feel relevant regarding the character of Zimmerman's victim, yet balk at any mention of any of the various scrapes Zimmerman somehow found himself in previous to that incident, as if they could be in no way suggestive of his character.