He was “right by” his father’s house at one point in the conversation. After that he “started to walk back”, and Jeantal asked him to stop doing that, and instead to run away. What part of that is not in the transcript?
I’m closing this topic for 30 minutes. It is over-heated and generating too many flags.
Modnote: A messy modnote:
I think you’re saying Steophan is repeating lies. But your phrasing is pretty close to calling him a liar, it is unclear and not supported in anyway with your post.
Do not do this again. When you start talking about lies, make it clear what you’re saying and support it somehow.
Also remember, do not call other posters liars outside of the Pit.
This topic was automatically opened after 31 minutes.
Wtf? Yes, it was. He was two buildings away from his dad’s front door. I’ve told my wife I’m ‘right by’ the house when I was walking the dogs literally a dozen times further away. “Right by” doesn’t mean he was knocking at the door…
You’d say you were right by something when you were half a mile away? Odd usage, and certainly not the plain meaning of the words. Why would you use it that way?
- he wasn’t a half mile away, a few hundred feet at most
- if I was taking the dogs on a five mile walk, I’d certainly say I’m “right by” the house when I’m a half mile away since it means I’ll be home in just a handful of minutes. I’ve literally never encountered anyone who thinks that’s odd until just now.
- in the context of walking all the way to 7-11 to get skittles, being outside the next building over is “right by”
You said you were a dozen times further than him, that’s at least half a mile. Anyway, as Zimmerman rather than Martin was the one accused of the crime, the evidence should be interpreted in the way most favourable to Zimmerman, so unless “right by” can’t be used to mean actually right by something, there’s still reason to doubt that Martin didn’t get to his father’s door.
The prosecution could have asked Jeantal what Martin meant by “right by”, if they thought he didn’t mean right by, but they chose not to, so it seems they must have thought he meant what he said.
Not only is this not in the transcript, it’s contradicted by what follows in the transcript.
Contradicted by him finding Zimmerman when he’d previously lost him? I don’t think so. The whole argument that Martin didn’t double back and confront Zimmerman relies on ignoring the plain words of the witness and the physical evidence, as well as Zimmerman’s statement. I get why people want to ignore the latter (although they shouldn’t, one should believe people who claim to be victims of crime unless they’re proven to be lying), but the rest of the evidence is more than enough to provide reasonable doubt.
Which is another issue, and one relevant to this thread. The victims in each of these cases were Arbery, Rittenhouse, and Zimmerman. They were the ones who were attacked, and it’s unfortunate Arbery wasn’t able to defend himself.
??? Juries are not instructed to interpret evidence in the most favorable way possible to the accused, so I’m not sure why we should have to. Juries are finders of fact and they can interpret the evidence however they see fit, based on their best judgement and experience.
This is just false.
Juries are required to acquit if any reasonable interpretation of the evidence would cast doubt in guilt. Change what I said to “the way most favourable within reason to Zimmerman”. I can’t see any reasonable argument that “right by” cannot mean right by, so the scenario that Martin walked back from his fathers house to Zimmerman must be considered, and only rejected if there’s other evidence against it.
Also, I hope none of you ever serve on a jury. I can’t imagine ever voting to convict when there’s a possibility of innocence. That’s about as immoral as anything I can think of.
Do you really think it’s impossible that Martin attacked Zimmerman? That, in practice, is the standard I’d expect for convicting him.
This is still false. The juries are supposed to consider the evidence, period.
ETA: And, impossible isn’t the standard. It’s reasonable doubt, at least in the US.
One of us has served on a felony jury trial in the US. I’m going to trust my own experience over your conjecture, man. You’re simply incorrect about this.
Bullshit. The victims were the ones who ended up dead. Rittenhouse and Zimmerman may have been justifiably acquitted of murder, but “not guilty” doesn’t mean “innocent,” and it sure doesn’t flip the situation and make them the victims.
Modhat: Just a reminder, this thread is suppose to be about Arbery, not Zimmerman.
Right. Right by means right by. Martin’s body was indeed found right by his dad’s house.
O rly?
As long as someone declares something “reasonable”, what follows afterwards is pre-determined?
I’m surprised we need trials at all!