Obviously you believe Martin unleashed an unprovoked, unrelentless attack against Zimmerman, based entirely on Zimmerman’s (and his surrogates’) say so. Forget about courts. You have been treating his account like fact all throughout this thread.
And here is the amazing part. *You don’t even know what his account is. * All you know is a general outline sketched together from rumor and hearsay. But there are parts of his statement that have yet to see the light of day. Those parts may very make Zimmerman look like the imaginative liar he’s already shown himself to be, at least to anyone with two brain cells to rub together.
The answer to your question is - When new evidence presents itself, I’ll readdress my position BASED on that new evidence.
Lynch mobs don’t need the courts. The lynch mobs were convinced that Zimmerman was guity BEFORE any evidence began to surface. NBC/MSNBC, Sharpton, Spike Lee, the NPPP, ABC, the mobs who raided stores to steal Skittles and ice tea (even though Martin didn’t buy ice tea), the morons who threatened the police department, Zimmerman’s school, and Zimmerman’s employer. None of them care what the evidence might show. They were all convinced that Zimmerman was guilty.
Innocent until proven guilty" was trappled under their feet and rhetoric.
Now it looks like this case “might” actually go to court. Maybe. The court is not a lynch mob. The laws involved will be explained. Evidence must be presented. Eyewitnesses will be called to testify. There will be cross-examinations. There will be dueling experts on what the evidence suggests.
Only the lynch mobs consider this case to be settled and they denounce the views of anyone who suggests otherwise.
The people commenting on Zimmerman’s potential innocence have based it on the evidence to date and have repeatedly stressed that point. We’ve treated evidence as evidence. It’s fairly certain, given the physical and eye witness evidence, that Martin struck Zimmerman repeatedly in a sustained attack. Prior to that it’s evident that Zimmerman called the police while observing Martin’s travel over the length of about 300 feet from his car. It’s evident that upon passing his truck and running that Zimmerman got out and tried to follow him which was a very short distance. It’s evident from his 911 phone call that Zimmerman lost sight of Martin. It’s evident from the time between Zimmerman’s 911 phone call that Martin had ample time to go home which indicates he doubled back or waited for Zimmerman. It’s evident from Martin’s girlfriend’s phone call that Martin engaged Zimmerman first in conversation. the only speculation is who struck the first blow. It’s evident that Zimmerman shot Martin at point blank range after an extended attack. The injuries sustained by Zimmerman match his account of what happened.
It’s not a function of believing what Zimmerman said, it’s a function of the evidence matching what he said.
We have repeatedly stressed to you that we have based our opinion on the information currently available. Why is this a hard concept for you to understand?
Yep, and that fits in exactly with what has been stated over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.
Until such time as new evidence contradicts what is known now then we can only debate what is known now.
Instead of believing, sight unseen, the account of a man who has proven himself to be a liar, why not just say you don’t have enough evidence to say this is true or not true.
That strikes me as lot more reasonable and rational than saying, over and over again, that you believe what Zimmerman’s claimed, based on the little that you know he claimed.
It’s like this. We know that Zimmerman has claimed that Martin beat him up. You treat this like fact because he has some wounds on his head. But what if he also said that he never got out of his car to follow Martin? We all know this is false, based on the 911 convo. So what does this lie do to your assessment of the “fact” that GZ was assaulted by Martin? Would you still believe that’s true, or do you consider the possibility that if he lied about not following M, he lied about the attack too?
I’m just trying to figure out how your mind is working here. How much BS does GZ have to feed you before you have enough?
Because the default position is to believe it, until such point as it’s show to be false. If it’s internally inconsistent, or inconsistent with the observed facts, it will be shown to be false.
It doesn’t need to be proven true by anyone, but false by the prosecution. I’m fine with presuming innocence, not starting from the point of view of “we don’t know” and moving to whichever side has the greater proof, when we’re talking about the evidence in a specific case.
Oh, and evidence that Zimmerman has lied about unrelated issues is irrelevant to the truth of his statement here.
So you’re saying you basically go around believing everything you hear or read then. I tell you that I’m the Princess of Wales and you will believe that, barring any contradictory proof of my identity. A man on the street proclaims himself Jesus reborn, and you fall to your knees to worship him. And you send all your money to the Nigerians who report that you’ve come into a great deal of cash, all they need is some help transferring it…
Context is important. We’re talking about someone being accused of a crime here, and the default is to presume innocence. The default is also to assume they’re telling the truth, due to the consequences of lying in this situation, consequences which don’t exist when you’re a random person talking to me, or an email spammer for that matter.
Sure, if Zimmerman is guilty, he has an incentive to lie about what happened. But, if he’s innocent, he has an equally strong incentive to tell the truth. By assuming he’s lying, you’ve already prejudged his guilt. That is what I refuse to do, and what I believe it is wrong for other people to do.
You’ve said in another post that Zimmerman is a consistent liar. You’re right about that, to an extent - but more importantly, he’s someone who has been caught out in lying on several occasions. This gives me some confidence that he’s not a very good liar, and that, in my opinion, means that it’s unlikely that he will be found not guilty based on any lies he’s told.
Remember, anyone who’s a known liar is a bad liar.
Yes, that’s called evidence. That’s what will be presented in court. Not “you with the face’s imagination”. It is supported by the sound of someone screaming and a witness to someone getting assaulted. Since Martin didn’t have any wounds consistent with being assaulted the logical conclusion is that Zimmerman was the person on the receiving end.
Cite that he said he didn’t get out of his car. We know from the 911 call he lost sight of him. We know Martin had ample time to get home. The gap in time suggests Martin went out of his way to confront Zimmerman who at this point is trying to direct the police to Martin.
I don’t see where you’re getting he lied. Clearly he got out of his car to look for him. That’s never been in contention.
There’s no indication he lied about anything at this point regarding the confrontation.
How can you possibly ignore all the evidence that’s been presented to you. Seriously? Eye witnesses seeing the assault. The police report documenting the assault. The 911 call where you can hear the assault. The pictures of the injuries.
Magiver, I said IF he claimed he never followed Martin. What would that do to your belief in the rest of what he said, IF he lied about a major part of it?
Get it? I’m not claiming he lied about that (even though there are signs he may have). I’m trying to figure out exactly what this man would have to say or do for you to become skeptical of his story.
Since I’m not getting a straight answer to a very straight forward question, I’m going to assume the sky is the limit.
Only speaking for myself, but if his story is internally inconsistent, or inconsistent with the other evidence*, I will be far less inclined to believe it. The nature of the inconsistencies would affect whether I disbelieve the whole thing, or just parts of it.
*Specifically, the physical evidence, rather than the testimonies of various witnesses who’ve changed their stories.
We are not in court, so we are not bound to this standard, and I’m specifically asking you about your beliefs. Not how the legal system works.
Your evasiveness to a very reasonable question says more than anything. I ask if GZ lied about following M, what would that do to your faith in his claim about suffering a beat down, and I get no straight answer. Why is it so hard for you to say “yes, I still would believe him” or “no, I would be skeptical”.
Instead I get a cockamamie lecture about stuff that doesnt apply to people having a discussion on a mofo message board.
Okay, this post comes close to answering my question, but it’s still not all the way there.
If one of the main inconsistencies is that Zimmerman claimed that he didn’t get out of his truck at any time during the 911 call, except to check on that street sign..would this wound his credibility enough in your eyes to doubt his story about Martin ambushing him, verbally threatening him, and repeatedly pounding is head until he was forced to shoot him?
Or would you pick and choose what part of his story you believed?
No. I don’t get it. I’ve repeatedly stated that new evidence would be judged as it becomes available. This is what other people have stated. Repeatedly.
You’re making shit up and asking people how they’ll react if it was true. That’s not a debate. A debate is reasoned logic applied to the information at hand and discussed. You have to ask a legitimate question in a debate to get a legitimate answer. What if’s are not legitimate questions.
My beliefs are that in a situation where many people, including people on this message board, have been calling for punishment for Zimmerman whether or not he can be proven guilty, and in some cases even if he’s factually innocent of any crime, that the legal standards are the ones that should be applied to the discussion.
So, whether I believe Zimmerman is irrelevant, what matters is whether he has been shown to be guilty, and showing him to be lying will be necessary (though not sufficient) for that.
I don’t, and never will, know that he’s telling the truth. I have no need to know that, and I don’t really care about it at this point. I will continue to assume he is until such point as he’s shown to be lying.
If, as in your example, he’s shown to have lied in his statement to police, or in sworn statements to court - the only circumstances where it matters - I will doubt the rest of his statements. However, if that doubt isn’t backed up by other evidence, then I will still consider him not guilty. Quite what evidence will be presented that Martin did not beat Zimmerman, given the nature of the injuries, I’m not sure, but if some evidence surfaces that the injuries were not received at that time I’ll certainly reconsider.
TL;DR version - my belief is that the legal standard is the only relevant standard.
I said basically the same thing in my first post in this thread, which I assumed you’d read, since you quoted it. I stated that I would believe him until shown to be false, and what would count as showing it to be false. I’ve made the same point in all the other threads about this subject, and you’ve engaged with me in several of them, so forgive me if I assumed that you’d read the posts you responded to…
Evidence is how the soundness of an idea is measured. That’s what will be used in court. Not hypotheticals. You’re hypothesizing on possible evidence instead of actual evidence. What if Martin’s hobby was street fighting. What if Martin was high on bath salts. What if Martin was a racist who liked to jump Hispanics.
If we were discussing what the law should be, and what unintended consequences could come from it, discussing hypotheticals would be fine. But we’re not, we’re discussing the facts of an actual case, and hypotheticals are antithetical to that (as far as determining what should happen to Zimmerman, anyway).