Why do you keep talking about how stupid Martin was? How he should have known how suspicious he was? How he should have done X, Y, or Z? YOU are the one being ridiculous, man. You are the one who has been calling him out for stuff you do not even know he did or didn’t do.
You are the frustrating person here, not me.
There is a difference between saying there’s not a enough evidence to convict him of a crime (NOT GUILTY) and saying the guy is innocent. The latter is the drum you keep beating so vehemently and confidently, like you have an inside track on all information in this case and possess omniscient-like knowledge about what happened that night. If your position is simply that the court doesn’t have a leg to stand on, that’s reasonable–though you don’t know all the legs to make that judgment. But you certainly have been presenting a position of “GEORGE ZIMMERMAN IS AN INNOCENT MAN AND TRAYVON MARTIN WAS A THUG WHO SHOWED A LACK OF GOOD JUDGMENT THAT NIGHT!” This is not consistent with a dispassionate, there’s-not-enough-evidence position.
Are you going to argue that this hasn’t been the position you have been putting forth since the beginning of this thread, to many people’s consternation?
OK, choose something I’ve said you disagree with and state your side of the issue using the evidence at hand.
In a debate forum we discuss events based on evidence and procedure.
There is only innocents or guilt here. To my knowledge, everybody expressing Zimmerman’s innocence has expressly said it was based on the information currently available and that it would change if the information changes.
This is just a rant. You’re not addressing anything I’ve said. I’ve stated my thoughts clearly using the evidence at hand. If you can’t address what I’ve said directly then really what’s the point.
Where is your debate? You’re putting words in my mouth that are inflammatory to you. I’ve never commented on Martin’s motives or called him a thug. You on the other hand call Zimmerman’s actions stupid. This is Great Debates. We debate what Zimmerman and Martin said and did in the order it happened. Not what we think they were thinking or what other people are thinking.
I’ve stated my thoughts as clearly as I can based on the information available.
The evidence clearly suggests that Zimmerman physically confronted Martin, whereupon Martin verbally responded to the confrontation by asking why he was following him. The fact that you gloss over this does not reflect well on your argument or your claims to objectivity.
See what I mean? Not only do you interpret all ambiguous evidence in favor of GZ, you also try to contort and interpret unambiguous evidence that in any way supports TM, as supporting GZ. The witness here had known TM since kindergarten, and obviously talked to him on the phone very frequently. She stated unequivocally that it was Martin who said “Get off! Get off!”, yet you still try to assert that it was GZ who said it.
The testimony is that Zimmerman approached Martin, whereupon Martin asked “Why are you following me?” That is a reasonable question when a stranger follows you and approaches you in the dark of night. It is unreasonable to not only fail to answer that straightforward and reasonable question, but to instead ask someone who is doing nothing wrong and has every right to be where they are “What are you doing here?” Not only is that unreasonable, but it is rude, unhelpful, and could only serve to escalate hostility. TM had no obligation to explain to GZ what he was doing - he was doing nothing wrong, and he wasn’t the one following and approaching someone in the dark. What was he supposed to say anyway? “Uhh, I’m returning from getting a snack from 7-11 and talking to my girlfriend.” It’s ridiculous to suggest that TM should have dignified such an unreasonable question with a response when his much more reasonable question – posed to a person much more obliged to explain themselves and their present actions – went completely unanswered.
More selective interpretation of evidence in GZ’s favor that’s indicative of your bias. There is some evidence that Martin was eventually on top of Zimmerman, but that was only LATER in the altercation, which is NOT relevant to who started the altercation. The only evidence we have to who started the physical altercation points to GZ approaching TM, and then doing something that prompted TM to say “Get off! Get off!”
In your case, it changes based on how you yourself change the available information.
No. You’ve stated your thoughts abusing the evidence at hand.
My guess is that this is basically going to be the gist of the prosecution’s case - that GZ initiated the confrontation by approaching TM, and then attempting to physically detain him. It would not surprise me in the least to learn that there is additional evidence that points to this, perhaps GZ’s statements to police or someone else that that’s what he did.
He’s displayed so much cluelessness, that it wouldn’t surprise me if he didn’t realize you cannot just grab and hold on to someone to wait for the police to arrive when all you have are vague and unsubstantiated suspicions.
You know, I didn’t even think of this. I’m not a dummy, but I don’t think it would occur to me to lie about this either, if I had been in Zimmerman’s shoes. I would be savvy enough not to tell the police that I followed Martin into the area behind the houses, and I would also know to keep my mouth shut about brandishing my weapon, if I had done that. But restraining the kid? Now I know it’s assault. But a few months ago, before I had been schooled about the ins and outs of the law due to this case? No. I might have let that one slip if I had been Zimmerman.
The only thing is if Zimmerman admitted to trying to restrain Martin to the police, why would it have taken so long for him to be arrested? Also, let’s say that he told the police that Martin ambushed him from behind, knocking him over, but then Zimmerman managed to grab hold of him. Would the crime of restraining him be mitigated by Martin’s attack? (Kind of like nabbing the mugger who stole you’re granny’s purse. A citizen’s arrest-type dealie.)
Cite? There is evidence that Zimmerman tried to follow Martin but lost him. In the 911 call he said he doesn’t know where the kid is and agrees to meet the police by the mailboxes.
Cite?
The same argument applies to Zimmerman. He had no obligation to explain anything either. It’s a moot point.
It’s ridiculous to think you can beat someone continuously because you think he’s rude. It’s also illegal.
It’s not logical that Martin said this given the evidence that he assaulted Zimmerman. The person saying “get off” would logically be the person pinned down getting hit. Martin was using a Blue Tooth headset which, depending on the model, usually means problems picking up the user’s voice. Unless he was using something like thisit is likely Martin’s girlfriend heard Zimmerman. It will certainly be challenged in court as will the screaming on the 911 call. That is more likely to be Zimmerman given the situation. It doesn’t negate that it might me Martin’s voice, it’s just not logical that it is. But as has been pointed out, none of that matters. All that matters in court is whether Zimmerman had reason to fear for his life.
Ha?
“Ha” is not debate material. It’s emotional baggage meant for the Pit or IMO.
Disingenuous. I didn’t suggest that GZ’s rudeness prompted TM’s actions. I suggested that GZ’s *assault *on TM prompted TM to stand his ground.
Now you’re doing little more than hand waving while continuing to obtusely conflate who and what actions *began *the altercation with what TM allegedly did later, while defending himself and standing his ground. Lest you forget, this debate is about “Did TM have the right to stand his own ground?”
What’s not logical is for you to say that it’s not logical that TM would say “Get off!” at the beginning of the altercation because of what he supposedly did later when he was defending himself while standing his ground.
“Ha!” was in response to the quoted statement in light of the comments I made that preceded it - where I demonstrated an example of how you were NOT debating honestly or objectively based on the information available.
He’s not arguing in good faith. If he was, he’d be over in the Jerry Sandusky thread proclaiming the guy’s innocence and calling everyone out for being in a lynch mob. Instead of joining in.
Martin’s girlfriend’s statement matches up with the 911 phone call Zimmerman made. Zimmerman lost sight of Martin. It appears that they met up while he was returning to his car to meet the police. The last thing she heard after the verbal exchange was something that sounded like a scuffle followed by “get off”. There is no evidence as to who started it.
Again, there is no evidence as to who started the fight. The only evidence is that Zimmerman was attacked. Martin isn’t on trial so there is no “stand his ground” charge to defend. I don’t understand why this isn’t sinking in. ZIMMERMAN is on trial, not Martin. If he says he said it was him saying “get off” then it’s his word against someone who heard it via a headset cell phone call.
Unless I’ve misread something Zimmerman claimed he was attacked by Martin.
That statement makes no sense. I’ve backed up everything I’ve said with the information at hand. Absent a debate response you come back with some rant about Jerry Sandusky. His trial consists of a series of eye witnesses to the event (s). We have those in the Zimmerman case. They are consistent with his account of what happened.
The last thing she said she heard was Martin saying “Get off!” Your hand-waving and refusal to believe it doesn’t change that.
Correction: There is very little evidence as to who started the fight. And there is no evidence that Martin started the fight, other than Zimmerman’s own self-serving statements. (Which he may have very well contradicted in inconsistent testimony that we’re not yet aware of.) Other than that, the only evidence there is indicates that the initial altercation began with Zimmerman approaching Martin and doing something that caused Martin to say “Get off! Get off!”
I’ll leave that for people who aren’t biased to draw their own conclusions.
I don’t understand why this isn’t sinking in, but this isn’t a trial and this debate is about whether Martin had the right to stand his ground.
It’s not a function of what I believe. You’re not looking at the court case. At best it’s her opinion of who said what. She wasn’t there. It’s her word against Zimmerman’s and he was there and the statement fits his account of what happened. Do you understand the legal significance of this? The state has to prove she knew it was Martin. The defense only has to show that Zimmerman was pinned down by Martin. The statement fits Zimmerman’s account.
Self serving or not the physical evidence supports Zimmerman being attacked by Martin.
You really don’t get it. I’ve repeatedly said I don’t give a rats ass about Zimmerman. If he was overheard saying something contrary or texting something contrary then fuck him. I have no vested interest in his guilt or innocence. I’ve commented on the evidence as it will play out in court.
Martin’s paranoia isn’t grounds to beat the tar out of someone anymore than Zimmerman’s paranoia would justify him physically touching Martin. Stand your ground is at best a defensive legal construct. Knocking someone to the ground would be a defensive act. Beating someone for a sustained period is not a defensive act. Absent direct evidence there is nothing to go on but the hearsay of someone listening to a phone call against the testimony of the person who we know was beaten at length.
TM had a right to SYG. He also had the option to retreat home yet did not. Instead TM chose to attack GZ. TM was a young thug who was serving a 10 day suspension from school. And then there is GZ who protested the beating of a homeless black man by the local sheriff son. It is obvious that TM is the bad guy here and GZ the good guy. I am donating to GZ’s defense.
Didn’t you just ask whether either had a violent past, as if that information might help you to determine who had the greater likelihood of assaulting the other?
So very kindly, I pointed out to you that between the two of them, only Zimmerman had such record. Domestic violence and assault on a cop. Two brushes with the law. Martin, in contrast, had never been associated with violence.
And so your conclusion is that (drumroll) TM attacked GZ. Beautiful.
Thank you for illustrating the critical thinking prowess of your side of the debate.
Since neither man had done anything “illegal” up to the point they were asking each other what the other was doing there, both were “reasonable” questions. There is no formal or standard method for two people to start, or have, a conversation.
Zimmerman was responsive, contrary to your statement that “GZ answered a reasonable question with an unresponsive and unreasonable question”. It is also NOT “unreasonable” to ask a complete stranger, “What are you doing here?” especially if you want to know what they are doing there.
There is no normal, proper, or standard reply required when being asked questions by strangers or even friends. You can simply ignore them if you so chose.
Punching someone in the face because they want to know why you’re in the area, is clearly a violation of the law.
Obviously you’re free to spend your money as you wish.
But wholly apart from your certainty about this version of the crime, I’m curious to learn how you reconcile Zimmerman’s being “the good guy” with his willingness to secure bond based on lies. I;m curious to know how his choosing to surrender a valid, but about-to-expire passport while retaining another passport is the mark of a “good guy.”
I’m curious, what does a “bump” sound like and how can you tell if “A” bumped into “B” or “B” bumped into “A” over a phone connection?
I’ve heard the girlfriend talking on one of the media outlets and I think the NYT’s reporter was very kind in describing what she may have said. The girlfriends first act as a potential witness was to hire a lawyer and make a written statement which was eventually given to the police. Probably a wise move considering her apparent inability to speak well in public. It will be interesting to see how she stands up to cross-examination, under oath, in front of a jury. If there is a trial.