I don’t know. The state has not released all it’s evidence yet. The phone records and text messages may provide some possible insight into these questions.
It does not necessarily follow that Trayvon attacked first. You said Zimmerman wasn’t waiting for the police. My point was that there is no evidence he initiated a confrontation with Trayvon, only the opposite.
There is little doubt that Trayvon brutally assaulted Zimmerman. All the evidence shows that Martin engaged Zimmerman first in conversation. Zimmerman’s version of the conversation may or may not be accurate but it aligns with Martin’s state of mind behind the beating.
Not according to the EMT report.
the EMT’s didn’t X-ray him or provide the diagnostic services of an actual doctor. Their lack of skill and equipment will be weighed against a proper diagnosis.
He said he was doing something other than that, iirc. I think he said he was getting out to look for street sign where there was no intersection. You find that perfectly legit. That’s your call.
That’s what I keep wondering. You seem to not get what I am saying even though I think I am speaking simply and clearly.
:shrug:
If you actually wanted to see a street sign, would you look at an intersection for a street sign or would you look where there is not an intersection? Just you personally. What would be your preference between those two choices? Why is that?
Another “No shit, Sherlock,” moment for me here.
If you actually wanted to see a street sign, would you look at an intersection for a street sign or would you look where there is not an intersection? Just you personally. What would be your preference between those two choices? Why is that?
If that is what you think, then you’re still not getting close to the point.
I am not sure I can do any better of a job explaining than I have already.
We can’t go further in this line until we can get past this first part I don’t suppose.
You find it credible that he would look for a street sign where there is no intersection. So be it.
You can’t be serious. Was Trayvon running away? Was his walking fast? Was he skipping? Words have very precise meanings. How can you say for certain what occured when Zimmerman has described Martin as all of the above? What’s slightly frustrating is how the peanut gallery cherry picks what part of Zimmerman’s story to exclude, what to keep, and what to dismiss as “semantics”.
Also, what about Zimmerman’s inability to complete his 60 credit Associate Degree program despite failing multiple classes and being placed on academic probation. Do you think he has a learning disability or low IQ? Do you think his low IQ may correlate with a propensity for manipulation, lying, or even violence?
- Honesty
No, quite the opposite. Words and phrases are quite ambiguous, and have many possible meanings. The word “run”, for example, pulls up 61 definitions on Wordweb.
I can’t say for certain what occurred because I wasn’t there. My own interpretation of what he has said is that Martin bounded off out of sight which Zimmerman interpreted as him leaving the vicinity.
I consider the peanut gallery to be the ones nit picking his account. They are in need of mountains, but all they have is molehills. So I suppose their hyper-magnification of relatively minor things is to be expected.
I think his academic problems are yet another thing that is completely irrelevant to whether he acted in self-defense.
There’s nothing to get passed. You’re arguing a point that doesn’t exist. So you don’t believe he looked around for a street sign. BFD. It has no bearing on anything whatsoever unless you’re trying to prove he wasn’t looking for Martin which he was.
Well, that’s good, because Zimmerman can be convicted of second degree murder, as long as we can think of some scenario that makes him guilty, no matter how unlikely it is.
That IS the standard, and let’s hear no more about this crazy “beyond a reasonable doubt” business, eh?
You’re still not getting it.
It’s a lie. It’s bullshit.
It’s not that he didn’t look for it that’s significant. It’s that he told us he did look for it that’s significant.
Another lie in the same set is that he crossed the street to retrieve an address.
These are two of the easy examples of GZ lying.
It’s quite possible to pretend that GZ lying is insignificant. But showing that GZ lied means that it’s no longer reasonable to accept his word as being credible evidence.
It undercuts the reliability of his entire account, imho.
imho anyway. For some the mileage may vary.
So the next question is to sort out where the lying begins and where it ends if possible.
You can say, “Oh he ‘embellished’ or ‘played up’” or w/e other word or phrases emeraldia has used. But what it comes down to is that he is mis-reprepresenting the facts by telling us things which are not true in an attempt to deceive.
This can be hand-waved away quite easily–just lift the hand and wave.
But it really doesn’t change the fact that GZ is lying in his account. Imho, that renders his entire account worthless where ever it’s not corroborated by independent evidence.
No wonder GZ couldn’t tell Serino how Trayvon ran. But I think I have it narrowed down to these two.
Martin attacked Zimmerman, because Zimmerman had the injuries and Martin had none. If you can prove Zimmerman assaulted Martin without any injuries to Martin, then present your evidence, otherwise you are just engaged in hand waving. The defense can wave their hands but the prosecution must actually prove things.
Every other part of the discussion is irrelevant until you can prove that one point. Both Zimmerman and Martin had a legal right to be where they were. If you can’t prove that Zimmerman initiated the assault, then he be acquitted on the murder charge.
That just proves Zimmerman lost the fight. Plus there don’t need to be any injuries to Trayvon for an assault.
You need some kind of evidence that Zimmerman assaulted Martin. There is none.
You do have evidence that Martin assaulted Zimmerman - Zimmerman’s injuries, the wetness on the back of Zimmerman’s shirt, the witness who saw Martin on top of Zimmerman. You have no evidence that Zimmerman assaulted Martin.
Regards,
Shodan
Do you understand, though, that for a jury to find him guilty, they need positive evidence that certain things are true, not just a belief that Zimmerman is lying?
In other words, even if the jury says to itself, “We don’t trust Zimmerman’s word about anything,” they still cannot conclude, “…and therefore we’ll find that he didn’t have a case for self-defense.”
The case for self-defense must be DISproved beyond a reasonable doubt. Finding Zimmerman has lied means they don’t believe his story, but on what evidence could they rely to actively DISprove self-defense?
First, of all, don’t Shodan me by cutting my post into digestible quotes. Leave it to the professionals. Thanks. Second, you’re playing semantics with words. Yes, words are ambiguous for a 10 year old one but when you’re a 28 year old man (who apparently is bilingual) one should have a grasp of the English language to construct an event with precision and accuracy. Third, I hope you were this forgiving when OJ gave his account of the murder of Nicole (Were you?). Lastly, Zimmerman’s IQ and academic problems are just as relevant to his character as Trayvon’s purported marijuana use and supposed school suspensions.
Although you dodged the question, I’d like to try again: do you think low IQ was a factor in his academic performance and/or behavior that night or not? It’s a Yes or No question, or if you prefer German: Ja oder Nein frage, bitte. Do you think high IQ or individuals with high g sexually assault their family members, resist arrest, beat their girlfriends, get on national TV to plead their legal case, and deceive the court? Because I’m going to show my hand here and be the bearer of bad news: the inability to complete 60 credits in any field at a community college suggest one is either lazy, incompetent, or stupid.
- Honesty
interesting example. OJ is widely regarded as being the person who killed Nicole, but the state was unable to amass sufficient evidence for the jury to find him guilty.
“This is excellent to know,” said the corpse of Medgar Evers.
“You’re telling me, I’m so happy the all-white jury got justice for me,” said the corpse of Ed Johnson.
A child corpse wanders in. “Me, too! I was killed and justice let my killers go free!”
“Us too,” cried five corpses that shambled through the door. “We’re happy that juries can’t make erroneous conclusions to corroborate their own prejudices.”
“The law and the justice system is fair and equitable,” shouted the corpse of a svelte woman.
Nine corpses shamble into the crowded room with a groan. “Hear! Hear! Just as Bricker implies, juries limited on what a jury can they can use as evidence in their conclusion.”
The moaning corpse of Nicole Simpson dragged itself into the packed room. “If the glove doesn’t fit, you must acquit.” Nicole’s head fell off her shoulders to hit the ground. “Amen,” said the head of Nicole Simpson. “God Bless America.”
I’m not Emeraldia, but the poor focus of ADHD might account for his academic problems. I’ve known a number of people with ADHD, even with high IQs, they have to overstimulate themselves, drive up their blood pressure and heart rate to concentrate, which only works for a short period of time. Stimulant drugs can be a substitute. I knew a classmate who took the AFQT, along with the rest of the class, and to everyone’s surprise, since he was such a poor student, he got the highest score, from which you can get an Iq score from, slightly into the genius range, 145. His ADHD was trauma induced. He had touched a live wire at the age of 3, recovered, but has been afflicted with ADHD ever since.