What is up with that guy and his verbs?
I know, but I was paying more attention to the arguments he was making.
I think he’s on to something. I’ve always thought that the prosecution has keyed in on something from surveillance video that demonstrates Zimmerman is lying about his timeline. Youtube Guy can’t be the only one who has synched up the 911 call with video.
But the Amoral Chorus doesn’t think proving Zimmerman is a liar about his when and where is enough reason to be suspicious about the rest of his story. They believe the guy could confess to lying about almost everything and still come away clean. Which really blows my mind.
I agree…I was trying to sync the surveillance videos with the 911 call on my own.
I have to say that his analysis makes a lot of sense. Those sounds DO sound like knocks to a door.
They are convinced that the law allows him to get off even though his actions were pure evil that night, because it has NOTHING to do with the actions leading to the shot, but just what happened right before the shot, even though Zimmerman might possibly be lying about THAT.
They are indeed amoral.
What I’m wondering, though, is why would W11/Jeremy lie for Zimmerman? Does Youtube Guy think Jeremy was an accomplice? Are they just lying because they don’t want to contradict Zimmerman’s story? What is to be gained for them to lie?
not sure…but those patio lights did come on–interesting observation.
What CCV tapes is that guy talking about? Is that from the clubhouse footage?
I can’t disregard the W11 theory. It actually is consistent with the theory that Martin was resting at the mailboxes when Zimmerman exited his truck to pursue an imaginary thug. What is hard for me to reconcile, though, is how that the voices of w11 and family failed to show up in the background of Zimmerman’s dispatcher convo. We should have heard them asking him questions, at the minimum.
Also, why would he bang on their door? What would he have been trying to get them to do? That’s not clear to me either.
That said, I do suspect Jeremy is one of those witnesses who saw more than he has let on. On the W11 911 tape, the woman of the house scolds him to come inside. Inside from where? Was he outside watching? What was he doing?
Jon has some 'plaining to do, too, and I’m looking forward to his testimony at trial. Despite what he told the cops when they interviewed him, he actually called 911 after the shot went off.
I guess you haven’t actually read people’s posts, either. It’s fine, and sensible to be suspicious of Zimmerman’s statements. What’s stupid is to continue to disbelieve them when they match up with the physical and witness evidence.
But no, proving Zimmerman a liar would not prove him a murderer. He could confess to murdering Martin, and if the other evidence didn’t support that he still couldn’t be found guilty*. Why do you continue to approach this from the point of view of presuming him guilty? That would be pretty unacceptable even if there were no evidence, but when all the evidence backs up his statement it’s fucking disgusting.
Stop trying to twist the facts to fit your predetermined view, step back and look at the evidence rationally. That’s what the jury will be obliged to do, with the presumption that he’s innocent.
*Assuming a confession to police and a plea of not guilty, obviously. If he pleads guilty, it’s unlikely the other evidence will be investigated.
The facts, the facts, the facts, the facts…
Spear me…
No, I won’t spare you the facts. They’re what’s relevant here, not your dislike of Zimmerman.
I already told about using that mantra 'the facts"…as if I am supposed to come to the same conclusions as you. That’s what I am referring to.
Steophan, just leave them to their grassy knoll speculations…
What always bothers me about doing that is the possibility that someone might come along and read their bullshit and, if it’s not challenged, believe it.
I’ll be leaving it for tonight though.
Took the words right out of my mouth.
That’s the reason why I joined–because people might believe the bullshit that you are some others are posting.
For example, the wonderful analysis that Martin’s global edema could have caused Martin to attack Zimmerman.
I wish I could put that garbage as a signature.
Also, at least I was able to give a specific example to defend my statement, unlike you.
Always general, nothing specific.
We’re the ones pointing inconsistencies in his story, and some posters are brushing them aside.
They seem to think that even though Zimmerman took the actions he did, it doesn’t matter legally.
Seriously, I am amazed that people are taking the positions they are taking.
Then they say, “look at the facts” as if that mantra magically makes their positions the gold standards.
You know what, I did.
And I don’t believe ZImmerman. Not for one damned second.
I don’t have to accept your positions.
Fuck them.
Zimmerman was on the same sidewalk he was on while talking to the police. The same one he lost sight of Martin on. In order for the 2 to meet Martin has to come to him. Martin had ample time to go home, call the police, and drink his tea. He did none of those things except to find himself where Zimmerman was.
Just so I’m clear on what you want to introduce for discussion. The video is of a person who insists the sound on the tape is a door which he’s never heard? And the person in the house is now part of a conspiracy to murder Martin? And all this is to contradict another theory that the sound is a gun being cocked?
Do I have this right?
Maybe because Zimmerman was following him and never stopped following him?
Is this plausible?
Oh wait, it isn’t :smack:.
This was for ywtf and monstro’s take, that’s all.
Just looking for opinions.
Different case, different circumstances… and a prosecution under different laws.
Texas Penal Code § 9.31 provides a detailed framework for when a person may (and may not) claim self-defense. It’s different from the Florida legal framework. For example, in Texas an actor (meaning the person acting in self-defense, not a thespian) cannot claim self defense if the actor provoked the other’s use or attempted
use of unlawful force. That’s not quite the way the law reads in Florida. A person who provoked the encounter in Florida can still claim self-defense if he believes he is in danger of serious bodily harm, even if he initially provoked the encounter.
For this reason I do not believe the Texas case is particularly instructive.