If humans were less prone to error, I might be inclined to agree.
But, ime, most people suck at that.
Also, ime, unlikely things happen all the time.
As such I find the standard you propose for conviction, “Most likely scenario” to be abhorrently insufficient.
I am not happy that sometimes the guilty go free. I really am not. But I understand that due to our great fallibility, we can’t make a system where we do not have to choose between being more likely to let some of the guilty go free and being more likely to punish the innocent.
Even though we would like to, we can’t make a system where only the innocent go free and only the guilty are punished.
We have to err on one side or the other.
Convicting one the most likely scenario errs on the wrong side, imho. Shockingly so.
But if someone was not of the same mind as me and they chose that it’s better to punish some of the innocent rather than let some of the guilty go free, perhaps they would find your standard more appealing than I do.
I suspect that there’s some thing which can be determined from correlating the bits of evidence, which may not be obvious from looking at the pieces separately.
To me, it seems wholly obvious that Z is not being candid, (to put it politely), about what and how things happened that night.
But that is not enough to convict, imho. It may not even be enough to bring charges for all I know.
Within 20 seconds of interruption of blood flow to the mammalian brain under conditions of normothermia, the EEG disappears, probably as a result of the failure of high-energy metabolism. Within 5 minutes, high-energy phosphate levels have virtually disappeared (ATP depletion) and profound disturbances in cell electrolyte balance start to occur: potassium begins to leak rapidly from the intracellular compartment and sodium and calcium begin to enter the cells. Sodium influx results in a marked increase in cellular water content, particularly in the astrocytes.
…Brain edema is a life-threatening complication of cerebral infarction. The molecular cascade initiated by cerebral ischemia includes the loss of membrane ionic pumps and cell swelling.
— more than you ever wanted to know about brain edemas, basically confirming the above articles, in that they can be caused by sudden stoppage of blood supply to the brain, for example in the case of a stroke. Or a gunshot wound that destroys the heart.
==================================
Hopefully the above will explain Martin’s edema to you. It is a perfectly natural consequence of the sudden loss of blood supply to the brain.
But really, aren’t we all speculating? We are all piece together things to an extent. We have to, especially considering the holes in his story.
You have some who come up with these theories and pretend they are the gold standard.
When an alternate theory comes up, “Oh the facts, the facts, the facts” or some nonsense. That’s wrong.
They want to engage you in hypothetical and when you challenge/engage them, “Oh, you have no evidence”. But wasn’t it a hypothetical you began with? WTF???
I am tired of these games.
Yeah. If you can’t clearly (without BS) describe how the gap between you and the person you FOLLOWED and killed got closed, people are going to speculate and guess what: IT’S NOT GONNA BE IN YOUR FAVOR. WHY SHOULD IT? Why should you be believed?
Again, if I did what Zimmerman did, I would not expect people to believe me, especially the way it went down.
It’s as if some of the posters live under a rock and have no common sense.
What person in their right mind would NOT expect people saying these things about them after they committed such a deed?
And PatriotX, I also wrote several reasons why I think Zimmerman should go to prison.
Thank you for your common sense and balance. Thank you being honest and for not playing these rhetorical games that the others are playing.
I have believe it or not checked out most of the links. I am waiting for a few doctor friends to get back to me.
But my question was actually about when the edema occurred:
before the shot or during/after the shot (and how long).
Also, what if it’s proven that the edema didn’t happen as a result of the shot? This is plausible.
That might affect the case enormously.
If it was proven that Martin sustained it before he was shot, that could be devastating for the defense. The question would be “how did he get it?”. Then we would have to look at other ways like suffocation, head injury, etc.
You see now?
Martin, apart from gunshot wounds, had no injuries on him. Nothing whatsoever to indicate that Zimmerman hit him even once. No scrapes, bruises, nothing. So good luck with your hopes that it will be “proven” that Martin sustained the brain edema before he was shot.
Consistent with Zimmerman’s testimony. What’s your problem with this? But hey, at least you have something to back you up. As opposed to your prior fantasies about Zimmerman running up to Martin and screaming at him. Or Zimmerman shooting Martin because Martin didn’t obey him.
Presumption of innocence. You are free to believe what you want, but the jury must err in favour of the defendant.
I would expect people to believe any story I told to the extent it matched the physical and witness evidence. Zimmerman’s story is substantially confirmed by these, and barely contradicted. You are, for whatever reason, focussing on the few elements of contradiction, and claiming that they prove that the elements that are backed up by evidence are false. That’s not speculation, that’s not rational thinking, it’s simply not thinking at all.
Which basically boil down to wanting to jail him because you dislike him and his actions. Fortunately, we require more than that.
Please provide a cite that a cerebral edema could be caused by an attack that leaves no marks on the body - that is, a blow or strangulation that’s insufficient to cause bruising.
That seems implausible to me, but if you can prove otherwise, go for it. Neither Terr’s cites nor my (brief) research on edemas have shown anything of the sort.
I note that the reasons why someone should go to prison don’t always overlap with reasons why someone should be convicted.
The law must apply to more than just this case.
Z lied about that night. But he’s not facing charges for lying, afaik. He’s facing charges of second degree murder. There’s a set of rules which govern trials and convictions.
I am not willing to throw out the beyond a reasonable doubt standard just because I don’t like the unsavory things Z may have done or is likely to have done.
So not worth it.
I think Z acted poorly and should face serious consequences for his actions. But that’s not the same as saying I think he should be convicted based on incomplete evidence. My desire to have a reasonable trial procedure secured for the rest of us is greater than my desire to see Z punished for what he may have done or is likely to have done.
If you were sitting on the jury, I think that you would have wide latitude as to what you deem to be the facts of the case. I don’t know how great that latitude is. But perhaps if you were on the jury you would be allowed the justifications you claim for voting guilty. Idk the details.
But, in my mind, I don’t trust Z’s judgment well enough to have confidence that w/e he is covering up is serious enough for him to be covering it up. He might be covering up some other stuff, which is bad, but is not enough to discount his claim of self-defense, or is not enough to establish that he did commit murder.
He might just be avoiding telling us about some jerk-ass thing he did. I doubt he knew how scrutinized his account would be at the time he was giving it. If he had, he might have just come clean and let the chips fall.
But he “fudged” some things. And as such I don’t find him to be a credible witness except as much as his account is redundant with other evidence.
But that does not meet the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt because as I said, he might be hiding something other than evidence that he committed murder.
Again, thank you for your honest and no-rhetorical games response.
I don’t disagree. But I personally think, here, they intersect.
Agreed, to an extent. But the lying is tied to his story and what PLACED HIM THERE.
That’s a big reason why he is in the predicament.
Agreed, to an extent. In many cases, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to figure out certain aspects of the crime. But this doesn’t mean the person can’t be sent away.
4.** This is the key point some of these dunces don’t seem to understand. They claim that I don’t know the legal process, but they don’t seem to understand how juries work. **
Trust me, many of the points I and some other posters have raised will most definitely be discussed by a jury, and yes, they will come into play when they render their verdict (if it comes to that).
They simply don’t want to accept that…they have already laid out their framework, and like automatons expect that a potential jury will do what they say.
*This is why I wonder if they have been living under a rock: it simply doesn’t work like that in the real world. I simply doesn’t. *
If they believe Zimmerman is not credible, and the prosecution presents a compelling enough case that what Zimmerman did COULD NOT have been self defense considering he profiled Martin and admitted pursuing him with a 9mm, he gets locked up.
**
The mechanics of the fight might not be as relevant as these dunces are screaming that it will be.
**
They don’t understand that many can (and rightfully so) use Zimmerman’s actions to portray him as the AGGRESSOR and that he wasn’t entitled to use the force he used against Martin. The JURY WILL DECIDE THAT.
They can decide that even IF Martin clocked him, he was a former bouncer and outweighed him and could have used other means rather than a 9mm. The jury doesn’t have to believe Zimmerman’s injuries were serious enough to warrant him using his gun.
**
This is what these people don’t f-ing get, and it’s frustrating as hell to talk to them. **
I agree, but a juror has the latitude to say: look, this guy lied and he’s lying about key components of the killing–I trust what the prosecution is saying and not the defense.
Again, I hear you, but again, THAT along with the prosecution’s case might be enough for them to send him away.
The judge will decide what evidence is admissible and what the jury may consider. Not you.
He’s admitted no such thing. He’s “admitted” following Martin, and carrying a loaded gun - “admitted” in quotes as it’s not an admission, it’s a statement of doing two perfectly legal things that have no bearing on whether or not he had a right to self defence.
I have some questions for you, and I hope you’ll give me straight answers.
Do you accept that following someone is, in Florida, perfectly legal, and does not constitute a threat? If not, please cite either statute or case law to demonstrate otherwise.
Do you accept that carrying a loaded, concealed handgun is perfectly legal in Florida, assuming the possession of the correct permit, and that Zimmerman possessed said permit? If not, please cite either statute or case law to demonstrate otherwise.
Do you accept that no set of legal actions can impact ones right to self defence under Florida law? If not, please cite either statute or case law to demonstrate otherwise.
4)Do you accept that, under the specific Florida law, even if Zimmerman did act as you claim, unless he was in the process of committing a felony when he became in reasonable fear of death or serious injury, if he had no chance to escape at that moment he was entitled to use lethal force in self defence. If not, please cite either statute or case law to demonstrate otherwise.
Do you accept that the State has the burden of proof at trial, and that they must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman is guilty of each element of the crime of Second Degree Murder in order to convict him, and that there is no burden of proof on the defence? If not, please cite either statute or case law to demonstrate otherwise.
The reason for asking you for cites is that cites for each of my points have been provided in this thread.
The jury can not conclude that, as Florida law specifically provides that, in certain circumstances, the aggressor may use lethal force in self defence. It is for the state to prove those circumstances didn’t obtain.
False. He is not required to use other means to attempt to escape, if he was not the aggressor. The jury will be instructed to this effect by the judge, and are required to base their conclusion on what the law says, not what they - or you - want it to say.
You are demonstrably the one who doesn’t get it. You don’t understand what the jury can, and more importantly cannot, do. They cannot, as you are constantly doing, pile inference upon inference. They cannot decide that the says otherwise than it says, as interpreted by the judge.
They can say that, but it’s irrelevant. They may not convict on that basis.
If a jury did convict based on your interpretation, it would be reversed by the court of appeal, as they would not be convicting based on the facts. You are asking the jury to ignore the law - that is, to break the law themselves - to convict someone based on the fact that, as far as I can tell, you dislike the fact that he was legally armed, and legally followed someone and asked them what they were doing.
That you want to convict someone for that in the first place is pretty damn disturbing, that you expect people to ignore the law, and the protections it gives all of us to that end, makes you either immoral or insane, and frankly disgusts me.
You talk about respect and protection of the law, but Martin deserved it as well. He didn’t give that up because you felt he did.
You’re the one lacking morals with your positions. You support some guy who gunned down this kid all I am arguing is that he should be sent to prison for it.
You have some damned nerve calling me insane or immoral.
I take that to mean you can’t answer my questions about what Zimmerman actually did wrong, then. You still want him to be punished, despite being unable to point to a single law he broke.
And you call me immoral?
Martin had every right to the protection of the law. He did not have the right to break it. He did not have the right to launch an unprovoked attack on Zimmerman. He is, ultimately, responsible for his own death. It’s tragic, and it’s because of stupid behaviour on both sides, but Zimmerman is not responsible for Martin’s voluntary actions. Only Martin is.
If you don’t wish me to address you further, don’t post further in this thread. Otherwise, I’ll continue to prove you wrong.
Or, just possibly, you could prove me wrong. But you’ll have to do that with actual evidence, citations from law, and legal arguments. Or, you’ll just be another blustering know nothing who can’t accept that things don’t happen the way they want, and refuse to learn why they don’t.