Explain why Zimmerman would be, as you stated “clinging desperately” to Martin while getting beaten up (or “shoved in the face”, as you put it) by him. And of course show how the prosecution can possibly prove this beyond reasonable doubt based on evidence that has been made public.
You want the jury to believe that Zimmerman for about a minute is “clinging desperately” to Martin, and then out of the blue decides to shoot him. Explain how that happened and show how the prosecution can prove it, beyond reasonable doubt, based on evidence that has been made public.
And if you don’t think (as anyone reasonable would, looking at the available evidence) that the prosecution could possibly prove this beyond reasonable doubt, then what’s the point of proposing these fanciful theories?
Care to point out where precisely my as you so eloquently put it, jerking off has failed to account for the facts as we know them? I may be remiss, but I believe the only thing that directly contradicts my scenario is Zimmerman’s testimony. Given what I have posited he would have good reason to “spin” his recounting of events.
And just what am I in denial of? I have accepted and stated repeatedly that I expect the court with find in Zimmerman’s favor. The evidence is too weak and the burden of proof too great for it to come out any other way. So while justice will be served, I don’t have to feel the result was just. It is the price we pay to minimize the number of innocent people that may be wrongly convicted. I’m ok with that.
You have me confused with the prosecutor. I am under no obligation to prove anything to anyone. From personal experience I find this a reasonably compelling argument. Should I stumble across anecdotal video to further support my statement I’ll be sure to pass the link on.
Again you have me confused with the prosecution. I may be wrong, but I don’t believe anyone I am addressing here is, or will be a member of the jury. Furthermore, I don’t really care what you believe. I am offering my opinion on the events.
While you may believe I don’t think, it is readily apparent that you don’t read. I stated several times that I don’t see anything in the discovery that will lead to a conviction. I can accept that. It doesn’t mean I am unreasonable or more reasonable. It just means I am not emotionally invested in the case.
“they always get away” would be an accurate statement given the 8 burglaries prior to this event. 9 if you count the one Zimmerman stopped in progress. There’s no EVIDENCE that Zimmerman’s account is false. You can firmly believe he’s a space alien who also bombed the WTC but it takes evidence to make that belief stick.
Sure it’s plausible. But that falls under “anything is possible”. There needs to be evidence to prove it happened that way. I’ve never understood the angle of entry idea because there is virtually an infinite number of ways to hold a gun as well as the exact position when it was fired.
You have to look at what we know and what makes sense. We know Zimmerman was on the sidewalk where he said he was. The evidence shows he’s telling the truth. Everything prior to that is documented by Zimmerman on the phone. He’s done the right thing by calling the police. Martin doesn’t add anything to his perceived suspicious behavior by glaring at Zimmerman and then running. It doesn’t mean he was planning on robbing the house, but it looks more suspicious. If he thinks Zimmerman means him harm then he did the exact opposite of what he should have done which is call the police and leave the area.
What we’re left with is a very short conversation between Martin and Zimmerman that leads to Martin beating Zimmerman and subsequently getting shot. I think it’s safe to say that Martin would have been insulted by Zimmerman questioning his purpose in the area.
That’s absolutely true. It’s unfair, but true. Convictions aren’t based on unfair.
It doesn’t make sense that he held on to someone beating him. He didn’t accost the last burglar he was responsible for stopping. He did the same thing, he called the police.
Beyond that, I’ve never seen anyone cling on to someone beating them. And like you I’ve been to a few roadhouses in my time. I’ve seen and been peripherally involved with brawls that looked like an old western movie. Bottles broken over heads, people kicked on the ground by a crowd… you name it.
It’s not Zimmerman’s word that is being taken at face value. It’s the evidence that supports it and the lack of evidence that contradicts it. It doesn’t mean the evidence proves his word, it means it’s consistent with his account.
Okay, but so what? The jury is still allowed to disregard a theory that is a million times less probable than the opposing theory. Maybe if you were in the jury box, you’d be the lone dissenting voice who thinks unlikeliness has nothing to do with believability, but that doesn’t mean that’s how it does work. The legal system allows jurors to draw inferences based on how likely (or unlikely) something is. Do you disagree with this? Or are talking about what you think the legal system should allow?
But it is not necessary for things to be impossible for them to be unbelievable. I mean, think about it. What’s the whole point of using testimony from character witnesses, if what you’re saying is true? It’s not impossible for a law-abiding honor student with college aspirations and no history of violence or anger issues to suddenly go into a crazy, murderous rampage, but most reasonable people will have a hard time believing this if the only person making this claim is the one trying to get off murder charges and has a known history of lying.
Unlikely things might happen, but not frequently enough to override common sense. That’s why the issue of likeliness matters in court. When it’s one unlikely thing after another after another eventually there should come a point that a juror gets to say bullshit. And yet even a string of unlikely events is theoretically possible.
Then there is the question: What evidence is there to support that a specific unlikely thing happened? When Zimmerman reenactment the shooting, why did he extend his arms in front of him rather than kink his elbow and wrist? If we are to accept that he managed to pull off the unlikely, why doesn’t his own actions support the idea that he pulled out this feat? Why would he hold out his arms in exactly the way we would expect him to if he shot Martin from an upright position?
“Impossible” is irrelevant.
His reenactment is 100% identical to how he says it went down. And so that is what we’re going off of when we say his claim is unbelievable when reconciled with the forensics. It’s also unreliable because he contradicts himself a lot.
He acted out the shooting multiple times. A few hours after the shooting and the following day during the reenactment. And all times he pantomimed taking aim with a straight arm and a straight wrist. Not once did he “correct” himself either. He did it repeatedly the same way, over and over. A juror is allowed to ask themselves how likely is it that a person, asked to relive one of the most important experiences of their life, would screw up this detail. Any juror who thinks “not likely” will probably then assume his account contains untruths.
If you think Zimmerman has lied, what has led you to that conclusion? I’m sincerely curious, if you’re saying you think unlikeliness is immaterial. For instance, do you believe that Zimmerman exited his truck to look for a street sign rather than look for Martin? If you think he lied about this, why?
Then why not say that, instead of asking for data? Seriously, it would have saved me the trouble of digging up a cite that presents arguments that you already know you have problems with. I don’t have a problem with you being skeptical but it’ll save us time if you just cop to that upfront instead of playing the “I need data” agnostic game.
The crux of our disagreement is that you think something has to be proven impossible to rightly be rejected as false, and I don’t. Unlikely is not equal to impossible. Proving murder beyond a reasonable doubt does not necessitate proving the defendant’s theory is physically impossible. A jury can disbelieve Zimmerman’s version of how the shooting took place even if there is a remote probability that it could have occurred as he claimed.
As I said before (wearily and even more wearily now), you’ll have to wait and see what the experts say in court. Maybe you’re right and the ballistics are inconclusive to the question of Zimmerman’s credibility, but I and others disagree with you. And I couldn’t care less about that.
He didn’t lay on the ground in the reenactment, he didn’t scream in the reenactment, he didn’t do a lot of stuff in the reenactment. It’s not a literally replay of what happened. It’s not meant to be a literal replay of what happened. If he’s asked in court if it’s a literal reenactment the answer is going to be no.
I kind of winced at some of your earlier formulations, but this is generally accurate. I wouldn’t use the words “remote probability,” though, because a probability can be remote and still be reasonable.
Courts have struggled with any more precise definition of reasonable doubt than the words themselves. Indeed, as Sandra Day O’Connor wrote in Victor v. Nebraska: “[S]o long as the court instructs the jury on the necessity that the defendant’s guilt be proved beyond a reasonable doubt . . . the Constitution does not require that any particular form of words be used in advising the jury of the government’s burden of proof. . . . . Rather, ‘taken as a whole, the instructions [must] correctly conve[y] the concept of reasonable doubt to the jury.’”
The Court goes on to approve the language used in a California case called Sandoval:
It simple shows the statement for what it is as well as Zimmerman’s past actions. He didn’t strap on a deputy badge, he called the police. Both times.
Could have. Doesn’t matter. Don’t care.
The 9th burglary was stopped by Zimmerman before it was successfully completed. It was in the cite I posted. Early in the same month he stopped a burglary in progress.
I didn’t really have you in mind when I wrote my post. You have been around in this thread for awhile. I’m tired of newbies posting in this thread who haven’t bothered to familiarize themselves with the evidence or the law or even the rules of the SDMB before posting.
At this point people should cite evidence that supports their scenarios. Some pf us have been hashing these issues around since March. Sitting around correcting newbies unfamiliar with the basic facts is a waste of time. This is like sitting in a graduate physics seminar and someone who didn’t even take high school physics, but who wants to put their two cents worth coming in and spouting off.
I have tons of links to the articles discussing this case and places to download the evidence. I’ll post them and people can read them and have an informed opinion. Read the most recent material first. A lot of thing we thought we knew back in the spring turned out to be wrong.
I’ve only ever seen a person get a bottle broken over their head once. It ended with about 35 stitches in the scalp and a concussion. Bottles in real life don’t work like in westerns. I’ll steer well clear of your hang outs.
I agree it makes no sense if Martin is beating Zimmerman. We don’t have strong evidence that he was beating him. We have evidence that Zimmerman sustained injuries consistent with striking his head on the ground (pavement) one or more times and a facial injury consistent with one or more blows impacting the nose.
If the head wound is from falling and nose injury is from Martin trying to break free of Zimmerman’s restraint, there is no beating from Martin. There is just a guy trying to hold on to a young man surprised that the young man isn’t willing to hang around for the cops.
“Ok you got it” Martin after being shot (or seeing the gun?) finally acquiescing to Zimmerman’s probable demands that he remain until the cops arrive?
I’ve not suggested anything inconsistent with the evidence. Nor am I suggesting that Zimmerman’s story is inconsistent with the evidence. I am speculating what else may sensibly fit the evidence that does not strongly corroborate Zimmerman’s account.
I’ve provided a plausible explanation for:
The wounds on both actors
The near absence of wounds on the hands of the purported attacker
The relatively insubstantial nature of the wounds on the purported victim
The lack of defensive wounds on the purported victim
The time delay
The movement
The witness accounts
The clothes being away from the body when the shot is fired
The shooting victims odd final remark
Zimmerman will in all likelihood be acquitted, but not because the facts prove his story beyond a reasonable doubt. Rather because not enough facts exist to discredit his story beyond a reasonable doubt.
Thanks for the clarification. I thought it seemed a bit out of character for you. I get the frustration, I think there people on both sides with vested interest in their position that tend to let their emotions cloud their arguments. I haven’t agreed with everything you have posted, and in some instances think there are other reasonable explanations of the facts we do know, but you have provided more evidence for your reasoning than most and that is appreciated.
That would be excellent. You could even PM me the most recent stuff if you wanted.
The actual evidence, both witness evidence and the physical evidence, of who was where when, suggest quite strongly otherwise.
Most importantly, if Martin had been fleeing, he would have got to the house he was staying at in the time Zimmerman was on the phone to the police.
Would you care to speculate why a person in fear, fleeing, would not go to a nearby safe place, but instead turn around and return to where the person they were fleeing from was?
My conclusion, of course, is that he wasn’t fleeing. What’s yours?
Oh, you’re right that Zimmerman assumed Martin was a burglar. That’s why he called the police. You know, like you’re supposed to when you see someone acting suspiciously.
Hbns, yours is a good analysis. I’m sure you already understand this, but I’m going to point it out for other people. If Martin were on trial for assault, with the same facts in evidence as in this case, the existence of your plausible narrative would mean he’d be found not guilty. In the same way, as there’s a plausible narrative where Martin is the aggressor, Zimmerman should be found not guilty.
The only point I’d disagree with you on factually is that Zimmerman appears to have more than one facial injury, which suggests to me that Martin hit him more than once.
My point has never been that Zimmerman should walk because I believe he’s innocent, it’s that he should walk because there is insufficient evidence that he’s guilty. I don’t know if anyone remembers, but way back when all this started, I though it was obvious he was guilty of something, quite possibly manslaughter. It’s through looking at the facts that I changed my opinion.
