Logically, if his lit flashlight was there, he was most likely there. In his statement to the investigators, while listening to the 911 call,Zimmerman heard the clicking and flashlight pounding, and stated that was him. (the clicking and pounding is clearly heard on the 911. go listen) When someone's breathing slows down and the wind whistling stops he's most likely just standing still. Test it for yourself. Try to run and talk on the cellphone at the same time. Also logically, if Zimmerman was chasing after Martin, why would they still be near the T, after Zimmerman got off the phone. You'd have to claim Zimmerman found Martin, than dragged or chased him back, or forced him back at the point of a gun, which is highly unlikely. I doubt Zimmerman could catch a gimpy legged old Indian like me. They obviously both returned to the T. Why is where the debate continues.
Do you think that the investigating detectives should have been using Z’s nen call to do a repeat reenactment? Would you have liked to see Z commit each moment of his call to a specific spot on his journey?
Is it asking too much of a police department to be this thorough before they go dismissing the likelihood that someone might have been murdered, especially if they don’t even know who the dead teenager is yet?
Even people who are innocent of any wrongdoing could probably not give a second-by-second account of everything they did, and a complete transcript of everything they said or was said to them, and be 100% accurate in every detail. Particularly if they had just suffered head injuries sufficient to break their nose and put gashes into the back of their head.
You are fairly constant in your complaints that we are taking what Zimmerman says as gospel, and believe him innocent for that reason. This is false.
Zimmerman’s account breaks up into three categories -[ol][li]That which has evidence to back it up []That which has evidence to contradict it []That which has no evidence either for, or against it.[/ol]That last category is important. [/li]
If Zimmerman claimed it, and there is no evidence to back it up, we cannot assume it is true. We also cannot assume it is false. It remains in the “unproven” category.
The trouble is that all or nearly all of the elements of Zimmerman’s account that establish a claim of self-defense have independent evidence to back them up. And all the evidence that does not back him up, is either trivial or of dubious probative value.
Zimmerman claims Martin punched him multiple times, and there is only evidence that Martin punched him once. So what? The one time that Martin incontrovertibly punched him was enough to break his nose and blacken his eyes and knock him down.
Dee Dee claims it was Martin screaming for help. [list=A][li]it doesn’t make sense that a person who is winning a fight screams for help, and [*]Dee Dee claims the phrase used was “get off me” and we have an eyewitness that Martin was on top of Zimmerman, and never vice versa. It makes no sense to claim that Martin was sitting on Zimmerman’s chest yelling “get off me”.[/list]All the rest of it seems to boil down to “you can’t prove it didn’t happen this way” and not only does that not work in a court of law, it doesn’t make sense in a debate either. If you draw conclusions based on no evidence, you are never going to get anywhere. [/li]
Regards,
Shodan
People keep forgetting or ignoring the fact that Zimmerman never admitted to carrying a working flashlight. He only acknowledged having the broken one, in the absence of Serino’s prodding.
During the police interview (IIRC), he indicated that once the headlights of his truck went off, it was so dark that he was scared to head back to his truck right away. I know it sounds crazy, but I’m not making this up. If he was using that keyfob flashlight, he would have had plenty of light to see by.
This is a bit confusing, I know.
The general concept here is “legal sufficiency.”
The jury is entitled to weigh evidence and accept or reject any of it. So it’s not correct to say that uncontradicted evidence must be accepted.
At the same time, though, you’re right with the X and Y example.
The jury is entitled to disbelieve Zimmerman. But they can’t substitute another set of facts that they do believe.
To illustrate the point, let’s imagine that some fact in my civil lawsuit hinges on the result of a coin flip. As the plaintiff, I testify that when we flipped the coin, it came up heads. Now remember in a civil lawsuit, the burden of proof is “preponderance of the evidence,” basically a standard that says I must have more than 50% of the evidence on my side to win.
If the jury believes me, then they can find, as a matter of fact, that the coin flip came up heads. That’s enough, without any other evidence, to support that finding.
But what if the jury disbelieves me?
Here’s where it gets confusing: they CANNOT find that the coin flip came up tails. There’s no evidence on the record to let them reach that conclusion. The mere fact that there’s evidence for heads that they disbelieve is not enough to allow them to make a positive finding.
That’s an awful lot of words to say that you accept Z’s description of the fight as fact, based on limited physical injuries.
Do you have any conclusive proof that his nose was broken? Are you not curious why the helpful bystander who photographed Z’s terrifying head wounds didn’t also photograph his 45% bloodied face? I am.
You seem to accept that TM could hit sufficiently hard enough to break Z’s nose with one punch, but ignore that the barrage of blows Z says he rained down on him from above barely caused a scratch.
You call slight scratches on the back of the head “gashes.”
You ignore how a person who one moment is totally helpless to prevent himself being beaten and feels on the verge of unconsciousness, suddenly gets his act together and becomes a clinical one shot killing machine, aware enough at that crucial moment to make sure he moved his hand before firing.
Tbh, your judgement is that dubious I feel I should advise you not to type so much next time you respond to me, as I’m never going to address your every pedantic point.
The moments before he fired the gun is what the law addresses. His actions prior to the fight only are relevant to the determination of which portion of the law applies.
If you’re asking about the gag order request by the state, the judge rejected it yesterday.
The moments before he fired the gun didn’t happen in an event vacuum. How Z arrived in that situation is very relevant to how his actions are perceived.
How Z arrived in that situation is not relevant to whether he had reasonable fear for his life at the moment he fired. It is only relevant to whether the “aggressor” clause is activated or not, and even that clause is not really relevant since at the moment he fired he had no means of escape.
You are still not getting it. I accept those aspects of Zimmerman’s description of the fight that are backed up by evidence. Those that are not backed up by evidence are unproven. Those that are contradicted by the evidence are disproven.
We have been over this several times. The doctor said he had a broken nose, the EMT said he had a broken nose. A person with common sense would probably conclude that Zimmerman had a broken nose.
You complained above about someone else picking and choosing which of Dee Dee’s statement to believe. You are doing the same with the statement of the doctor and the EMT. And the doctor and the EMT are disinterested parties, which Dee Dee is not. Yet you question the doctor and the EMT, but not Dee Dee.
Of course you are also the one who made the riotously stupid assertion that one cannot assume that being punched in the face is an expression of malice, so we know more than we need to about how seriously to take your judgment of the evidence.
Are you not equally curious why the EMT would lie about something for no reason at all? Or if the EMT wiped Zimmerman’s face in the course of treating him at the scene?
Which word of this didn’t you understand?
This means that you have no answer to any of the evidence-based points I make. You don’t know how to address points based on evidence and rational thought, because that is not what you use to reach your conclusions.
Not that it wasn’t clear many pages back, but it is good that you are admitting it.
Regards,
Shodan
Did it sound like MOM was only concentrating on the 5-10 seconds before the gunshot?
Whose MOM?
Do you think the EMT made a mistake in not insisting he went to hospital to check there was no brain bleed or other associated complications that usually arise when someone has received a severe head injury? If they were wrong on such an important issue, do you not think it is possible they might be mistaken in their initial assessment about his nose?
Even if it was broken, why are you so convinced that the injury could only have come from a punch? Might it not have been caused by an elbow, or TM’s forehead?
If Z had said TM came from out of the shadows and did a Bruce Lee-like kung fu kick while yelling “BANZAI!!!” would you still be saying "Just because nobody heard him shout “BANZAI!!!” it doesn’t mean it never happened?
Mark O’Mara, Z’s mouthpiece.
We have been over this as well. EMTs cannot force anyone to go to the hospital if they don’t want to go. This was not a mistake on their part.
And they were not mistaken in their diagnosis - it was confirmed by the doctor.
Because of the mark on Martin’s knuckle. That backs up Zimmerman’s assertion that it was a punch.
I would be saying exactly what I have been saying all along - that I believe the parts of Zimmerman’s account that are backed up by evidence, and no others.
You, on the other hand, would still be making shit up and proving you don’t have a clue in the world as to how rational minds work.
Regards,
Shodan
You’re stating this as fact… any particular reason why? Why do you believe that anyone other than a trained martial artist could mount a person nearly 50lb heavier and control them?
Why are you so ready to believe that in a dimly lit area, a person who had been busily beating the shit out of some random guy who couldn’t fight his way out of a wet paper bag, then noticed the gun that his victim was carrying - before said victim even remembered he had it - and decided “This beating shit is getting boring. Let’s step this up a bit.”?
Then, you readily believe that Z, who had been totally ineffective moments earlier, suddenly made every move count and nailed the bad guy?
What’s all that about? Is that what’s passed off as critical thinking these days?
What do you think caused the break in skin? One of Z’s teeth? Do you not think the force required to break a nose would result in a more significant mark? Why not?
50 pounds??
The impact of the punch.
Because I know something about what I am talking about. Unlike some.
The nose is mostly cartilage, and a punch hard enough to break it will not necessarily damage the fist significantly in the way that a punch to, for instance, the jaw or temple would likely do.
Now, are you going to respond, or are you going to skip off to another piece of manufactured foolishness, having nothing to do with reality?
Regards,
Shodan