where is the threat? This happens earlier and before the fight there is a conversation. Where was the threat to Martin in the conversation?
“Counter-productive” implies a goal.
Determining the goal is an act which is based on speculation.
Assuming a goal is an assumption of a state of mind to say the least.
Well, that all depends on what we assign as M motive / state of mind / goal as to whether to not it is counter-productive. But it doesn’t require us to assign something to it before we can decide that its counter-productive. Which is exactly my point.
I agree, it doesn’t require us to assign something to it before we can decide that it’s counter-productive. In a court of law there is the consideration of motive regarding a person’s actions but Martin is not on trial so there is no point in the speculation of his motives. Those who support a conviction of Zimmerman keep using Martin’s state of mind as a point of argument. It doesn’t matter what his state of mind is.
Are you taking the position that the threat from a strange man following you in his truck and then get out of his vehicle and run after you disappears once that strange man catches up with you?
I am not sure why there needs to another new threat added to the initial one.
Yes, other than that. And actual threat, rather than something you’ve made up out of thin air.
If there’s evidence that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that alien ninjas might have been involved, the prosecution will have to prove they weren’t.
Assuming Martin couldn’t see Zimmerman either, you’ve just admitted there could be no threat he could perceive. So, do you have a suggestion why Martin would then, instead of walking home with his snacks, either wait for Zimmerman to find him, or actually return to him? I’m struggling to think of an innocent explanation for that, and no-one’s supplied one yet.
Not that Martin’s motive actually matters, as he’s not on trial, only his actions.
As I noted earlier, I lack the powers of persuasion.
Just pointing out what low standard my lack of evidence to disprove something is. ymmv.
Because M’s perception was limited to his sight?
I am not a tech expert, nor an MD. But, imho, it seems that if M was talking on a regular cel phone, that M may have had the capacity to perceive sound.
ymmv.
Too bad you haven’t noticed them. Several have been “supplied.”
But the point I have been trying to make is that my ability to supply one or inability to supply one is entirely irrelevant because any such answer is merely speculation based on supposition.
The limits of your imagination, and the limits of my imagination, and the limits of the imaginations of the entire SDMB seem to have little relevance, imho.
There is no evidence that Zimmerman caught up with Martin. The evidence is that Martin approached Zimmerman. There is no evidence that Zimmerman threatened Martin or touched him in any way. there is evidence that Martin attacked Zimmerman and continued to do so with no sign of stopping or of help from witnesses.
You have repeated stated that we cannot imply motive despite being told it’s unnecessary yet you insist on implying a threat.
WHY? what purpose does your implication of a threat hold?
Do you understand what “beyond reasonable doubt” means? If there’s an innocent explanation of Zimmerman’s behaviour that a reasonable person would consider fits with the evidence, even if it’s unlikely, he’s not guilty.
I see. So, him hearing Zimmerman tell the despatcher he was unable to find him, and was stopping following him, now constitutes a threat? I’m struggling to understand that.
Or maybe you think he heard Zimmerman’s heavy breathing and assumed he must be a threat from that…
No, actually they haven’t. Not one poster has supplied any reason, plausible or otherwise, why Martin would return to Zimmerman. Some have claimed that he didn’t return, or that Zimmerman caught up with him, but the evidence doesn’t support those conclusions.
I’m not asking for speculation based on supposition, I’m asking for conclusions drawn from the evidence. Specifically, I’d like to see those who think Martin had a legitimate reason for returning to Zimmerman and punching him in the face, rather than going home to eat his Skittles, show what that reason is based on the evidence.
Or, if they believe, for example, that Zimmerman chased, caught, and attempted to detain Martin, show how they conclude that from the evidence.
Not continually claim things as fact that they can’t possibly know, invent evidence that isn’t there, draw conclusions from the lack of evidence about certain things, and generally presume Zimmerman’s guilt without good reason.
Why yes, I think I do. I do allow for the fact that I could be mistaken. Feel free to expound on it for my benefit if you think it would be helpful.
It seems to me, and I may be mistaken I have said that a perceived threat could have come from a strange man following M in a truck and then getting out of the vehicle and running after M.
I guess I wrongly assumed you were asserting that since the line of sight had been broken when Z got out of hi vehicle that M could not have known that Z had gotten out of his vehicle. So, I pointed out the possibility that M could have heard z exiting Z’s vehicle.
It was never my intention that you should think that I was saying anything resembling what you said in the above quote.
It seems to me, and I may be mistaken I have said that a perceived threat could have come from a strange man following M in a truck and then getting out of the vehicle and running after M.
I guess I wrongly assumed you were asserting that since the line of sight had been broken when Z got out of hi vehicle that M could not have known that Z had gotten out of his vehicle. So, I pointed out the possibility that M could have heard z exiting Z’s vehicle.
It was never my intention that you should think that I was saying anything resembling what you said in the above quote.
I’m not willing to search the thread for an assertion which seems irrelevant. So I’ll just concede the point that no one in this thread has offered any such thing. Whether or not someone has offered such, the offering is still irrelevant for reasons previously stated.
Unless the evidence includes some recording of Ms thoughts, it seem that it actually is supposition.
Obviously, ymmv. Personally I don’t see how we can look at the sketchy evidence and make that determination about what was going through M’s mind. But, that’s alright. It’s not the only place where we have reached different conclusions.
Another short-sighted comment.
I love your use of straw man arguments…it would certainly make any law professor proud.
-
Ummm…I understand her testimony. And I am pretty sure the courts and the prosecution will make that determination as well–NOT YOU.
-
Whatever.
-
Whatever.
-
Again, stop trying to frame this discussion. You don’t control this thread. **This is an opinion and speculation thread. **You and couple others here are really trying hard to move the discussion a certain way, and I am not going to allow it. “No place”–please–such arrogance.
So, are you a moderator now?
- I guess you missed the specific phrases I was referring to…
I am sure the words racial and rant are both English words. However, putting them TOGETHER as in “racial rant” is utter bull.
If you want to allow these bullshit made up phrases and say 'It’s english"…whatever.
Some people here just want to mangle words and create these bullshit phrases to express their bullshit thoughts.
**
I don’t speak NEWSPEAK.**
Do you understand what the word “if” means? The first clause of my sentence means that the value of her testimony depends, in part, on whether it’s understandable. If it isn’t, as some people maintain, she will have an opportunity to clarify.
That you choose to attack my statement here shows that you’re just looking for reasons to disagree with me for the sake of it, rather than with the substance of what I’ve said.
In other words, you have nothing that contradicts what I said.
Er, no. We’re talking about a specific incident, so inductive reasoning is useless. There is, quite literally, no place for it in attempting to figure out what happened in a specific circumstance.
You don’t seem to understand what moderators do. They will tell you if you’re breaking the rules here, not if your logic is flawed or non-existent.
But no, no I’m not. Hence my silence about your level of adherence to the forum rules.
It’s a perfectly coherent phrase. It refers to - wait for it - a rant to do with race.
Why yes, I do want people to be able to “make up” phrases to describe their thoughts. That’s the general purpose of language.
Don’t be so hard on yourself.
**
I don’t speak NEWSPEAK.**
[/QUOTE]
Doubleplusungood.
How about this? Suppose he did get back to his father’s house - is he allowed to think “Wtf was that all about?” Or should he just go indoors and forget all about the shady guy who likes following people in the dark?
Being a young black male, it wouldn’t be too surprising if he didn’t have a lot of faith in leo’s and as a result did not want to phone them for assistance.
So, let’s pretend that he is right by his house when DD says so and he starts thinking “Fuck this! My little step-bro has to live on this estate and I’m not having some creepy guy following him around for no obviously good reason.” With nothing but indignation in his mind, he decides to go back and confront him.
At this point, doesn’t TM have just as much right of keeping an eye on Z as the other way round? Of the 2, who up to this point has been behaving in a manner that could most properly be interpreted as menacing, or at least alarming?
Z has just followed him from the other side of the estate - surely TM has as much right to cover the same amount of ground as Z, without assuming he has malicious intent?
Now, doesn’t TM have just as much right to be up near the T as Z?
It means that, for someone to be considered guilty of a crime, the jury must, upon considering the evidence presented to them, consider that no scenario other than the defendant’s guilt can reasonably be considered consistent with the evidence.
In other words, if there is a scenario that a reasonable person would consider plausible - no matter how unlikely - that is consistent with the evidence, and which does not have the defendant committing the crime, they are not guilty of that crime.
I’m struggling to see what threat you think someone could perceive from someone out of sight getting out of a car and running, and specifically how that threat could justify finding that person and punching them. That, after all, is what we’re actually talking about here.
Well, it’s what I’m talking about. I must confess, I’m struggling to figure out exactly what you’re talking about. It seems to be a not hugely successful attempt at mocking my posts, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt (something rather lacking in this thread as a whole) and reply straightforwardly.
Also, does anyone who thinks he reached his back door want to hazard a guess at why the violent, confrontational Trayvon would not at least pop indoors and swap his shopping bag and goodies for a more gangsta weapon?
You keep mentioning what was going through his mind and then dismissing it. Nobody is posing it.
HOW did Martin come to the intersection of the T? The question has nothing to do with his state of mind.
And I’ll ask my last question again: what purpose does your implication of a threat hold?
He’s supposed to call the police if it’s a problem…
Oh, a racial stereotype. Odd how you’re allowed to use them, and yet you invent complaints about others doing so.
Frankly, no. He’s a guest in a private residential area, and has no business keeping tabs on the residents. Conversely, a resident, and one chosen to be neighbourhood watchman, would be borderline negligent if he didn’t at least note people he didn’t know in the area, and report them if they acted suspiciously.
Doesn’t mean it would be wrong for Martin to do that, but it would certainly add to the suspicions about him.
Neither of them, as far as I can tell. Martin is the one who behaved strangely.
Unless you consider calling the police on someone behaving suspiciously on private property menacing or alarming, in which case you’d be a nutcase. Or a criminal.
Yes, he does. And I’m not assuming malicious intent, I’m stating that we have no evidence of his intent. What we do have is evidence that he punched Zimmerman, and continued to attack him when he was on the ground. Your theory, even if otherwise completely valid, would not justify that.
It’s also not valid, being speculation built on supposition, and not based even slightly on any evidence. Other than, interestingly, the fact of his skin colour - the thing you keep telling others not to mention.
No, why don’t you ask him along with the 100 other why this and that’s.
Two reasons spring to mind, but they are both speculation. One would be that he wasn’t, for whatever reason, thinking rationally. My reason for speculating that is that he went on to launch an unprovoked attack on someone, not a rational act.
And two, that there were either no weapons in the house, or that he didn’t know where they were. There’s no reason to think Martin owned weapons, had taken them to Florida even if he did, or would know how to use them if he happened to find them.
As for “people who think he reached his back door”, it’s fact that he had time to get to said door if he wanted to. Why do you think he didn’t, whether to arm himself or to get out of harms way? I can only assume that you don’t think he went back to the house, and presumably then agree that he chose to confront Zimmerman.
George’s extracurricular mentoring put paid to that possibility.
Then why do you keep asking speculative questions that can’t be answered instead of addressing the evidence we have to work with?