Martin/Zimmerman: humble opinions and speculation thread

[Steophan]

@betenoire39

How do you know this will be decided based on “political reasons”?

This is the problem I have with some of you…on one hand they talk about faith in the justice system here but when a decision that might be reached COUNTER to what they want, than they start claiming “politics” and other stuff.

God forbid if people disagree: it must mean they are “not looking at the evidence”.

Because, in my opinion, if not for the outcry over this case, from people who do not understand the evidence, Zimmerman would never have been charged. That is what has already happened in this case, and there in people on this board who’ve said they don’t care if what he did is legal, or if any crime he committed is unprovable, they want him punished anyway.

Now, if you believe that the evidence shows him to be guilty, and the court agrees, we are in my scenario 1, not the scenario 3 you quoted.

It is entirely possible there’s evidence I’ve missed, or an interpretation I’ve not seen, that proves Zimmerman guilty. If so, hopefully it will come out in court. I don’t think this is likely, due to the public nature of the evidence, and the amount of stuff I’ve read about it, but it’s certainly possible.

[dimmy_derko]

@Steophan

People are defending Zimmerman’s right to a fair trial, something you and others do not want him to have.

Actually, that’s all anyone has wanted to happen from the moment this tragedy hit the webs. Well, apart from the kind of people you can safely label as “idiots.”

@Steophan

For that matter, we are also defending people’s rights to know what’s happening in their neighbourhood, especially when it’s a private neighbourhood that they are a watchman for, their right to follow someone and ask them what they are doing, their right (indeed duty) to report suspicious behaviour to the police, their right not to be punched in the face for doing so, and their right to defend themselves against attack. All rights you don’t want Zimmerman to have.

That’s all very well, but you seem to be forgetting that these are allegations by Z, and not yet proven facts. Don’t people also have a right to have people with memory problems exempted from looking after their neighbourhood?

@Steophan

I don’t think anyone’s suggesting Zimmerman’s actions were wise, and there’s some that think they were probably illegal, but he may only be considered guilty if there’s sufficient evidence. Those are all valid positions.

Can’t he be found guilty if the evidence from the clubhouse cctv proves that he never parked where he said he did, or is that another factoid the jury is just meant to dismiss?

@Steophan

What is not valid is to presume him guilty without evidence, and to attack people for calling you out on that.

I haven’t just presumed him guilty without evidence. I started out with doubts and my suspicions have grown the more information I’ve taken aboard.

@Steophan

That’s why I’m defending Zimmerman, and that’s why all defendants deserve defence, and the benefit of the doubt. Because next time, it could be you, or someone you love, who is the defendant.

If only more justice seekers were prepared to do as much pro bono work for the poor, unrepresented masses.

[Saraya]

@dimmy_derko

No, so by rights, nobody should have heard anything until he started screaming on the ground. But that clearly isn’t what happened.

If TM’s comments were only spoken and unthreatening enough to allow Z to let him get as close as he supposedly did, NOBODY would have heard anything of the conversation. They certainly shouldn’t have been able to hear any commotion prior to the screams, because Z says there was none.

ps. That’s very noble of you, Steophan.

I will have to read over it again then. I do not remember any of that before hand business.

[Saraya]

@betenoire39

I

Also, I have a severe problem with you talking about “political reasons”…If he is convicted, it is because of the evidence, NOT IN SPITE OF IT.

The evidence still leans more towards aligning with Zimmerman’s account, than it does anything else.
The general consensus is now that if he is found guilty based on what’s been presented so far, it would be an unlawful conviction.

If you have new information that we’re not aware of, please provide it.

[betenoire39]

@Steophan

**Because, in my opinion, if not for the outcry over this case, from people who do not understand the evidence, Zimmerman would never have been charged. **That is what has already happened in this case, and there in people on this board who’ve said they don’t care if what he did is legal, or if any crime he committed is unprovable, they want him punished anyway.

Now, if you believe that the evidence shows him to be guilty, and the court agrees, we are in my scenario 1, not the scenario 3 you quoted.

It is entirely possible there’s evidence I’ve missed, or an interpretation I’ve not seen, that proves Zimmerman guilty. If so, hopefully it will come out in court. I don’t think this is likely, due to the public nature of the evidence, and the amount of stuff I’ve read about it, but it’s certainly possible.

I agree about the outcry…I think that’s obvious, but where we depart was that I feel the outcry was certainly warranted. I found it outrageous how the case was initially handled (the DA and the police).

Again, I feel what he did was illegal. So did a number of the cops too.
Again, I am looking at the same things you are looking at, but I am coming to completely different conclusions.
Again, nothing is UNPROVABLE here. Things are actually pretty simple to me.

How did they arrive at fighting?

1. Zimmerman approached Martin.
   1a They both approached each other (say if Martin hid and thought the coast was clear and bumped into Zimmerman again–because Zimmerman was still pursuing Martin). This is really still Zimmerman approaching Martin.

2. Martin approached Zimmerman.
   You and others can push #2 as much as you want, but no one is else is buying that except the “black violent thug who was offended and was a No Limit Nigg*” crowd.

For me, it was #1. This really shouldn’t be a logical stretch considering Zimmerman was aware of Martin for about 15 minutes before he killed him. Shouldn’t be that much of a stretch since Zimmerman admitted he was pursuing him. Not much of a stretch listening to the Emergency call. Not much of a stretch considering witness statements and a timeline suggesting that the encounter was moving south. Not much of a stretch considering what DeeDee said. Not much of a stretch considering who Zimmerman thought he was. Not much of a stretch considering Zimmerman’s history.

Not to mention Martin ended up dead, last but not least.

No, I want him punished BECAUSE OF THE EVIDENCE, NOT IN SPITE OF IT.

As i have said before, if you pursue someone and the person pursued ends up dead at your hands, you are gonna have a problem. Plain and simple. There are exceptions, for law enforcement most notably, because that’s their job–NOT ZIMMERMAN’S.

I don’t want a criminal justice system that will allow someone to essentially walk who acted the way Zimmerman did.

[betenoire39]

@Saraya

**The evidence still leans more towards aligning with Zimmerman’s account, than it does anything else. **
The general consensus is now that if he is found guilty based on what’s been presented so far, it would be an unlawful conviction.

If you have new information that we’re not aware of, please provide it.

I disagree.

Strongly.

And I as well as other posters have spent the length of time explaining why it doesn’t align with his account.

[betenoire39]

@Steophan

Because, in my opinion, if not for the outcry over this case, from people who do not understand the evidence, Zimmerman would never have been charged. That is what has already happened in this case, and there in people on this board who’ve said they don’t care if what he did is legal, or if any crime he committed is unprovable, they want him punished anyway.

Now, if you believe that the evidence shows him to be guilty, and the court agrees, we are in my scenario 1, not the scenario 3 you quoted.

It is entirely possible there’s evidence I’ve missed, or an interpretation I’ve not seen, that proves Zimmerman guilty. If so, hopefully it will come out in court. I don’t think this is likely, due to the public nature of the evidence, and the amount of stuff I’ve read about it, but it’s certainly possible.

I am glad you finally admitted that–it only took me a month or so of posts to get that out of you.

This is what I have been attempting to do: give another interpretation.

Like I said before, an event can happen and everyone can see the SAME EVIDENCE.

Yet, they can come to DIFFERENT CONCLUSIONS.

Like the cat and broken fish bowl story I gave earlier. If you see a cat by a broken fish bowl, you might assume the cat was responsible for it.

Or maybe the bowl fell (wind or a table leg that buckled) and the cat heard it and went to it.

[Bricker]

@betenoire39

Like the cat and broken fish bowl story I gave earlier. If you see a cat by a broken fish bowl, you might assume the cat was responsible for it.

Or maybe the bowl fell (wind or a table leg that buckled) and the cat heard it and went to it.

I know I keep returning to the criminal justice system like a broken record, and it’s plain there’s not much appetite for this subject.

But what you write there makes me again want to point out the huge difference between discussing what might have happened, and discussing how the criminal justice system will deal with the event.

You’re absolutely right: the evidence lends itself to a number of plausible interpretations. In many – perhaps even most – of these interpretations, Zimmerman is guilty of violating the law. So we can sit around and talk, and point out the many ways in which a reasonable person could conclude that Zimmerman did something illegal.

But to convict him, the evidence must go beyond that. To convict him, the evidence has to eliminate, beyond a reasonable doubt, every single scenario except those of guilt.

So if we all agree that Zimmerman is most likely guilty, because there’s only one reasonable way to construe the evidence that ends up with him innocent and a large number of ways to construe it as showing him guilty… then the jury must find him “not guilty.” Because that one reasonable way of viewing the evidence that show him not guilty is all it takes.

The criminal trial’s burden of proof is weighed heavily in favor of the accused.

[dimmy_derko]

From what I understand of an “affirmative defence,” Z can’t just say “Yep, I did it. I pointed my gun, fired it and you saw the result,” can he? If he’d been less cooperative, would he have not been allowed home as quick as he was?

Are there any records available to the public showing the top 10 quickest releases from custody of people who’ve killed someone and claimed self-defence? I’d love to know the average time it takes to clear up such an often complex matter.

[Shodan]

@dimmy_derko

That’s all very well, but you seem to be forgetting that these are allegations by Z, and not yet proven facts.

Incorrect again. For the most part, they are backed up by evidence.

For that matter, we are also defending people’s rights to know what’s happening in their neighbourhood, especially when it’s a private neighbourhood that they are a watchman for, their right to follow someone and ask them what they are doing, their right (indeed duty) to report suspicious behaviour to the police, their right not to be punched in the face for doing so, and their right to defend themselves against attack.

People have a right to know what is in their neighborhood; that is not in dispute. Nor is it in dispute that it is a private neighborhood and that Zimmerman was the neighborhood watch for that neighborhood. I think you have been provided enough legal cites to show that Zimmerman was entirely within his rights to follow Martin and to report his actions to the police if he found those actions suspicious. And the evidence shows that somebody attacked Zimmerman and punched him in the face, and other evidence shows that this somebody was Martin.

These are not just allegations by Zimmerman - they have evidence to back them up. This has been demonstrated to you several times, and you even admitted that you had no way to refute any of it.

Feel free to speculate based on no evidence if you like, but don’t pretend that others are doing the same when they are not.

Regards,
Shodan

[betenoire39]

@Bricker

I know I keep returning to the criminal justice system like a broken record, and it’s plain there’s not much appetite for this subject.

But what you write there makes me again want to point out the huge difference between discussing what might have happened, and discussing how the criminal justice system will deal with the event.

You’re absolutely right: the evidence lends itself to a number of plausible interpretations. In many – perhaps even most – of these interpretations, Zimmerman is guilty of violating the law. So we can sit around and talk, and point out the many ways in which a reasonable person could conclude that Zimmerman did something illegal.
**
But to convict him, the evidence must go beyond that. To convict him, the evidence has to eliminate, beyond a reasonable doubt, every single scenario except those of guilt. **

So if we all agree that Zimmerman is most likely guilty, because there’s only one reasonable way to construe the evidence that ends up with him innocent and a large number of ways to construe it as showing him guilty… then the jury must find him “not guilty.” Because that one reasonable way of viewing the evidence that show him not guilty is all it takes.

The criminal trial’s burden of proof is weighed heavily in favor of the accused.

Thank you Bricker.

I respect your opinions.

But even taking what you said, i find it hard to call him ‘innocent’.

The thread of Zimmerman’s story is the “doubling back” nonsense and the supposed threats Martin made to him as well as his supposed injuries.

Is it a stretch to say that if the jury doesn’t believe the ‘doubling back’ bull, then his defense falls apart?

Is it a stretch to say that if the jury doesn’t find the injuries CONSISTENT with his claims, then his defense falls apart?

Is it a stretch to say that if they DON’T BELIEVE ZIMMERMAN then he’s toast?

In this case, there’s nothing left but guilt IMO.

[Bricker]

@dimmy_derko

From what I understand of an “affirmative defence,” Z can’t just say “Yep, I did it. I pointed my gun, fired it and you saw the result,” can he? If he’d been less cooperative, would he have not been allowed home as quick as he was?

Are there any records available to the public showing the top 10 quickest releases from custody of people who’ve killed someone and claimed self-defence? I’d love to know the average time it takes to clear up such an often complex matter.

In Florida, self-defense is not a traditional affirmative defense.

An affirmative defense shifts the burden of proof to the defense, who must prove by preponderance of the evidence that self-defense was what happened.

In Florida, one must merely make a prima facie self-defense claim, and the burden rests on the state to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that self-defense did NOT occur.

Cites on request.

[betenoire39]

Bricker, I want to ask you a couple questions. You don’t have to answer if you don’t want to.

If you were a lawyer for the prosecution, how would you craft this case?

[betenoire39]

@Bricker

In Florida, one must merely make a prima facie self-defense claim, and the burden rests on the state to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that self-defense did NOT occur.

I know…and i don’t see how Zimmerman can claim self-defense here. I really don’t. If anyone had a claim, it was Martin.

i would imagine that the prosecution is going to argue this: who was more likely to be engaged in self-defense-Zimmerman or Martin?

Opinions, Bricker?

[Bricker]

@betenoire39

Thank you Bricker.

I respect your opinions.

But even taking what you said, i find it hard to call him ‘innocent’.

The thread of Zimmerman’s story is the “doubling back” nonsense and the supposed threats Martin made to him as well as his supposed injuries.

Is it a stretch to say that if the jury doesn’t believe the ‘doubling back’ bull, then his defense falls apart?

Is it a stretch to say that if the jury doesn’t find the injuries CONSISTENT with his claims, then his defense falls apart?

Is it a stretch to say that if they DON’T BELIEVE ZIMMERMAN then he’s toast?

In this case, there’s nothing left but guilt IMO.

Actually – yes. Those are stretches. It’s not enough for the jury to disbelieve Zimmerman. They must have something they can point to that they do believe, something that shows guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for each and every element of the offense.

For example, Zimmerman might testify that he had no feelings of hate, ill-will, or spite towards Martin. The jury may not believe him.

But that’s not legally sufficient for the jury to then conclude that he DID have feelings of hate, ill-will, or spite. They have to have something in the record that shows he did – they cannot say, “We don’t believe Zimmerman’s denials, so we conclude he must have had those feelings.”

See what I mean?

[Steophan]

@betenoire39

I don’t want a criminal justice system that will allow someone to essentially walk who acted the way Zimmerman did.

None of the things you list in your post are (necessarily) illegal. It is legal to follow someone. It is legal to defend oneself. In Florida, specifically, it is legal to use lethal force to defend yourself in a in a fight you started, if you are in reasonable fear of death or serious injury, and have no other means of escape.

You may disagree with these things being legal. That’s fine, but Zimmerman must be judged based on the laws that applied when he acted.

You may think it’s likely he broke the law, but unless it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt - a concept Bricker has just once again explained, and has done so extremely well - he may not be found guilty, and he may not be punished. That you would call for this to happen when the evidence does not show him guilty beyond reasonable doubt shows the contempt you have for the justice system.

I want a justice system that allows anyone to walk free, unless it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that they committed the crime they are accused of. No ifs, no buts, no probabilities or likelihoods. Proof or STFU, basically.

This case boils down to a simple point, really. Was Zimmerman entitled to shoot Martin? The state, to convict, must prove he wasn’t, which will entail proving, beyond reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman was not in reasonable fear of death or serious injury, or proving both that he was the aggressor and that he had another means of escaping the fight that shooting Martin, after the point he became in reasonable fear of death or serious injury.

All the other discussion - did Zimmerman chase Martin or merely follow, did Martin double back, was Martin justified in striking Zimmerman - is ultimately irrelevant to this. The only way it could be relevant is if it is decided Zimmerman was not justified in defending himself with lethal force, to determine whether it was murder or manslaughter. I do not believe it will come to that.

You, on the other hand, seem to neither know nor care how the justice system actually works, and want a system that simply says “I don’t like what he did -> He must be guilty of something -> PUNISH HIM!” That is unacceptable, and it is from people like you that the justice system has been developed to defend us.

[dimmy_derko]

@Bricker

But to convict him, the evidence must go beyond that. To convict him, the evidence has to eliminate, beyond a reasonable doubt, every single scenario except those of guilt.

So, it doesn’t matter how many important aspects of Z’s account can be proven to be false, if it can’t be proven beyond reasonable doubt that Z wasn’t subjectively feeling fear for his life at the moment he shot Trayvon? Presuming innocence and balancing the scales completely in favour of the person claiming self-defence, are different standards entirely.

[Bricker]

@betenoire39

Bricker, I want to ask you a couple questions. You don’t have to answer if you don’t want to.

If you were a lawyer for the prosecution, how would you craft this case?

Right off the bat, I would not have charged second-degree murder. I would have charged manslaughter.

The difference is that manslaughter looks like a much easier charge to prove: in Florida, manslaughter is, inter alia, the killing of a human being by the culpable negligence of another. I would argue that Zimmernan’s choice to arm himself and leave his truck instead of waiting for the police, on a dark rainy night, when there was no urgent circumstance compelling him to act, was itself culpably negligent, and Martin’s death was a result. Period.

If I were handed the case with second-degree already charged… I guess I’d check with the defense to see if they’d take a plea for manslaughter, and seek to amend the indictment to include the charge.

[Bricker]

@dimmy_derko

So, it doesn’t matter how many important aspects of Z’s account can be proven to be false, if it can’t be proven beyond reasonable doubt that Z wasn’t subjectively feeling fear for his life at the moment he shot Trayvon?

Correct. Precisely correct.

Presuming innocence and balancing the scales completely in favour of the person claiming self-defence, are different standards entirely.

That’s why we have charges like manslaughter, which remove self-defense from the equation by focusing on the culpably negligent conduct that led up to the situation.

[betenoire39]

@Bricker

Right off the bat, I would not have charged second-degree murder. I would have charged manslaughter.

The difference is that manslaughter looks like a much easier charge to prove: in Florida, manslaughter is, inter alia, the killing of a human being by the culpable negligence of another. I would argue that Zimmernan’s choice to arm himself and leave his truck instead of waiting for the police, on a dark rainy night, when there was no urgent circumstance compelling him to act, was itself culpably negligent, and Martin’s death was a result. Period.

If I were handed the case with second-degree already charged… I guess I’d check with the defense to see if they’d take a plea for manslaughter, and seek to amend the indictment to include the charge.

I am with you mostly…that is huge chunk of my argument. I guess we really weren’t on different pages, after all.

But also, you charge as high as you think you can get, then work your way down.