Martin/Zimmerman: humble opinions and speculation thread

[dimmy_derko]

@Steophan

It’s certainly not the first time you’ve done so.

It’s a speculation thread concerning a guy who has killed a young man and made him look like he was a wild animal that needed putting down. Don’t start on me about muckraking and the like.

[Steophan]

@dimmy_derko

It’s a speculation thread concerning a guy who has killed a young man and made him look like he was a wild animal that needed putting down. Don’t start on me about muckraking and the like.

No-one’s done anything of the sort. I, and others, have repeatedly expressed the opinion that Martin’s death was a tragedy, and an avoidable one.

You are the one making dubious unfounded statements, rejecting the evidence there is, and inventing your own. You are the one who wants to ignore the justice system and punish Zimmerman because you dislike him, and dislike the fact that certain actions he took were legal - specifically, following Martin.

You have no moral high ground to stand on, and spreading lies about other posters here, in either the specific or general sense, only makes it worse.

[dimmy_derko]

@Steophan

No-one’s done anything of the sort. I, and others, have repeatedly expressed the opinion that Martin’s death was a tragedy, and an avoidable one.

You are the one making dubious unfounded statements, rejecting the evidence there is, and inventing your own. You are the one who wants to ignore the justice system and punish Zimmerman because you dislike him, and dislike the fact that certain actions he took were legal - specifically, following Martin.

You have no moral high ground to stand on, and spreading lies about other posters here, in either the specific or general sense, only makes it worse.

Read my post more carefully. I’m not saying people on here are saying that TM was a wild animal, I’'m saying Zimmerman has portrayed him like that and hence, I don’t feel obliged to pull my punches when it comes to speculating on what HE is capable of. IF the evidence points in those directions, and in my opinion, it does. Ymmv.

[Shodan]

@dimmy_derko

Z said he thought TM had been hitting him with a weapon, not that he thought he was carrying one in his pocket. as it when he saw Z’s gun and decided to upgrade.

Zimmerman told the 911 dispatcher that he thought Martin had something in his waistband or his hand. After Martin attacked Zimmerman, and Zimmerman shot him, it makes sense to check Martin for weapons.

And I would like to see where Zimmerman claimed that Martin hit him with a weapon.

Regards,
Shodan

[dimmy_derko]

Listen to the Serino interviews. It’s in one of them.

[betenoire39]

@Steophan

He made two separate statements. One, a factual statement about the conditions required for justified self defence. And two, a conclusion from the evidence that there is no proof of criminal intent.

They are not connected statements. You need to learn to read English, and follow a very basic, three sentence argument.

You’re joking right?
Let’s analyze it:

1. If Zimmerman was in reasonable fear of death or serious injury, was not committing a forcible felony, and could not escape, then his shooting of Martin was justified self defense.

2. And your “point” is just as wrong and silly as it was the first time you tried to push it.

3. As far as the evidence can determine, none of Zimmerman’s actions, taken either together or separately, constitute criminal intent.

Point 2 is actually extraneous.

So you have a conditional which IMO which probably is false and then concluding that his actions don’t constitute criminal intent.

Please.

You’re the one who needs to learn how to read and you’re the one who needs to understand how arguments are structured.

[betenoire39]

@dimmy_derko

Read my post more carefully.** I’m not saying people on here are saying that TM was a wild animal,** I’'m saying Zimmerman has portrayed him like that and hence, I don’t feel obliged to pull my punches when it comes to speculating on what HE is capable of. IF the evidence points in those directions, and in my opinion, it does. Ymmv.

dimmy,

They are.

They really are.

[betenoire39]

@dimmy_derko

Listen to the Serino interviews. It’s in one of them.

Just FYI, Zimmerman also said during the interview that he didn’t know if he actually hit his head on the concrete or a sign.

yes, he said that.

[dimmy_derko]

Quick question to anyone with actual experience in such matters. When evidence is hardly conclusive either way, how important is credibility?

[dimmy_derko]

@betenoire39

dimmy,

They are.

They really are.

I admit I haven’t read the entire thread, so can you tell me if any of the posters I’m currently communicating with have made such posts?

[Shodan]

@dimmy_derko

Listen to the Serino interviews. It’s in one of them.

Here’s the first interview, and here’s the second one and the third and the last as well.

Could you please show where Zimmerman said this?

Regards,
Shodan

[dimmy_derko]

@betenoire39

Just FYI, Zimmerman also said during the interview that he didn’t know if he actually hit his head on the concrete or a sign.

yes, he said that.

I could prove that Z was lying if I could just get his head near a concrete surface long enough.

[dimmy_derko]

@Shodan

Here’s the first interview, and here’s the second one and the third and the last as well.

Could you please show where Zimmerman said this?

Regards,
Shodan

No. What I’ll do is, if Z has never said in any recorded interview that when Trayvon was hitting him he thought he might have had a weapon, I’ll show my arse at the living room window.

[Shodan]

@betenoire39

You’re joking right?
Let’s analyze it:

1. If Zimmerman was in reasonable fear of death or serious injury, was not committing a forcible felony, and could not escape, then his shooting of Martin was justified self defense.

2. And your “point” is just as wrong and silly as it was the first time you tried to push it.

3. As far as the evidence can determine, none of Zimmerman’s actions, taken either together or separately, constitute criminal intent.

Point 2 is actually extraneous.

So you have a conditional which IMO which probably is false and then concluding that his actions don’t constitute criminal intent.

Please.

You’re the one who needs to learn how to read and you’re the one who needs to understand how arguments are structured.

Needless to say, Steophan is correct and you are not.

And point 2 is not extraneous. Because this -

As far as the evidence can determine, none of Zimmerman’s actions, taken either together or separately, constitute criminal intent.

It is not against the law to be suspicious of a stranger in your neighborhood. It is not illegal to be a neighborhood watch. It is not against the law to follow a stranger. It is not against the law to report suspicious activity to the police. It is not even against the law to ask a stranger what he is up to in your neighborhood.

So that, even if you are suspicious and you report a stranger to the police and you follow the stranger and you ask the stranger what he is up to, you have not committed any crime.

is completely true.

You alleged, falsely, that if one considered Zimmerman’s actions in their totality, they showed that Zimmerman was guilty of something. This is false. In order to show that Zimmerman is guilty, you have to show that one or more of his actions broke the law. You have failed to do so.

That’s because that thing you don’t like to talk about - the evidence - backs up Zimmerman.

Regards,
Shodan

[Shodan]

@dimmy_derko

No. What I’ll do is, if Z has never said in any recorded interview that when Trayvon was hitting him he thought he might have had a weapon, I’ll show my arse at the living room window.

No, I don’t need to see the part you’re talking out of.

You made an allegation. If you can’t or won’t back it up, nobody is surprised.

Regards,
Shodan

[dimmy_derko]

The evidence is evidence that something occurred. To even try and suggest it is conclusive of anything favouring Z is delusional.

[Terr]

@dimmy_derko

Quick question to anyone with actual experience in such matters. When evidence is hardly conclusive either way, how important is credibility?

When evidence is “hardly conclusive either way”, the defendant walks no matter the “credibility”. His guilt has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. That’s not done with evidence that is “hardly conclusive”.

[dimmy_derko]

@Shodan

No, I don’t need to see the part you’re talking out of.

You made an allegation. If you can’t or won’t back it up, nobody is surprised.

Regards,
Shodan

I’m not happy that you are implying I’m lying, or even completely mistaken, so I’m going to do a bit of extra browsing.

Watch this space.

[dimmy_derko]

@Terr

When evidence is “hardly conclusive either way”, the defendant walks no matter the “credibility”. His guilt has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. That’s not done with evidence that is “hardly conclusive”.

And if he’s proven lying on any other part of his account than the moment he fired his shot, it doesn’t matter. I think I’m getting how it works now. Still, you lot seem happy with it.

[Terr]

@dimmy_derko

And if he’s proven lying on any other part of his account than the moment he fired his shot, it doesn’t matter. I think I’m getting how it works now. Still, you lot seem happy with it.

What does “proven beyond reasonable doubt” mean to you?