I didn’t say it was more likely. How did you get that from my post? I gave 2 scenarios.
Martin stepping out of the shadows and starting the confrontation fits Zimmerman’s account. Dee Dee’s version of the conversation makes Zimmerman look better from a sucker punch perspective.
So, either way, they both fit Z’s narrative. That’s mighty convenient.
Is there anything you’ve seen yet that has had you scratching your head, or is it all pretty clear when it’s looked at through your eyes?
Thank you for your thoughts.
In the back of my mind, I fear that he will get off.
It will also be because of racial stereotypes (of Martin)–the same stereotypes you hear floating around on this forum–to pain Martin (rather than the guy who followed him with a loaded gun) as the aggressor.
It’s not “convenient.” it’s a function of logic and reason. I neither want Zimmerman to be guilty or innocent.
Dee Dee’s testimony is difficult to read because it’s so disjointed and poorly stated.
Other than that, no. I compared the available evidence against his account for proof it could not happen as stated. This is the process the prosecutor has to take.
You’re telling me you don’t care either way, after making nearly 600 posts in this thread? I think I’m getting a good feel for how impartial you are.
Yes derko, I’m telling you I don’t care either way. Neither do the other people who’ve tried to explain the case to you. We don’t care. the difference between the arguing sides is that we don’t dwell on what an evil fuck Martin was because we don’t know or care if he was an evil fuck. The opposite cannot be said of those who are sure Zimmerman is an evil fuck.
Whether you like it or not, Zimmerman’s account is matched by the evidence, all of which leads up to Martin attacking Zimmerman. You have a tremendous problem understanding that absent evidence to the contrary Zimmerman’s account of what happened will stand in court. You can’t introduce suggestions that it could have happened differently and therefore declare liar liar pants on fire he must be guilty of something.
classic case in point. Here is a poster who is sure Zimmerman is guilty and doesn’t care if justice is served.
Not even one. That is, the jury has the right to disbelieve any testimony they hear.
But I don’t think you quite grasp the difference between “disbelieve” and “conclude some other, opposing fact is true.”
I agree with manslaughter–i will be happy if gets that.
If it’s manslaughter, then it’s determined that there was no murder and there was no malice.
Manslaughter is effectively a term for ‘accident.’ It might as well be a case of ‘wrong place, wrong time’
Why would you be happy someone goes to prison for an accident?
And yes, he’s under trial for murder. If it’s not proven, then why shouldn’t he walk.
You can’t just downgrade someone’s charge because you aren’t happy he didn’t get the full whack.
Seriously, enough with the Matlock.
If it does’ it’s only becuase :
A) It was race related
B) It was ..see A…
If it was white on white, it’d barely have made news outside of Florida.
There’s nothing about this case that’s suspicious, controversial or remarkable from a legal standpoint.
About the only thing this case will represent, is what happens the legal system respects the justice system for once.
That’s something that’s been happening less and less since the 70s.
If you’re really concerned about injustices and cases of real criminals being coddles as the victim and walking away from real crimes, feel free to do some research - there’s plenty of such incidents in the past thirty years.
This however, will never be one of them.
And the reason you don’t have 300 posts arguing in favour of one and 300 arguing in favour of he other is… wait, wait… let me guess. All the evidence points in Z’s favour.
Yes, of course it does.
So, you’ve picked a side and now you’re pretending to be impartial.
No it isn’t. And it’s nothing to do with my preferences.
You don’t even want to accept the possibility he has lied, so don’t act like you are some kind of fair-minded arbiter.
So, if I’m a juror and Z has told me that at one point he parked at x, but the prosecution provides evidence that it never happened, proving that at least part of this story has been concocted, I, as a juror, have to forget that ever happened and just focus on the nitty gritty concerning the fight?
I’m fully aware it’s a shocking concept to some people that a person might not give a flying shit about the skin tone or ethnic background of another person, but fwiw, I’m one of those people.
I can see all the reasons why there are racial undertones to this case, but none of that has any bearing on how I’ve interpreted this incident. When I first came across this story, I imagined TM as my lily-white, “wouldn’t hurt a fly unless he was pushed into a very tight corner” younger brother and raged for a while over what I’d like to do to such an over-zealous rent-a-cop, you know, like people do when they imagine their loved ones being put in a shitty situation?
Then, the more information came to light, the more I became convinced that this Zimmerman guy was lying through the skin of his teeth, and that if he hadn’t had a father who had connections within law circles, Z would never have been released when he was and he wouldn’t have been treated as if clearing this all up was just a formality.
We’ll see. Time will be the test of that statement.
IOW, your allegation about what Zimmerman said is false. He did not claim that Martin hit him with a weapon. You made that up.
As I said, no one is surprised.
Regards,
Shodan
Here are his own words again.
Do I have to go through this word by word to check you fully understand their meaning, or are you just going to admit you were mistaken? If he didn’t know what he was being hit with and he thought TM had something in his hands, what would that something be?
Would he have to say, “I, George Zimmerman, solemnly declare that I believed Trayvon Martin was hitting me with some kind of weapon” before you’d accept it?
I’ll leave you to have a little think about it.
I was not mistaken. Your claim was this -
[QUOTE=dimmy derko]
Z said he thought TM had been hitting him with a weapon…
[/QUOTE]
That claim was false. Zimmerman did not say this.
He would have to say “I thought he was hitting me with some kind of weapon” rather than “I don’t know what he was hitting me with.”
Regards,
Shodan
And if Chris Serino, instead of replying “Uh huh” had asked for clarification, Z would have had to say something like, “I thought he was hitting me with some kind of weapon,” don’t you think, or do you reckon he’d have resorted to one of his pathetically whimpered “I don’t really remember.” comments?
If all they do is prove that he was lying, yes.
In practice, of course, what would normally happen is that they will prove that he was lying by proving that the opposite is true, in which case the jury is fully entitled to believe the opposite of what he said.
The problem with that, in this case, is that there’s very little evidence that contradicts Zimmerman, and a great deal that corroborates his story. So, even if the jury disbelieve him for whatever reason, they will not be able to assume the opposite is true, as it will not be proven.
No, Zimmerman could say something like “I don’t know what he was hitting me with - I already said that” or “I thought he might have had something in his hand or his waistband earlier - I told the 911 dispatcher that, so I checked him for weapons”.
But Serino did not ask for clarification - the phrase “I don’t know what he was hitting me with” was perfectly clear. And you misrepresented it in an effort to manufacture something to use to accuse Zimmerman.
That’s unfortunate. We ought to be talking about what really happened, not making things up.
Regards,
Shodan
PS - By the way, what evidence do you have that this -
isn’t also a figment of your imagination?
IOW, please provide evidence that Zimmerman’s father, who is a retired magistrate in Virginia, exerted influence on the police department in Florida. What contact do you think occurred between Robert Zimmerman and the Sanford Police Department? What evidence do you have of that contact?
[spoiler]Look, I already know you don’t have any such evidence of any improper contact, and that the reason George Zimmerman was released was because the police did not have probable cause to arrest him, and
Cite.
But we can go thru the exercise anyway.[/spoiler]
Regards,
Shodan
You can spin it any way you want to, but it’s all coming out of your ass.
And no, I don’t have evidence that Z’s father being a retired magistrate had any sway on how Z was treated, but with the SPD’s reputation, it wouldn’t be beyond the realms of possibility, and if I had the resources of a proper investigative team, interested in seeking justice and not just papering over any cracks in the process, I would no doubt be able to rule out the possibility entirely, or prove the claim to be true.