You misunderstand. Zimmerman stumbled upon the situation of suspicious activity/persons. He got involved but only to the bare minimum required (or so we understand), by contacting the police.
Martin on the other hand(as far as we understand and nothing contradicts it)at one point went back, put himself in a silly position and then proceeded to commit an illegal act.
If he’d just walked back, talked some shit and left then that would have been a silly position but NOT an illegal act.
Yeah, no shit, Dick Tracy. I was responding to speculation with speculation.
Why don’t you cite that it didn’t happen that way. Oh, right, you’ll claim everything Zimmerman says is gospel truth and that’s good enough for you.
What’s suspicious about walking down a sidewalk?
Nothing..by itself - how do you know he was walking down the path in a very normal fashion?
Why do you immediately discredit Zimmerman stating he was doing more than that?
I completely disagree. Zimmerman had already reported a suspicious character to the police – in his own mind, therefore, he at least suspected that he was following someone who harbored criminal intentions. While he had every LEGAL right to do that, the reality is that deliberately placing yourself in the path of a person you believe to be a criminal who is presumably intent on avoiding detection or detention is courting a violent confrontation.
See above.
The show Happy Days was not noted for its philosophical insight, but there was a moment that I believe bears on this situation. In one episode, Richie is being bothered by a bully, one who demands that Richie fight him. Richie tries various strategems to avoid the fight, but it seems inevitable. Richie asks Fonzie for advice:
RICHIE: Fonzie, what would you do if you were in my situation?
THE FONZ: Richie…I wouldn’t be in your situation.
A hidden gem of wisdom in pablum TV dialogue. Zimmerman may well have had no choice by the time he and Martin came face to face. But it was Zimmerman who put himself – unncessarily – in the position where coming face to face was likely.
Because he’s a criminal defendant who is trying to save his skin.
So which kind of responsibility did you mean?
Here are the reasons:
1). He has shown himself to be a liar already:
a. hidden passport
b. indigency status
c. claimed to not know Martin was a teenager at the 1st bond hearing
d. his nonexistent degree
e. recounting of the NEN dialogue
2). He has a built-in incentive to lie.
3). His statement(s) contain implausibilities that reek of lies.
I mean he is morally culpable, as you put it, and I think he should be held responsible for that. Not that I expect that will happen, because, darn it, sometimes in Florida you just have to shoot people.
I agree with a lot of what you say above: Zimmerman was the adult with the gun who scared a teenager into attacking him, and then shot him to death. Regardless of the outcome of the trial, it’s clear to me that he’s the one who’s guilty of the killing, in a moral sense if not ultimately a legal one. And if he walks, that says that our laws need to be adjusted rather than our morals.
I guess this also explains why I get so upset with people who think Zimmerman isn’t guilty at all; their lack of morality scares the monkey part of my brain that realizes I have to share a planet with them.
I don’t think it happened either. It sound implausible to me. Yet, it’s what GZ said happened.
Either you find it plausible that someone driving on a rainy night who wanted to see a street sign would get out of their car in the middle of the block instead of driving to the intersection, or you don’t. Your choice.
How about I cite where i cited it for you already?
from this post
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16043955&postcount=9297
Check out @ about 4:36 and again @ about 5:10.
Then there’s this post
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16044940&postcount=9298
with this in it
@ about 28:43
“I got out of my car to look for a street sign so I could at least tell them what street I was on.”
shrug
I think, though, that this is where you and I part company. I obviously agree that he is morally culpable, but I don’t think that translates to any kind of “held responsible” that goes beyond moral responsibilty – because that would (it seems to me) require that he’s also criminally or civilly responsible.
And on the facts, i don’t think he is.
Far more important, from my point of view, than getting one guy who deserves to be gotten is maintaining the rule of law for everyone. Criminal law, in particular, must be continually viewed strictly against the government: where there is uncertainty or wriggle room in the criminal law, the advantage must always go to the accused.
This has the unfortunate result of allowing those morally culpable to sometimes avoid any actual consequences for their failures. But I regard it as a rule of such importance that I am willing to see such injustices happen.
But I recognize this is why criminal defense attorneys have such tattered reputations.
Sure. I think the absolute immunity Florida law confers in these situations is ripe for change.
You appear to be confusing bullshit with facts. There is no way he could have been in a confrontation with Zimmerman save by his deliberate choice, because if he’d gone about his business he’d have been home.
Correct, which is why he gets all the benefit of the doubt. Unless you can prove he didn’t act in self defence, he did. That’s how the law works.
You have already been corrected on this.
[list=A][li]If it had happened like this, the gunshot wound would not have been contact or near-contact.[]Therefore, not only do you have no evidence for your speculation, there is evidence that it did not happen that way.[]What Zimmerman says is not being assumed true unless and until there is evidence to back up the specific claim under discussion.[*]The prosecution has to provide evidence to disprove self-defense on Zimmerman’s part. Speculation is not evidence.[/list]Regards,[/li]Shodan
Chrissakes, I’m getting dizzy.
A: I made no claims about the gunshot wound. I answered speculation (which was being presented as absolute fact) with further speculation. There are practically unlimited circumstances that might have caused the wound as it is from Zimmerman executing Martin in cold blood, to Martin wrestling the gun away from Zimmerman and shooting himself in the chest. So ditch the gunshot wound forensic analysis, huh?
B: Moot point considering the above.
C: Not in this thread. Zimmerman’s fans are clinging to every word as though they were dropped from on high by Yahweh himself.
D: Speculation is not evidence? Golly, thanks for the law lesson. Maybe you should clue **Saraya **in as well before she makes Martin a tyrannical despot bent on taking over Florida.
And just in case you go there … no, I don’t think Martin shot himself in the chest.
That’s what the evidence shows. Sorry it bothers you. Martin said he lost sight of Zimmerman. Zimmerman said he lost sight of Martin. If Martin was standing at the T then they would have seen each other. He wasn’t there. He goes on to tell us where he was 2 minutes before the confrontation. He was by his house. He says this in response to his girlfriend’s insistent that he run home. He say’s he’s not going to run because HE’S ALREADY THERE. He couldn’t be more specific without drawing a map.
Unless you have evidence to the contrary then per Martin he was at his house and this is the direction from which Zimmerman says he comes from. He has no way of knowing where Martin lived when he gave his original testimony.
What’s interesting is that the Prosecution has released phone records to the defense but surprise, the GPS information is missing for the critical time of the assault.
Once again, I think you’re trying to demand that both sides of the argument have a level playing field. That’s not an accurate view of the courtroom, though. One side can indeed offer a speculative theory of the case, but the other does not draw even (or move ahead!) by countering with its own speculation. The defense can offer up any number of different scenarios; the prosecution must show all of them are unreasonable, and must do so beyond a reasonable doubt.
The prosecution’s evidence must eliminate all reasonable hypotheses except the one of guilt.
So if you’re the prosecution, you can’t answer Zimmerman’s testimony with speculation, even if you believe Zimmerman is lying. His testimony, and nothing more, entitles him to claim self-defense. Your job as the prosecutor is to prove self-defense DIDN’T happen, and you have to prove it convincingly – beyond a reasonable doubt.
Bricker, I’m not in a courtroom. I’m not trying to present evidence. And I’ve never passed a bar in my life (without stopping in). I’m just getting a little perturbed with everyone else who’s engaging in speculation as though what they were presenting was the settled truth … which it isn’t.
The cold hard facts are that only Zimmerman knows precisely what went down that night. And if these trusting souls feel they have finally found the one criminal defendant who would never even think of lying to stay out of jail … then there’s not much more I can say on the matter but to fight speculation with speculation.
The problem is, then, that you’re talking at cross purposes with others in this thread, whose conversation is essentially: what will happen to Zimmerman at trial?
That’s the reason for their repeated invocations of things like burden of proof, the prosecution’s role, and so forth.
If you’re trying simply to discuss “What happened that night?” then I think you need to make that clear… although in a sense, you’ve just done so.
So maybe this appeal is to your interlocutors: Jack Batty is NOT discussing what may happen at trial. Stop bringing up the burden of proof and the rules of evidence.