I’m glad to know that the next time I get punched by a 22yr old girl for whatever reason, I can reasonably and legally shoot her point-blank in the head. Heck, if someone bumps into me hard, they could be preparing to cripple or kill me - shoot 'em!
Bricker, if you’re still around: We can assume that Martin came face to face with the guy that had been following him for the last fifth to quarter of a mile. Quite frankly it doesn’t matter who doubled back to whom - at the very least we know Zimmerman was trying to find Martin, but it probably doesn’t matter either way.
Like I said, Zimmerman has been following Martin for the last quarter mile or so, give or take. He and Martin are suddenly face-to-face, and George reaches into his pocket - if Martin (rightly) assumes that George is armed and is going for his gun, does Martin have the right to think, ‘damn, I can’t outrun a bullet, I’d better subdue this crazy dude before he shoots me’? Does Martin have the right to defend himself if he believes he’s in danger from a possibly armed guy that had been following him on car and on foot the last 7-8 minutes?
If he’s in reasonable fear of imminent attack, yes. If he saw Zimmerman’s gun when he reached for his phone, yes.
Do you have any reason to think it happened like this, or are you just speculating again to try to find a scenario where Zimmerman is guilty, regardless of proof?
I’ve made the point many times and you seem to have problems grasping the distinction. At no point is Zimmerman directly pursuing Martin. He makes no effort to catch up to him to the point that he breaks off following him. This is important because it shows intent, frame of mind and good judgement. Zimmerman demonstrated he was trying NOT to have contact with Martin. This is a big deal if the Prosecutor had gone for the lesser charge of manslaughter. Martin on the other hand has now been placed by his house so the location of the fight demonstrates Martin intended to confront.
The only thing I might be accurately accused of ignoring are your conclusions about what the evidence proves or supports. I would never ignore facts, ignore evidence, there’s no reason to. Things are what they are: blood lands somewhere, body is positioned some way, statements are written and recorded, phone calls are traced, photos of things are taken… what would be the point in ignoring any of the evidence? It won’t stop being what it is.
But what you or anyone else concludes or believes or thinks or guesses about what any of the evidence means is something that I can easily ignore. Your conviction about what the evidence means tends to get so tightly tangled up with what the evidence is that you appear to sometimes mistake one for the other. I don’t.
Example: the evidence, in the form of photographs, police reports and witness statements, is that Trayvon Martin was found face down, dead, with both hands under his body, very shortly following being shot. Like 1-2 minutes shortly.
The evidence, in the form of statements made by GZ, is that GZ spread Trayvon Martin’s arms apart and held them that way, telling one person who came out to help GZ restrain him, and from what I’ve read and heard, makes it sound as though the police arrived while he was actually doing this, or at least within mere seconds after he may have stood up.
That is the evidence. One of my conclusions from that evidence, which conflicts, is that GZ is lying about what he did after shooting Trayvon Martin. Magiver’s conclusion (now that he’s acknowledged the conflict that exists) appears to be that Trayvon Martin continued to be conscious and in sufficient control of his body and his faculties, following GZ’s physical rearrangement, to draw his hands under his body before expiring. The only evidence he has for that conclusion about why the conflict exists is the fact that the conflict exists.
I happen to think the evidence supports my conclusion much more logically and comprehensively. You may disagree. But I haven’t ignored any evidence at all, and I have not confused my conclusions with the evidence itself.
If you think there is evidence, vs. conclusions, that I have genuinely ignored the existence of, please point it out, because I sincerely do not want to ignore any evidence. It does not serve me in the slightest.
That is correct. Although Zimmerman was within his rights to shoot Martin early in the fight it occurred, according to him, after a struggle for the gun. That is is claim. As to his head, he claimed it felt like it was going to explode so you could interpret that how you like.
You are making the assumption Martin couldn’t move. That may, or may not be true - how do you know? As you say, it’s a very short time after he’s been shot.
So, we have evidence that doesn’t support Zimmerman’s statement, but does not falsify it either, without proof that Martin could not have moved. What have you achieved by showing that? You can’t legitimately conclude he’s lying, or even that he’s mistaken, only that we don’t know.
This is what you don’t get. Simply showing that the facts are silent on whether Zimmerman is telling the truth or not proves nothing. Indeed, showing that Zimmerman was lying from start to finish in no way proves his guilt (but, of course, one way to prove he was lying would be to prove his guilt, but that’s not necessary).
You have, once again, assumed Zimmerman is lying, and is guilty, and have claimed as fact the scenario in which that is the case, despite the fact that it’s not the only reasonable scenario. Why?
Following someone is not automatically free of wrongness or illegality. Nor is it automatically wrong or illegal. You and others have persisted in saying that there is nothing wrong in anything Zimmerman did, and by saying so you are ignoring the evidence that the person he was focused on, whom we now know was a very young man doing absolutely nothing wrong, felt threatened. The evidence tells us that the young man found Zimmerman’s conduct, which included following him, frightening.
I am showing you the law regarding “following” to show you that yes, “following” can definitely be wrong, which you said it wasn’t. It can also be so wrong that it becomes illegal, which you said it wasn’t.
Whether Zimmerman’s conduct rose to the level of actually being illegal is not the point. The point is that his conduct, whatever you might think of it, successfully made that young man feel threatened. So continuing to say that Zimmerman did nothing wrong, when in fact we know, from the evidence, that Zimmerman’s conduct scared Trayvon Martin and fits the description given in the law for conduct considered wrongful, is itself wrong.
And it matters. Zimmerman did not have an unbridled right to act in such a way that Trayvon Martin felt threatened, so stop saying he did. If he was acting in a manner that Martin found scary (and Martin thought so- whether you agree doesn’t matter) then Martin had his own right to self-defense. Remember, it is not necessary that Zimmerman actually intend to harm Martin, only that Martin himself believe it at the moment he acted. Cuts both ways.
Not to mention the fact that we do not have a credible witness to tell us what actually passed between them after the initial exchange regarding Zimmerman following Martin. I can imagine lots of things Zimmerman could have said or done to make Martin feel he had no choice but to engage him physically - Zimmerman could have been a serious asshole to him.
But I tend to think that Zimmerman probably did exactly what he seemed to have every intention of doing, given his comments: try to stop “the punk” Martin from “getting away”. I think he probably grabbed Martin’s shirt or shoulder, or in some relatively minor but unmistakable way moved toward Martin with the the thought of keeping him there until the police came, and Martin, who was scared of this guy, responded violently. I think this because of what we know about Martin’s frame of mind, fear, and Zimmerman’s frame of mind, irritation about the punks who always get away.It makes vastly more logical sense to me than that Trayvon Martin laid in wait for Zimmerman, sprang out of nowhere and started to beat the shit out of him.
And it doesn’t make Zimmerman a bad guy, it makes him a stupid, reckless, foolish guy.
Stoid, you are wrong. Your cite does not say that following someone is wrong, or illegal. I’ve challenged you to provide a cite, from anywhere in the world, that says such a thing is illegal anywhere. That it frightened Martin is irrelevant. Frightening someone is also not illegal, and you don’t get to defend yourself just because you feel frightened or threatened. Acts are only illegal if they are very specifically made so, and if the specific act of following is not made illegal, it is legal.
But you destroy your own argument here -
So, in other words, you don’t know what happened and you’re making stuff up. Yes, if Zimmerman threatened Martin, Martin had a right to defend himself. But, as you rightly say, we have no way of knowing if that happened, save witness testimony from the person who saw it (and did it). You think he grabbed Martin’s shirt or shoulder. Based on what? What evidence do you have to make you think that?
You can’t just make things up, and say that, if these things happened, he’s guilty, so he must be guilty. It doesn’t matter how likely the things you’ve invented are, if you can’t prove them.
You’re still ignoring one important fact - Martin had the choice to go home. He was by his father’s place. He could have gone in and locked the door, and phoned the police, whilst out of sight of Zimmerman. There is no way to spin this that Martin didn’t choose to confront Zimmerman.
But it’s such a strange lie that it can’t be considered meaningless. Why would he go to the trouble of creating such a strange lie, except to explain away something else that someone might have seen? There’s a couple of possibilities, at least one of which, if true, makes him a murderer for sure because it means he was on Trayvon’s back making sure he was actually dead so that he could claim self-defense. (Not gonna get into that here, merely making the point that it does very much matter that he would lie about such a thing.)
Nope. You are mixing conclusions and evidence again. We know what Rachael says Martin said. We don’t know what he actually said or what he meant.
Nope, do not know that at all, actually the evidence leads me to the conclusion that he did not stop at all and did not intend to stop. That’s my conclusion from the evidence, which is Zimmerman’s own words, none of which were “I will stop following him.” He said “OK”, which might mean that if other things lined up with that, but they don’t. So you have concluded from the evidence that Zimmerman stopped following him. That is a conclusion you have drawn from incomplete and conflicting evidence. I have drawn a different conclusion. So no, we don’t know that Zimmerman stopped following him. *
We know that Martin was at one point on top.
We also know that Zimmerman had some injuries.
That’s the evidence.
You are concluding that the injuries were inflicted by Martin, and I agree that it is a fair conclusion to make. I’m simply drawing the line between evidence and conclusions for you.
I think something is missing here.
Did someone assert that? Not me. I’m just saying that details matter, and so do lies. The detail of the body position matters. The lie that Zimmerman tells which is exposed by the body position matters. (And that’s just the lie about GZ holding Martin’s arms out - it can be argued very persuasively that the body position makes a lot of Zimmerman’s story hard to believe) It isn’t conclusive proof of anything, but neither should it be ignored as meaningless.
Details matter. Lies matter. People lie for reasons. Most especially when they are telling lies about the details of how they came to kill someone.
*As a matter of fact, Zimmerman’s lies about this are so numerous it’s almost funny. Listen to his narration of the reenactment the next day…wow…talk about someone saying WAY too much to try and cover their lie…he goes on and on and on about all kinds of things that never were even hinted at in the NEN call. And we’ve beaten to death the lies and ludicrousness of the address crap…I mean really, do anyone honestly believe for a second that he stopped following Martin? Based on what?
Yes, we believe he stopped following Martin, based on the fact that you can hear the wind noise stop on the phone, his breathing slow, the fact that he says he lost sight of him, the fact that Martin says he lost sight of Zimmerman, the fact that you can hear him banging something (he says it was his flashlight) which he wouldn’t be doing if he were running after Martin, and the fact that the fight occurred where he would be if he had stopped then, and not at Martin’s father’s fiancee’s house, which is where it would have been if he carried on.
Oh, and the fact that he says he did.
And you’re saying he didn’t stop based on, what, exactly? A witness that changed her statement about where people were running, and Deedee, who claims to have heard Zimmerman following Martin over the phone.
As for the hands thing, you’re claiming Zimmerman is lying about something he could see for himself, as he saw Martin’s body? Why would he do that? And, most importantly, why assume he was lying and not mistaken?
If Martin were smart, he would have killed Zimmerman, and Steophan, hmarvin, et al would be clamoring for the immediate dismissal of charges - since we would only have Martin’s testimony to prove self-defence, and by golly that’s good enough!
Wait. What am I talking about? If Martin had killed Zimmerman, this thread space would be taken up by cat declawing or WalMart rednecks or something, because CNN would never have gotten a whiff of it and Martin would already be on death row.
First, nothing you present speaks to his intention to find/follow Martin. It’s all about whether he was running or not, and whether at that moment he could see Martin. If Martin not being visible to him at that moment was believed by him to be the end,game over, no point in trying, he would have told the cops “Never mind…he’s gone, too late.” But he didn’t. He wanted the cops to come and find the guy, he wanted to find the guy, and the fact that the guy wasn’t visible at that precise moment didn’t change that one bit.
Everything, starting with his unwillingness to commit to a spot to meet the cops at, which says to me that he did not know where he would be, because he would be looking for Martin. The fact that he may have lost sight of him doesn’t mean he had any intention of leaving it at that, and his irritation at what he assumed at the time was an asshole “getting away” the way they “always” do tells me he wasn’t going to just leave it at that, especially since he had already started to follow Martin, making it crystal that that is what he wanted to be doing, he wasn’t going to let THIS particular asshole get away.
Then look at the mess of a story he told about what happened at that point. It’s pathetically transparent as lies to cover the fact that he did follow Martin. Like I pointed out earlier, he went on and on and on about all kinds of things that never came close to the truth. A big tell with liars is too much information, and he presents a goddamn novel of garbage in the reenactment video about what happened during the NEN call. So more excessive, creative, stupid lying. Which tells me there’s a reason he’s lying. As a wannabe studying the subject, he knows what he has to obscure in his behavior to get away with the self-defense thing. Taken together I don’t see one tiny thing that leads me to believe he stopped looking for Martin. Nothing. Instead I see someone telling all kinds of lies. As previously noted, people lie for reasons. The mere fact of his lies tells me he’s hiding something he knows endangers him. Which leads me to think it’s really likely he did things which undermine or obliterate any claim he makes to self-defense.
How does one make a “mistake” about manipulating the arms of a dead or nearly dead man right after you shot him? How does that happen? You don’t actually get on the guy’s back and pull his arms out to restrain him, you just “think” you do? You cannot possibly be serious, can you? For god’s sake, man…he had to explain being on Martin’s back in case someone saw it*, and that was the best lie he could come up with. He lies all the time, that’s clear, but no one said he was good at it.
*And someone did, according to early reports, no clue where that is at now - and that person reported seeing Zimmerman’s hands on Martin’s throat/neck/back, not sure, but he appeared to be putting his weight into it. No chest compressions trying to save him, you don’t do that on someone’s back. And while we’re pausing to consider those moments, how is it that Zimmerman never, in any way, suggested medical assistance for the guy he just shot? In fact, he strongly discouraged any calls to 911, which isn’t just police, it’s also medical. Gosh, George, what if you hurt the guy?
Nothing about George Zimmerman’s (several) versions of what went down that night make any sense. (Weird!) lies on (Weirder!) lies. If he really acted in self-defense, there wouldn’t be any need to lie. It’s just that straightforward.
For the record, AGAIN… I don’t think Zimmerman is a racist maniac. I don’t think he was looking to kill someone. I dont’ think he should spend the rest of his life in jail. But I believe absolutely that he was reckless and stupid and he did a really terrible thing that he needs to pay enough of a price for to make sure he never acts that fucking insanely reckless and stupid ever again. I’d be thrilled to see him get 5 years, with mandatory counseling to shake his idiot notions out of his head. And let the family sue his ass for all the good it will do them. Let this be a lesson to lots of people.
This may very well be true. However you have to wonder:
Did he fear that his life was in danger?
If yes, then why not call the police, have his girlfriend call the police or run to the nearest home?
I’m not saying he did or didn’t feel that level of fear, but his actions don’t particularly point in that direction.
Agreed. However, Martin’s actions don’t appear to be congruent with the level of fear you propose he had of Zimmerman. If I recall correctly, Jeantel’s own testimony was that Martin initiated the verbal confrontation with Zimmerman. Although that is not entirely conclusive, I think it’s hard to make the argument that Martin was in fear of his life when he initiated the confrontation.
Really? Newsflash, someone “being a serious asshole” is never an excuse to physically assault someone. While it’s true that it’s possible Zimmerman provoked a physical altercation, that last part is really just BS.
Probably is the key word here. If you’re on a jury, probably is NOT good enough. You can’t convict a man of second degree because you think he “probably” did it.
He didn’t have to fear for his life, he didn’t pull a gun out to shoot GZ. Even if he did he still wouldn’t have to fear death, just serious injury, as we’ve all been reminded endlessly.
Because he thought he’d start by asking the guy why he was following him, rather than go straight to the police, and that’s what he did.
Again, nobody is arguing that. He was simply afraid. So, in a manner not at all surprising for a very young man on the cusp between manhood and childhood, decided to step up and be brave and let the guy know he wasn’t a pussy and he he didn’t like being followed. He didn’t attack GZ, he simply asked him a very fair question.
Newsflash back: there’s a thousand colors of being an asshole, many of which could reasonably call for a physical response, starting with the one I laid out: GZ playing cop and trying to detain Martin. with Martin already distrustful of GZ, if GZ even reached out, I’d say it would have been fair for Martin to physically react.
Quick question, Stoid: you told you with the face (I think in the other thread) that you thought an acquittal was coming. Based on the evidence known and the trial so far, do you think that’s the correct verdict? I ask, because I’m not sure at this point if you think the case against Zimmerman is strong enough to reach the burden of proof needed for a conviction, or if you think he’s guilty but don’t think it can be proven. Because when I read this:
…I have to wonder if you think this sort of reasoning is sufficient for a conviction. Because to me it absolutely isn’t: you think he’s lying based on your gut feelings, and one thing that might make him lie is if he’s guilty, thus he’s guilty? Doesn’t work that way.
I haven’t been watching the trial, so I’m not in a position to say. And I’ve been really floored by the incredibly disparate analyses I’ve read, just amazed that all these people are watching exactly the same thing and coming away with such completely different perceptions. Not that I am naive about people’s bias, hello, but this has really been extreme.
I will say that simply based on Florida’s laws, my guess is acquittal. They have insanely wide latitude for what can qualify as self-defense, among lawmakers and presumably Floridians themselves. It seems extremely unlikely that they are going to suddenly tighten up just for GZ. It’s an attitude and a mindset I find very sad and very dangerous, but I do believe that it’s genuine. Which doesn’t make it less sad or dangerous.
he could see Martin turn right and run South. Zimmerman continued East and the back West toward his truck. If he was going to follow him he would have turned in the direction Martin ran.
He did commit to a location. His truck. He asked the police to call him when they arrived. logically walking along the top of the T would give him a commanding view of the entire backyard area as well as his truck where he’s expecting the police. He could have directed the police as they drove up if he saw someone darting between the houses.
Cite that he lied about following Martin. It’s clear as day on the phone call.
Let me get this straight, you think he gave too much information in the walkthrough? Are you fucking serious? If he was lying then he would be setting himself up yet you have yet to cite a single solitary provable lie. Not one. All you’ve managed to do is say you don’t believe him, therefore he’s lying.
How does one make a statement like this without any evidence it’s true. Cite evidence that Martin was incapable of moving his hands a few inches.
on what planet do you live on that you would try to resuscitate someone who attacked you.