Martin/Zimmerman: humble opinions and speculation thread

In My Humble Opinion
11744

No, it showed a clear desire to avoid the all-too-frequent failure to track the conversation - your question made no sense to me standing alone, and you were the one who associated it specifically to Stratocaster’s discussion with CR, which was tightly focused on something I have been rejecting as important at all, and which itself misses the point in my opinion. What important detail was I supposed to filter out of your single sentence? Or are you saying I was supposed to edit Stratocaster’s posts for you?

As for what I suspect, no, not at all. Again, I’ve been quite open about my frustration at expectations on both sides that everyone should be seeing things exactly the same way, and the conclusions that people who do not are deficient.

It’s a rather broad question, and why California?

In any case, I’d have to first know what all the legally admissible evidence is, which I do not, then I’d have to tease apart the non-Z evidence. And I wouldn’t omit all of Zimmerman’s story at all, depending on what you mean by that, since the very fact and actual content of his lies contribute to the overall picture. Or do you mean disregard any part of his story which is uncorroborated? Do you mean do what I once suggested, which was to pretend there was no NEN call, since that is part of GZ’s story, then pretend that GZ had been mute since the shooting? Under that scenario, of course, it’s impossible to imagine him being acquitted.

Way too many things to consider to give an honest answer, things which would take for too much time to actually do. Sorry if you find that unsatisfying.

And judging from your remark, I’m sure you will view this as an exercise in overthinking it, but unlike so many around here, I don’t think it’s at all reasonable to treat nuance and detail as meaningless, as in Stratocaster’s remark about it all coming down to Z kiling the guy that was kicking his ass. I find that a shockingly casual simplification of the death of a 17 year old and the potential for a man to spend decades in prison. Such a situation absolutely deserves anal-retentive scrutiny to discern, as fully as possible, the truth.

I’m just wacky that way.

11745

Well, except for the moderate concussion thing. Did Zimmerman have a concussion that we haven’t been made aware of?

It isn’t just that Zimmerman had minimal visible injuries - described as ‘insignificant’ and ‘minor’ by at least two witnesses. He didn’t have any non-visible injuries either. None. Did he ever complain of a headache? Did he ever complain of having trouble breathing or speaking through his supposedly broken nose? On the video the evening of the shooting, and the video the very next day he talks normally, walks normally. Swallowing a lot of blood can often make people feel queasy and lead to throwing up, sometimes causes sore throats - don’t recall any of that.

His account of ‘more than a dozen punches’ that left minimal damage to his face (and zero damage to Martin’s hands), no defensive bruising on Zimmerman’s arms (notice how Zimmerman never mentions what he was doing with his own hands - that’s not a coincidence), his account of his head being slammed into the sidewalk hard enough to make him feel like his head was ‘going to explode’ or he was going to lose consciousness…none of this matches up with the evidence.

11746

No, that’s not a fair assessment of my question, and that’s especially so given your response to CR. My point was to get clarification as to why the degree of injury seemed so critical to him.

Stoid, we can all read these threads. You can’t pretend to be the open-minded, “I’m just asking reasonable questions in the search of nuanced Truth!” person after some of the commentary you’ve made. It’s actually pretty funny. There’s a lot of emotional investment on both sides, ISTM.

My speculation (since it’s a speculation thread!) regarding Team Martin (or some on that side, at least): Accepting the strong evidence that Zimmerman is not the racist, profiling Nazi who cold-bloodedly killed in an unprovoked manner an innocent black 17 year-old who was just out to buy Skittles somehow implies support for racist, profiling Nazis who cold-bloodedly killed in an unprovoked manner innocent black 17 year-olds who are just out to buy Skittles. It is a bit of cognitive dissonance, somehow, relative to a thought so firmly formed in one’s head. An unambiguously evil act occurred (the “given”) and that “fact” keeps running into evidence to the contrary (the dissonance). That’s my read.

I say from experience as one of the initially outraged, who truly wanted to walk in one of those hoodie marches in support of Trayvon when this story broke. That could have been my son! A friend with a cooler head at the time said, “No, you don’t really know anything important about what happened yet.” He was right.

11747

Well, if you have read these threads, then you know that I was never among those who thought Zimmerman was a racist, much less a cold blooded killer Nazi. You also know that I have called out team Martin for being implacable and obsessive, And I have stated that I do understand how those who oppose can arrive at their conclusions.

I would never deny that I have very firmly held opinions about this case. But I am also a passionate seeker of truth about all things all the time. My passion for truth borders on the fetishistic. And I understand how that sounds, But it is what it is. My only “proof”, as it were, is this.

Anyway, I wasn’t really calling you out, it was just the most context – appropriate example of a tendency to oversimplify the evidence and facts of this case that I find distressing.

11748

My emotional investment is to the extent and is limited to the notion that a gun owner accepts a level of responsibility for how that gun is used. I do not think Zimmerman was a ‘racist Nazi’ who set out to kill a black youth in cold blood, but his actions, his poor judgement, directly led to the death of Martin. A needless and entirely avoidable death. Do I believe Zimmerman is guilty of 2nd degree murder? No. But reckless homicide / manslaughter? Yes.

Zimmerman’s comment that - even knowing what he knows now, despite clear evidence that Martin was merely on his way home from the store, armed with ice tea and Skittles - he still wouldn’t ‘do anything differently’ that night - isn’t that just a wee bit troubling? Really? You wouldn’t just stay in your car and wait for the cops to show up? He’s really saying that - put in the exact same position now - he’d do the exact same thing with the exact same outcome?

11749

Jesus, he said that???:eek:

Damn, add that to the “Reasons to view George Zimmerman as a thoughtless, irresponsible, reckless ass who really does have depraved indifference to human life!” List…fuck me, man…seriously? Flabbergasted.

Oh, and fuck me twice for giving him so much benefit of the doubt in terms of believing that he had the good sense to immediately regret what he had done. I take it all back.

11750

Your belief system doesn’t count. Start with one lie in his narrative that you have proof of and go from there. Just one.

11751

Can you explain that idea, please? The NEN call isn’t part of Zimmerman’s story in the way that his walkthrough, interviews, and the like are. It’s a before-the-fact, real-time account of his state of mind and actions before the shooting. So why should it be discounted in your hypothetical? Zimmerman couldn’t retroactively change it once he’d shot Martin.

How’s that? How would you prove he acted with a depraved mind, or that he didn’t act in self defense? It seems impossible to me.

Per his medical report, he did have a non-visible injury: back pain. He also complained of stress and “occasional nausea when thinking about the violence.”

The same medical report diagnoses his nose as being broken.

Not zero damage to Martin’s hands, see the autopsy report, there was a scrape or cut on one of his hands.

Zimmerman probably wasn’t punched dozens of times, but expecting someone to accurately recount the number of blows they suffered in a chaotic, frightening, stressful, street fight is unrealistic. Human memory just doesn’t work that way.

That’s a question with no right answer, because if he says he would have acted differently, then it can be construed as an admission of wrongdoing or at least being responsible for Martin’s death, neither of which is a good idea when you’re going be tried for a crime. Also, based on he remark about “God’s plan”, Zimmerman might just have a fatalistic outlook on life.

11752

Team Zimmerman don’t find that at least a little bit of a concern? He’s saying that given the chance to do it over again…he wouldn’t do anything differently.

11753

Didn’t you just spend a fucking page trying to contort this trial into INDIANA caselaw, and Indiana caselaw about a crime with which the defendant in this case is not even charged, at that? Jesus. No shame, these Zimmermanites.

11754

The right answer is in fact the one that does not make you guilty of murder, yes. The fact that Zimmerman has no such answer available to him says as much about him as you’re unwittingly admitting.

11755

Neither answer makes him guilty of murder, but both answers have potentially negative repurcussions when heard by a jury: he can come off as heartless, or as admitting reponsibility.

I suspect, based on his saying “I feel it was all God’s plan and for me to second guess it or judge it --”, that he’s just a religious fatalist who believes everything happens for a reason and all that jazz.

11756

Because he shouldn’t second guess or judge God’s plan. That’s a common religious sentiment.

11757

I encourage Zimmerman’s lawyers to bring up “God wanted Trayvon Martin to die and my client was the instrument of His righteous judgment” in court. That will definitely end the ambiguity over the outcome of the trial, though it will also give him a good Sixth Amendment basis for appeal.

11758

It’s also ignorant.

If I accidentally ran over my grandmother, and said, “well I guess it was all in God’s plan,” and then you asked me if I wish it never happened, the answer would be, “Of course I wish it never happened,” not, “see above, re: God’s plan.”

11759

I know you have contempt for Christians, but that’s not what people mean by “God’s plan” or “everything happens for a reason”.

He wasn’t asked if he wished it’d never happened (at least, not in that transcript), but instead whether he regreted specific actions he took and if he’d do anything differently in retrospect. Not the same question, at all.

11760

“Would you do anything differently” is ambiguous as to whether it means knowing all the facts you know now, or it means if you had a chance to do it over knowing only what you knew then. It’s the difference between admitting that you made a mistake and admitting that you make the right call with what you had but just didn’t know all the relevant facts.

Ordinarily, liberals on this board would grasp this simple concept. But not on the Tour de Force of motivated reasoning that is this thread.

11761

The fact that you think this is a liberal/conservative issue says a lot about Team Zimmerman’s motives.

11762

Been there, done that. This was about you saying inferences must be proved. You were wrong. End.

11763

Are you high? That’s =exactly= what he’s saying. Trayvon Martin’s death was God’s plan. Zimmerman getting out of the truck that night was God’s plan.

And that ties directly into his statement that he didn’t regret any of his actions, that he wouldn’t do anything differently because according to him, everything was God’s plan - i.e., I have no freewill in this, none of this was my fault, blame the Guy Upstairs.

It’s the same fucking question. Given the chance to do things differently, he wouldn’t change a thing. He wouldn’t stay in his truck. He wouldn’t identify himself to Trayvon. He wouldn’t go right back to his truck after hanging up with dispatch. *He wouldn’t change a thing. *