It took him over 40 minutes to walk to his neighborhood. That’s 1/4 the normal walking pace. In the rain. Remember, he’s on a very important mission to get the single can of fruit juice and candy to his brother.
the only person known to use racial epithets in this situation was Trayvon Martin. Coincidentally, he’s the only proven to have attacked someone.
George Zimmerman was the only person who did the right thing and call the police when he saw something suspicious.
Magiver and company , its now known trayvon was simply walking home, you want to stretch that into something suspicious is a pitiful attempt, ( awww, but he was walking slow, awwww it was raining, etc etc) NEWSFLASH…many people walk, some of them walk fast, some slow, some in between, and some even like myself like to or sometimes have to walk in the rain. Its offensive and disingenuous to claim that walking is a suspicious activity.
Well, don’t YOU believe that? Isn’t it what you are arguing? The trivial injuries Zimmerman suffered were the best Martin could do despite his watermelon-fueled bloodlust?
Heres just a thought…you realize that kids are inundated with the reminder of the danger of talking with or being followed by a stranger, and child molestations, such as a few yrs back a 17 yr old girl was followed, molested and murdered…Its really a strong possibility that Trayvon who was a high school kid, was well aware of the threat of this strange older man so insistent on following him, wondering if he was a pervert wanting to molest, abduct or kill him. We all hear about amber alerts and too many news reports of tragic child molestations ,abductions and murders. When i was in high school a deputy came and preached to us on how especially dangerous it is if your being followed by a stranger in a car. I think the very obvious cause zimmerman gave martin to be fearful hasnt been highlighted enough in this regard
You must have been in some high school full of precocious students to have gotten that talk then. They came around in Grammar school to preach stranger danger in my neck of the woods. By 17 there weren’t many male students that would have feared someone matching Zimmerman’s description.
Or you are just pulling more “facts” out of your ass.
How about black male students? What about gay male students? Is it really your contention that no normal 17 year old male ever has a legitimate reason to fear an unknown older male? If so, it can’t be because they don’t ever get hurt by them.
“there weren’t many”
Okay, let me make sure I understand you accurately: without being specific as to the form the evidence would have to take, you are saying that you consider something proven if the evidence eliminates all other possibilities, but so long that other possibilities exist, then it hasn’t been proven.
Now how does this work in a situation where one is trying to determine if someone has lied? Is it your position that nothing can ever be labeled a lie unless every other possible explanation for a discrepency has been foreclosed? And if so, can I ask you to give an example, because right offhand it’s hard for me to imagine how this would work in practice, and how it would not lead to you basically believing almost everyone about everything all the time (because you don’t think someone is lying unless all other possibilities have been eliminated) while also being relentlessly skeptical about everything… (because you don’t consider something proven until all other possibilities are eliminated…) 
I am sure I am misunderstanding something in a very fundamental way. I honestly appreciate your answers and any more help you can give me in understanding how you determine what is a lie will be much appreciated.
Thanks
True enough. I guess I was just giving too much weight to your closing remark in the post, which now seems particularly confusing, if you didn’t mean to strongly imply that his assertion wasn’t possible.
Yes, we’ve had that fact beaten to a pulp.
Which makes it particularly puzzling why so many of those who believe Zimmerman acted in self defense keep harping on how dreadful his injuries were.
Wait, is this the very same Jeantel whom Zimmerites have been parading around on their shoulders for providing the definitive and immutable proof that Trayvon hunted down and attacked the innocent Zimmerman, based on her recollection that Trayvon told her he was near his father’s house? Because the only possible conclusion to be drawn from Jeantel’s report of *Trayvons * casual remark about his approximate location relative to his father’s house is that Trayvon was ***just about to cross the threshold of the house, maybe even had his hand on the knob, when he suddenly decided to turn around and track down Zimmerman so he could beat the shit out of him?
That Jeantel?
I probably had a wall of text in mind but I’m having trouble breathing and typing, due to the asphyxiating stench of hypocrisy in here…
You were?
Strange then, that you initially chose to quote a line from the middle of my post.
The point I found less than credulous, was the supporting claim that of the Deputy coming to his High School to give the stranger danger speech. Implying that this may have been the case with Martin and as such it was all very fresh in his mind.
It just isn’t very plausible. While Tollhouse may have gotten that speech in High School, I doubt that is the common experience. I’d be be honestly shocked if getting the stranger danger speech in grammar school is not the common practice.
No less sense than the many that believe Zimmerman acted with malice keep harping on how negligible his injuries were.
The fact is, he exhibited injuries. They don’t generally happen in a vacuum.
Florida law being what it is, they are probably sufficient to support a claim of self defense.
To me this case isn’t (well shouldn’t be) about whether Zimmerman intentionally murdered Martin or whether he killed him in self defense. To me it is a question, does Florida law err too much in favor of self defense with deadly force. In other words, is the law to weighted too much toward avoiding the possibility of a false conviction?
Suppose I have a concealed gun with permit, and follow Mr. Asshole around at night, taunting him, until he is finally provoked to attack me. I’m physically overmatched, so suffer blows until I’m very afraid (perhaps afraid that he’s seen my gun and will grab it and shoot me); then I draw and shoot him.
Am I guilty of a crime? Is there a threshold involved, where some level of stalking or verbal abuse is acceptable, but some not?
Since even a minor bullet wound will dissuade an attacker, am I obligated to aim off-center? Or can I aim straight at the heart and call it misjudgment in the heat of excitement?
My understanding of the law would mean it would depend if you had another means of escape rather than shooting him, as you admit you provoked the fight. If not no, you committed no crime under Florida law (unless the original harassment could be proven to be a crime).
“Truth” and “lie” are not the only two options. Just because someone is saying something that isn’t true doesn’t mean they are lying, and not having proof that they’re lying doesn’t obligate you to believe them.
Also, Magiver is clearly referring to the criminal standard for proof. That is the appropriate one for this thread, as it’s about a criminal matter, but is not the one most people would use in everyday life. Indeed, it’s not the one plenty of people are using here, where they appear to believe Zimmerman is a liar in defiance of the evidence, let alone without hard proof.
Of course, accusing someone of lying without some level of proof in real life is usually destructive to relationships, and generally a bad idea. So yes, waiting for some decent evidence is a good idea.
What’s the moral of this story? Ms. Alexander should have aimed at husband’s heart instead of in the air, to remove a witness? BTW, Ms. Alexander is of Martin’s ethnicity, not Zimmerman’s.
Well, in this case it’s in response to a couple posters trying to downgrade the injuries into “trivial” “boo boos”, when the truth is in between: the injuries were neither dreadful nor trivial. “Minor” is probably the best term.
If you’re curious as to what their motive is for trying to argue Zimmerman’s injuries into non-existence, you can ask them.
I haven’t studied that case in great detail, but what got her convicted was probably that she left her home, pushing past her husband, and entered the garage to get her gun and return to the house with it. That’s not demonstrative of being in reasonable fear.
It goes both ways, I know.
I’ve brought it up lately simply as part of my personal Juror For A Day explanation of what my own thinking would be around it, with the understanding that it is not a legal requirement either way.
So can we all agree: the injuries’ existence and severity do not technically and independently make or break Zimmerman’s right to claim self-defense and continuing to argue either way means nothing in terms of changing the core argument you or they are making?
Cool.
Next topic?