Note that I used the phrase “I am certain”, clearly identifying my statements as being my opinion.
No, had you meant to state that it was your opinion, you would have used the phrase “in my opinion”. Instead, you claimed certainty, showing that you believed it is factual.
Now, back up your statements or withdraw them. Explain why you think it was Martin screaming, despite the fact that the family’s identification has been discredited, and the experts say that recognition is impossible. Then explain how shooting Martin in a struggle for a deadly weapon is not self defence.
I thought of that during the 4 minutes of silence in the defense’s closing arguments that demonstrated the time TM had to run away/hide/return to assault GZ and Bob’s your uncle, there were two posts I could apply it to.
:dubious:
You are comedy itself… Now your pronouncements of Perfect Truth include declarations informing ***me ***what the contents of my own mind are and how I employ my vocabulary to convey ideas! Dude, you’re killin’ me here! 
(Seriously, this is some kind of experiment, right? You cannot possibly be serious with this stuff…) (By the way, I do believe it is a fact, JFTR, and that is an opinion. “I think”, “I believe”, “I am certain” = opinion. I know such verbal constructions are extremely unfamiliar to you, seeing as how you continue to believe you have a lock on reality and frame your opinions as facts that everyone should automatically accept, but you might want to try 'em on for size anyway.)
Or what, Your Majesty, you’ll tell the guards to cut off my head? :eek: Get a grip, man!
I have explained why I think it was Martin multiple times, and it never had the slightest thing in the world to do with any experts or family members, because I never believed that anyone could identify that voice as being one or the other to begin with. (And just for the fun of it, can you tell me how the family’s ID has been “discredited”? By whom, via what means?)
I have also explained exactly why I do not view Zimmerman shooting Martin in a struggle for the weapon as self defense. It was Zimmerman’s weapon he planned to use on Martin. Martin was the one defending himself, he just failed in the end.
You’ve had it laid out before you many, many, many times. You reject it. Over and over again. Got it. I cannot begin to imagine why you are asking again, apart from getting off on going into overdrive with your imperious performance as The Keeper Of All Truth.
Political pressure and pssst poor police work. Police 101 - You don’t put multiple potential witnesses in a room, such as the Sanford Mayor’s office, order the only police officer, the Chief of Police, to leave, and then play the 9-1-1 recording for all in attendance where one witnesses identification will contaminate all of the other witnesses identifications.
(speculative re-inactment) - Is that Travon’s voice crying out for help? Yes, yes it is. I agree with her. I agree with her also. I’m not so sure. WHAT! I mean, yes, that’s Trayvon’s voice. I agree with everyone else. So you all agree that’s Travon’s voice? Yes, we all agree that’s Trayvon’s voice (to be said in unison). Fine. Now let’s all push for an indictment. Oh, and don’t forget to mention to any other family members that we need them to come in and hear Travon’s voice.
So, after criticising me for observing that you believe it is a fact, you, er, say you do believe it is a fact. Right…
Look, Stoid, words have meanings, and if you use particular words I will assume they are chosen for their meaning, not at random regardless of such. That may be an overly generous assumption, but I’m sticking to it.
It is not a fact that it was Martin screaming. That is not my opinion, that is an observation based on seeing the trial. It is not known who was screaming. You cannot legitimately consider it a fact.
It was clearly explained at the trial why their identification was worthless. Try actually following it if you want to talk about it.
And no, you have not explained why you think it was Martin screaming. You have stated that you think it was Martin, then added a bunch of incorrect statements and baseless speculation, but they cannot (literally, can not) be what makes you think it’s Martin, as they do not support such a claim.
I have a pretty solid opinion on why you think it’s Martin. It’s because that’s the only thing that would support your pre-judged opinion that Zimmerman is guilty, law and facts be damned.
Your view is irrelevant. What matters is the law and the facts. You are ignoring both. There is no evidence - literally, none - that Zimmerman had any plan to use his weapon on anyone. That’s not an opinion, it’s an observation. A fact, if you like. So, your opinion is, once again, not based on facts.
No, I have not. Not once has anyone, you or someone else, laid out a coherent scenario, fitting the actual evidence and Florida law, in which Zimmerman is a murderer. The prosecution failed to do that at the trial, and no-one in any of these threads did it either.
So, try it. Without speculation, using the evidence produced at the trial, provide a scenario where Zimmerman is guilty of either Murder 2 or Manslaughter under Florida law. That means no claims that Zimmerman threatened Martin, or that he drew his gun before he claimed, no claims that are either speculation or contrary to the facts of the case.
In fairness to stoid, she has been pretty consistent in the threads in saying that we can’t follow her dots and reach the same conclusion without stipulating the “liar, liar, pants-on-fire” opinion of Zimmerman. If, like me, you don’t find anything particularly inconsistent in his statements–other than what you’d expect from a flawed human memory in what’s probably the most stressful situation of his life–then she’s said several times that we won’t be able to see eye to eye on the rest of her opinions.
It’s frustrating to continue to disagree on our beliefs about what happened that night, but I have to give her credit for a) having a better grasp of the English language, grammar, and syntax than many of the others in the debate, b) admitting bias consistently, c) being open about her dislike of firearms, and d) actually listening to those of us who have experience with firearms and concealed carry.
She may not “get it,” but I’ve gotten the impression that she, at the very least, read the things I’ve said about training, holsters, concealed carry, etc., and didn’t just put her fingers in her ears and scream “LALALA” like others have done, and continue to do.
The problem is, she hasn’t shown any reason for thinking he’s a liar. Without that, the claim is irrelevant, so it’s necessary to focus on the rest of the evidence. Evidence that doesn’t support a conclusion that he murdered Martin.
That’s why I keep asking for evidence that he actually committed the crime he’s accused of, and get speculation in response. If he’s lying. If he chased Martin. If he started the fight. If Martin was the one screaming. If Zimmerman drew his weapon before he claimed he did. All speculation, all unsupported by any evidence (except the screaming, where there is evidence, but it’s been discredited).
Yes, if a completely different set of events to the ones we see from the evidence occurred, Zimmerman might have been a murderer. But that’s got nothing to do with this case.
Stoid and others want to see an innocent man punished because they think 17 year old black teenagers are incapable of controlling their actions, and the fact that we disagree with them is somehow proof of our racism. They want revenge, not justice. They think people who legally carry guns, and who wish to keep their neighbourhoods free of crime, do not deserve the protection of the law. They have no understanding of the law, of justice, or for that matter logic or consistent use of language.
That is being fair to her.
Fair enough, but vis-a-vis the underlined portion of the quote above, it’s been Honesty who consistently insinuates our bubbling racism. I don’t want to get too cross-thready (since I’m completely guilty of forgetting whether I’m in the trial or the speculation thread sometimes) but check out the “Michael Moore posts pic of Trayvon Martin’s body” thread for a little insight into that one.
There’s been a few others who’ve done it too. If Stoid hasn’t done it personally, fair enough, but she’s certainly claimed that Martin is somehow not responsible for punching Zimmerman.
Indeed, sir.
I just didn’t want to throw stoid under the bus because of the statements of the others. I’ll let her defend her positions from here on out, because I feel really weird being a stoid apologist, lol.
He apparently didn’t have his gun out when the witness looked outside and saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman.
Correction: Good came outside into his yard, saw TM on top of GZ, and yelled at them to stop it. Then he went back inside, called 911, and the shot was fired.
Oh , …the murder defendant said so…well then it MUST be true…thank you
Steopan, why don’t you stop trying to tell other posters what they mean, or what they should write. Speak for yourself, your commands to her to “withdraw” her comments are obnoxious and inappropriate. You did a version of this with me, telling me what I believe. I don’t need to be told what I believe.
I have to say that Stoid has put up an impressive argument in the face of tireless postings by people who can not accept any other alternative. Some are entrenched in the assumption that Zimmerman’s actions are exactly in line with stand your ground laws.
When GZs statements and arguments are discredited by facts the opposing debaters claim it doesn’t matter because he is innocent until proven guilty. When an alternative claim is made based on the evidence the opposition claims it is just wild speculation and dismiss it.
If an idea jumps those internet debate hurdles it is met with side debates regarding grammar, definitions, nuance, belief, and other silliness that confuse and hinder an honest discussion of what happened that night.
I realize the standard required by jurors actually on the case, and I also realize they are free to believe the facts as they see them. This, whether the self defense advocates like it or not, is the court of public opinion. If we could somehow get beyond these side debates about beliefs and accept opinions without the 5th degree there could be a truly fantastic debate.
My belief is self defense advocates will pervert a good idea like Stand Your Ground with cases like this until the law has to be revoked. I don’t believe GZ actions were within the letter or spirit of Stand Your Ground and he should be punished as a murderer. Just my opinion based on the evidence I’ve seen.
Now tell me I’m wrong because I’m not entitled to believe GZ was lying through his teeth, or because I have the burden of proof, or because I stated my position with non-preferred sentence construction. Defending sentences and ideas until the point is lost must be tiresome.
Hats off to Stoid and all who take the time to make this thread a great place to exchange ideas. I have honestly learned a ton from both sides of this debate.
The only thing a Stand Your Ground law does is repeal the section in the previous law that added a lawful duty to retreat before using force or deadly force. The old provision was that one MUST retreat; the new takes that away, which doesn’t mean that one MAY retreat.
Hence, Zimmerman’s actions are in line with SYG, although the introduction of SYG in the first place is a red herring, since the case has nothing to do with it.
That’s…not about emotion, or syntax/sentence structure. It’s just factual. It truly isn’t an opinion.
Agreed. It has been educational, for sure.
I can’t believe you don’t understand this. Presumption of innocence has been explained by multiple lawyers so many times that rocks now get it. If you can’t prove it false then you’re just making shit up with alternate scenarios. It COULD have happened differently but you need to PROVE it. And “could have” is an infinite game of possibilities. When a defendant gives testimony of what happened it becomes evidence that can be proven true, proven false or neither. If it can’t be proven false then the presumption favors the defendant. It’s never a function that it MUST be true. It simply means it isn’t proven false.
If it was presumption of guilt we would all be in jail for something because all it takes is an accusation that we then have to prove false. Someone like you would be in jail for killing JFK.
So lets go back to the evidence we have to work with. DeeDee’s account and Zimmerman’s account.
-You can choose to believe Martin said “why are you following me” or you could believe he said “you got a problem”.
-You can then choose to believe Zimmerman said: “what are you doing here” or “no I don’t have a problem”.
-You can then choose to believe Martin said “well you do now” or nothing was said.
-You can then choose to believe Martin said “get off, get off” (a little bit) or Zimmerman’s video that he was trying to push Martin off.
Here is where you have to look at it logically. Both accounts have Martin verbally challenging Zimmerman’s actions. The location of the confrontation requires that Martin approach Zimmerman or that Zimmerman quietly dragged Martin 300 feet without anyone hearing it. Since there is no evidence this happened such as marks on Martin or someone seeing/hearing it we are left with Zimmerman’s account.
So who said “get off”. If it was Martin one would expect it to be said louder than normal due to stress and the proximity to the microphone. It was heard faintly which indicates someone away from the microphone said it. This corresponds to Zimmerman’s video where he demonstrates he’s trying to fend off Martin. This video was made LONG before DeeDee’s account was given. He is also the only one showing any signs of contact.
If Zimmerman pulled a gun out at this point then it’s likely we would have heard some indication of it from Martin since he was still on he phone. If he fought for the gun at this point it wouldn’t involve getting on top of Zimmerman and causing the injuries to his head and face. The fight would be for the gun and the gun alone. He can’t do both. and if he tried to fight for the gun the result would have been the same without the beating. Zimmerman would have shot him standing up.
So to summarize, unless you have evidence that Zimmerman pulled the gun earlier than stated you need evidence of it or you’re just projecting your feelings of Zimmerman. But you might consider that the people who are currently defending Zimmerman have not expressed any love (or hatred) for him. I think I can speak for those people in that we don’t give a crap if he’s guilty or innocent. We care about the evidence and the law. If there is evidence that indicates his guilt we will gladly stand behind it.
MumblemumbleCHILDsomethingsomethingLIARmumblemumbleKHAKIS.
Jury deliberation: 7 hours, 48 minutes.
I stand corrected. As was the prosecutor, who than came up with the cockamamie theory that Trayvon was trying to retreat when he was shot. Not one speck of evidence for that. Just speculation.