And I wish you would call out Magiver for framing Martin’s death as a tragedy that could have been prevented if hadn’t taken been so reckless and danger-seeking as to simply be outdoors talking to his gf.
Meanwhile, Zimmerman’s conduct is excused becaused he was obviously just trying to keep an eye on the kid, on the grounds that it’s not illegal to do that.
But I’m the one who is supposedly framing the issue wrong because I never lose sight that it’s Zimmerman who is on trial for wrongdoing. Not Martin.
When you talk about facts the only one we know for sure is that Martin was seen beating Zimmerman. All the physical evidence backs this up. There is no evidence that Martin had to fear Zimmerman prior to the fight. He was not threatened.
That statement makes absolutely no sense. there is no indication that Zimmerman started the fight. If you’re promoting the idea that Martin had a right to strike Zimmerman first that is pure legal nonsense.
The claim on the table seems to be that if somebody is visibly intoxicated, it’s normally the result of “heavy drugs” which apparently does not include alcohol or marijuana.
. I framed it that both parties could have avoided it with dialogue but you ignored that. Martin could have further prevented it by not beating the fuck out of Zimmerman. About the only way you can apparently understand that is if someone pounds that into your head Martin style.
Yes, that’s correct. Zimmerman did nothing that warranted a fight. All we know is that Martin was beating him up.
And I pointed out that Martin would have been on trial for the beating had the police arrived before he was shot. Your logic is flawed with emotion and not the facts. What is needed to convict Zimmerman of anything is to prove that he wasn’t in fear of his life or that he started the fight.
You. Cannot. Detect. The. Effects. Of. A. Small. Amount. Of. Marijuana. By. Observing. The . User. Simply. Walking. At. Night.
I can’t make it any simpler. Close-up, in good light, you might notice some redness in the eyes. But you still wouldn’t know if they had smoked marijuana or if they had been crying or if they had allergies.
The thing is that this is the IMHO forum, and the thread title specifically calls for opinions and speculation. IOW, it’s about as diametrically opposed to what happens in a court of law as you can get.
There’s nothing wrong with some people also speculating and stating their opinions about how the legal process will play out, but that is not the only thing being discussed in this thread, and there are no evidence standards or burden of proof here. Insisting that the conversation in this thread meet any such legal standards is kind of silly - people are mostly all just spit-balling here.
Even if all the evidence that exists were currently available to us, which it obviously isn’t, the only (living) person in the world that knows --and will ever know-- the whole truth is George Zimmerman. Since we can never know if we know all that he knows, we’re left to draw whatever inferences we can from what we do know. The court will decide what it decides, and that’s the best our system of justice can provide, but lets not pretend to expect that it will provide the whole truth.
I’ll hazard to guess that most of the people here who believe that GZ deserves blame and scorn for what happened, also don’t expect that he will be convicted of any substantive charges. The outcome of the trial is not the point (or at least the whole point), a lot of us are here to gain and share insight into what we think happened, and to serve up our measure of blame and scorn, since that’s likely to be the most significant “punishment” that GZ ever receives for what he did. (at least IMHO)
Perhaps a poll is in order, because I’d be interested to hear how many people think that GZ will be convicted of manslaughter or greater. I doubt there are that many who do. If anybody wants to do the poll, feel free, because I’m not in the mood.
As I said before, I will reserve judgment on this issue. It seems to me that if a person is legally intoxicated (in some jurisdictions anyway), then it’s not outrageous to think that their gait and body language might be noticeably affected.
I’m not seeing how all of the injuries, that I knew of before I just read about “scratches” on Z’s forehead, aren’t consistent with a punch in the nose that knocked him down. (Looking like a raccoon, two black eyes, is extremely common after a nose job . . . and plastic surgeons use more delicate instruments than their fists to break your nose.)
That the injuries are more consistent with a single blow and not “beating the fuck out of” won’t slow anyone down I fear.
Nope nothing new there!
Someone remind me, has Zimmerman being chased by Martin or Zimmerman chasing Martin been part of anyone’s version of what happened that night?
Guess I’ve missed a whole lot more than I thought.
I mean, walking behind peoples houses is a whole lot more incriminating than how long it takes to pay a cashier because you might be high . . . but, why haven’t I seen anyone mention this piece of [del]bullshit[/del] “evidence” before?
Well, it sure as shit ain’t a court of law. And it’s not even GQ or GD. It is still the SDMB though, so if someone says something that doesn’t match the known facts, they will be (and are being) called on it, and rightly so. But not all the knowable facts are currently known, and there are a plethora of unknowable facts that will never be known. People are filling in the blanks with opinions and speculation.
Go back and read your post that I was replying to. Do you really think the standard your espousing there is reasonable for this particular venue? Do you really think that this thread should, or even can, match the processes of a court of law?
Now go back and read YwtF’s post that you were responding to there. IMO, you’re talking past each other, because she (right?) starts her post with the phrase “Some would see” which implies that what follows isn’t what a court of law would see, more like what the court of public opinion would see. Both the real court and the IMHO court should be based on facts, but no, the processes and outcomes aren’t/shouldn’t/won’t be the same.
Look, I’m not trying to stifle any legal expertise and opinions you and others are contributing to the thread, because I do actually appreciate that angle. All I’m saying is that, IMO, not everybody here is talking about what will happen in a court of law. Some people are only talking about what they think happened on the night a teenager coming home with a snack got killed by a guy on his way to Target, and just trying to make sense of the senseless.
Well, if all we’re doing is talking and throwing our ideas out there willy nilly, then will you agree not to challenge what anyone says in the future because, hey, it’s just their opinion and all?
And if you’re not, what standard do we use to determine what is challengeable and what is not?
Since this is the general opinion thread, here’s my take:
I am completely flummoxed why anybody outside of local law enforcement and the friends and family of those involved would care about this case. I’m flabbergasted at the amount of attention it has drawn, especially here at the SDMB. We’re at, what, over 5,000 posts in multiple threads about this case?
Anyway, that’s all. You can go back to your regularly-scheduled discussion.
