Or by evidence, apparently.
Regards,
Shodan
I know what to expect, but he’ll simply avoid the question. I contend there is no reason to believe that Trayvon Martin attacked George Zimmerman. I have yet to hear anyone, anywhere off an explanation for this. Everyone seems to assume it is just natural for a teenager to attack a strange man he thinks is following him. It is not. Self defense has nothing to do with it.
It is very easy to prove me wrong. Show me a cite for a case of a teenager attacking a strange man who was following him. Tell me an anecdote about how you attacked a strange man who was following you, when you were a teenager. Or tell me an anecdote about a teenager who considered you a stranger and attacked you when you followed him, when you were an adult.
You have yet to demonstrate to my satisfaction why Trayvon would attack Zimmerman unprovoked.
There are processes put in place, like voir dire and “challenge for cause”, that are meant to ensure this. It doesn’t always work 100% - some juries are flat out stupid - but one usually doesn’t conclude that a jury is biased unless you can point to some obvious piece of evidence that they ignored in order to find a verdict.
No, that’s actually incorrect. The whole point of the trial was to determine if Zimmerman was guilty of not following the law, or not guilty. They found him not guilty. So Zimmerman is not guilty of failing to follow the law. The same logic doesn’t apply to both - Zimmerman was the one on trial, and the jury found that he was not guilty. Martin was not on trial - so it was determined neither that he broke the law, nor that he kept it. That subject can still be speculated about. Zimmerman’s guilt - not so much, unless you can come up with some new evidence usable either in a court of law, or in the court of public opinion.
I haven’t seen any new evidence, just a lot of misrepresentation of old evidence.
Regards,
Shodan
Whether or not a person is found guilty does not determine what actually happened. I know what the result of the trial was. That is not a matter of contention. What actually happened is, and no one so far has offered a rational explanation for why Trayvon Martin would have attacked George Zimmerman. You are doing the misrepresentation in your posts by claiming that the outcome of a trial determines what happened in the past.
OK, let me lay it out in a bit more detail:
There is evidence that Trayvon did not follow the law: Zimmerman’s broken nose, and Zimmerman’s testimony as to the cause of that broken nose.
We know to a reasonable degree of certainty that the broken nose preceded the dead teenager, and was caused by the teenager before he died.
And Zimmerman’s evidence says that in response to the broken nose, he feared serious bodily injury and used deadly force.
So that evidence addresses the dead teenager. If believed, it exonerates Zimmerman from criminal liability for the dead teenager.
So when you say there’s evidence that Zimmerman broke the law: dead teenager – that’s not a complete statement. Not every dead teenager is the end result of a broken law. Teenagers can be killed by people acting legally. There was evidence to indicate that Zimmerman was such a person.
How do you think Zimmerman’s injuries came to exist?
And yet he’s still an amoral asshole.
No, it doesn’t.
Trayvon hit Zimmerman, after which Zimmerman killed Trayvon. We have evidence for the first propositon (witness Gold, Zimmerman’s injuries, Zimmerman’s own testimony). And we have evidence for the second (ME report, ballistics report, Zimmerman’s own testimony).
What evidence do we have for any illegal act before that?
Using your logic that Zimmerman’s injuries were evidence of a crime then Martin’s death is also evidence of a crime.
Zimmerman’s injuries came from Martin after Zimmerman gave Martin a reason to fear for his life. Which would have meant at a minimum Zimmerman assaulted Martin and could no longer use self-defense as an excuse. Zimmerman in a recorded phone converstation stated his belief that Martin was a criminal, even though there was no basis for that. That is sufficient reason to believe that Zimmerman assaulted Martin. There is no reason to believe that Martin assaulted Zimmerman.
You have access to court cases. Find me the one where a teenager attacked a strange man who was following him.
From a legal standpoint, of course, you’re factually wrong.
If Zimmerman were on trial for assaulting Martin, and the only evidence you had was that in a recorded phone conversation Zimmerman stated his belief that Martin was a criminal, that would be insufficient to convict him.
If Zimmerman were being sued by Martin for assault in a civil case, and the only evidence you had was that in a recorded phone conversation Zimmerman stated his belief that Martin was a criminal, that would be insufficient to find him liable.
So no: that is NOT sufficient reason to believe Zimmerman assaulted Martin. But Zimmerman’s injuries ARE legally sufficient to conclude that Martin assaulted him.
That’s the difference.
The lesson here kids, is after you’ve hounded someone into reacting out of fear, make sure you kill them so there’s no messy conflicting testimony.
You are wrong. The hole in Martin’s heart is sufficient evidence to conclude that Zimmerman assaulted Martin and followed it up by murdering him. You have not provided any distinction. The jury may have believed that Zimmerman did not assault Martin, but the evidence does not show that is a rational conclusion.
Surely in this alternate universe we’d also have Martins testimony that Zimmerman assaulted him first. Would not this testimony + recorded conversation be legally sufficient?
I’m assuming that most people defending Martin are assuming that, if he were able, he’d give testimony about the confrontation that contradicted Zimmerman’s.
In the court of public opinion I see no reason not to discount the self-serving testimony of the survivor of a confrontation; or alternatively to assume that the deceased would have his own self-serving testimony.
How, specifically?
The hole proves Zimmerman shot Martin. In what way does it prove any prior assault?
Be specific. How?
It is, because there’s no evidence in the record of such an assault. Who testified to it? What physical evidence supports it?
There has to be evidence of some kind. What is it?
Oh, absolutely. If Martin testified that Zimmerman assaulted him first, THAT would be sufficient evidence.
If they are, then they are making an error – the law does not permit you in this instance to assume that if someone were alive, they’d say such-and-so.
If we’re talking about public opinion concerning what actually happened, sure. if we’re talking about public opinion of the jury’s verdict, then no; public opinion doesn’t magically erase the legal rules under which the jury operated.
This is why I said:
If we’re no longer speaking of the legal framework, then, sure, you can say whatever you please. Zimmerman was the reincarnated spirit of Nathan Bedford Forrest, if you like.
Where is the evidence that Trayvon assaulted Zimmerman? Injuries to either party do not tell you who started the fight. There is a reason to believe Zimmerman assaulted Martin, he had determined without basis that Martin was a criminal and that he wanted to take action as a result. There is no basis for which to believe Martin assaulted Zimmerman.
The only evidence we have that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman is Zimmerman’s word. With Zimmerman’s aggressive actions that night (chasing Trayvon, etc…), I personally do not find his testimony in this matter to be credible. Regardless of this opinion, I agree that once the confrontation became physical, Zimmerman was within his rights to shoot Trayvon. BUT, Trayvon was also within his rights to shoot Zimmerman, (or punch Zimmerman and bash his head into the curb) IF Zimmerman was the first to use physical force in the confrontation. Bricker / Shodan, do you agree?
Trayvon had no duty to retreat from Zimmerman’s harassment and intimidation even though he initially tried to escape him.
This whole fucking thing is a mess as we do not have any witness to how this confrontation became physical with the exception of Zimmerman. Personally, I believe he needs to be given the benefit of the doubt here (innocent until proven guilty), but the whole thing stinks to high heaven. It is entirely possible (maybe even probable given George’s proclivities) that Zimmerman physically confronted Trayvon and Trayvon struck back, in which case Trayvon DID NOTHING WRONG…
Bull shit, the only thing determined at that trial was that there was not sufficient evidence to find Zimmerman guilty; there was nothing said about the guilt of Trayvon.
This is what is pissing me off on your stance, we have found at the trial that Zimmerman obeyed the law, he was found innocent by a jury of his peers. This says ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOTHING about whether Trayvon did anything wrong that night. No jury has been asked to examine the evidence of whether Trayvon committed any crime. Right?
No. But in this case, we know the order in which the injuries were received: first the broken nose, then the shot to the chest. That places Martin’s attack on Zimmerman first.
Now, if you wish to postulate an even earlier attack by Zimmerman upon Marin, you must have the evidence. What is it?
From a legal standpoint that is not evidence. Again I point out to you that if Zimmerman were on trial for assaulting Martin, you must surely understand that you could not convict him if your only evidence were, “Well, Zimmerman had determined without basis that Martin was a criminal and that he wanted to take action as a result.” You’d have to show by some physical or testimonial evidence that such an action actually happened. You could not convict Zimmerman of assault if your only evidence was that Zimmerman had determined without basis that Martin was a criminal and that he wanted to take action as a result.
Could you?