None of this precludes Zimmerman following and regaining sight of Martin, or Martin going the wrong way (he was visiting – he didn’t live there, though he had visited before) and bumping into him, or some other scenario that didn’t involve Martin trying to follow Zimmerman. The evidence does not point to Martin following Zimmerman as more likely than the other way around or some other scenario – just that they got separated at one point, and then a few minutes later they encountered each other again (and there was a fight).
It really is reasonable to not be certain that Martin followed Zimmerman, and it really is reasonable to consider that Zimmerman might have followed Martin (especially when he already was following Martin, as he stated to the operator).
Martin might have been able to avoid the confrontation with Zimmerman. We don’t know, because we don’t have his testimony, because he’s dead. Zimmerman was definitely able to avoid the confrontation with Martin, because we know from his own testimony that he initiated the confrontation. And Zimmerman was the one with the gun, and therefore the greater responsibility for avoiding the confrontation.
Yes, we do know that Martin could have avoided the confrontation. We know from Dee Dee that Martin was right by his father’s house, and, instead of walking into the house he doubled back to find Zimmerman. We don’t need his testimony, we have what he said to Dee Dee, and we know the relative positions of where the fight took place, his father’s house, and the timelines of when he and Zimmerman had lost sight of each other. Martin could also have avoid the confrontation by not punching Zimmerman in the face, knocking him down, and pounding his head against the pavement. We also don’t need his testimony to establish that, because we have the witness, and the physical evidence of the mark on Martin’s knuckles, Zimmerman’s broken nose, the gashes on the back of Zimmerman’s head, and the grass stains and moisture on Zimmerman’s back and Martin’s knees.
Yes, the evidence does point that way. Martin was not lost - he was right by his father’s house. The fight did not occur right by his father’s house, therefore Martin must have gone back.
All of this is merely your interpretation. We don’t know what “right by” (or “close” or “nearby” meant in terms of distance – it could mean anything from 50 feet to half a mile or more. These can be (and often are) very vague indicators of distance.
All of your certainty rests on “right by” meaning an exact certain location. It might not mean exactly what you think it means. Zimmerman really might have followed Martin, or Martin really might have gotten turned around/lost (he could have even been wrong about where he was), or Dee Dee’s memory was off, or some other explanation.
I’m not certain about anything in this case, but I don’t know why you are so certain when it all rests on a specific interpretation of “right by” or similarly vague descriptive language.
Odd, then, isn’t it how you consistently cling to interpretations of events (no matter how farfetched) that paint Martin as an innocent victim? Can you link me to even one post you made where you extend the benefit of the doubt specifically to Zimmerman?
I haven’t clung to any interpretations, nor have I extended the benefit of the doubt to anyone. I’ve merely said that the evidence supports multiple possible scenarios, including ones in which Zimmerman was the aggressor as well as scenarios in which Martin was the aggressor.
Look, I don’t really care whether you think Martin, Zimmerman, or neither (my position), was in the right. What is getting really old, however, is you trying to portray yourself as the impartial observer. Nothing you have posted in this thread gives any indication that you are honestly impartial. It is difficult to want to talk to you when your posts are blatantly disingenuous.
It’s really possible to disagree on the interpretations of this evidence. We’re disagreeing on interpretation of the evidence, not the evidence or any other facts. It’s a fact that Dee Dee said that Martin said on the phone he was “close by”. That fact could be consistent with Martin being in many different locations, including locations consistent with scenarios in which Zimmerman continued following Martin.
If you’d just prefer to snark, then I suppose that’s par for the course, but I always like to deal with the thoughtful Shodan, who really puts effort into trying to understand the other guy’s point of view, when I’m able, as opposed to the Master of Snark (but not particularly thoughtful) Shodan.
I have noticed a tendency among conservatives, at the margins, to believe that there is only one reasonable interpretation of some less-than-definite phrase or piece of evidence. Liberals, by contrast and in general, seem more open to ambiguity.
Is this a thing, driven by other social psychological factors of the Jonathan Haidt variety? Or is this just my own confirmation bias?
If liberals interpret “Zimmerman might still have been following Martin even though he and Martin both said they had lost each other” or “right by his house could mean he was half a mile away even though the map shows that’s not possible” and you want to call that ambiguous, go ahead.
I’ve noticed tendency among both liberals and conservatives to find ambiguity when the facts seem to be against them and to find certainty when the facts seem to be on their side.
That’s not my argument – my argument is that it’s most likely that someone decided to re-engage the encounter after they lost each other (considering that they did meet again), unless they were just wandering around aimlessly and happened to bump into each other again, and that the evidence could be consistent with either one making that decision to go looking for the other (Zimmerman, of course, had already made a decision to follow Martin against the recommendation of the operator) – by “right by” the house, Martin could have been either mistaken about where he was or using “right by” to mean a 30 second, 2 minute, 5 minute, or 10 minute walk (or Dee Dee was wrong about what he said or when he said it) or other distance, all of which would be pretty normal uses of “right by” in common parlance, it being a particularly vague and ambiguous descriptor of location. Just possibilities, not certainties.
This is definitely a thing, but I think it’s different from what I’m talking about.
I’m talking about scenarios in which some predicate fact is known, but the conclusion is unknown. I’ve noticed a tendency for Personality Type 1 to have a fairly narrow range of what the predicate fact might entail, while Personality Type 2 is more willing to entertain other, perhaps less likely, possibilities. One way this plays out is that Type 1 people will simply deny that the fact has any predictive capacity if there isn’t a quite certain entailment.
I don’t think I’m wrong that these are two distinct personality types that play out regardless of whether the facts are good or bad for their positions. What I think I might be wrong about is whether the personalty types are actually distributed disparately by partisan leanings.
(FWIW, I think Zimmerman was properly acquitted, but because I think there is lots of room for doubt and not because I think it’s obvious that his story is true.)
I would expect Type 2 people to do the same thing - ‘just because both Zimmerman and Martin said they lost sight of each other doesn’t mean that Zimmerman wasn’t still following Martin’ or ‘just because the times on the phone calls shows the fight started a minute later doesn’t prove he wasn’t five minutes away’ or ‘just because Dee Dee said Martin was going into the back of his father’s house because ‘it mo’ easier’ doesn’t prove he knew where his father’s house was’ or ‘just because he let himself get beat on for a minute doesn’t prove he didn’t have the gun in his hand’ and so forth.
Of course it happens on the other side - ‘just because he was carrying a gun doesn’t show he was looking to kill someone’.
This part is the weirdest – I thought you said that Martin decided to turn around and go back to find Zimmerman. Why is that entirely possible, but the scenario that Zimmerman decided to keep looking for Martin is not? I get that you think you know exactly where Martin was at the time (I don’t share your certainty), but why are you so sure Zimmerman wasn’t continuing to look for Martin?
Once you leave out the partisan leanings part of it, the observation becomes trivial. You can divide people into two types WRT virtually any human characteristic. (Although, as I once heard, there are two types of people, those who believe you can divide people into two types and those who believe you can’t. )
There are different parts of Zimmerman’s story with varying degrees of certainty. The question is how likely the crucial parts of his story - crucial in that they would suffice to acquit him - are.
)