If you don’t trust the medical examiner’s ability to measure a body, are there any other things that the medical examiner said that you do trust?
No, but it was banning-worthy.
Yes we do. We have no evidence that Zimmerman assaulted Martin at all. We have physical evidence and eyewitness testimony that Martin assaulted Zimmerman.
No, we don’t know that for sure.
No, he does not. It is not reasonable to expect to be attacked when stepping out of your truck. Therefore, it is not reckless or irresponsible to step out of your truck, and you do not incur moral guilt for having done so.
Suppose Zimmerman did not have his gun with him that night, but everything was the same. Would it then have been morally OK for him to leave his truck? If he had, then Martin would been able to inflict further serious injury on Zimmerman, or kill him. Then Zimmerman would not have had the means to defend himself, and therefore would possibly have been killed.
So your implication seems to be that, because Zimmerman had the means to prevent Martin from injuring or killing him, he should not be allowed to defend himself. Even if he was seriously injured or killed.
There is no evidence that Zimmerman got out of his truck for any other reason than to find a house number or street name, so as to meet up with the police. He did not have his gun in his hand when Martin attacked him. IOW there is no reason to believe that Zimmerman, in getting out of his truck and being attacked, was acting in any way that he would not have done if he had not been armed. Statements to the contrary are conjecture, backed up by no evidence at all.
The standard is “damned if you do, damned if you don’t”. If you need the gun and don’t have it, you get your head smashed in. If you need the gun and do have it, you are morally culpable for not letting someone smash your head in.
Regards,
Shodan
And if you stay home and don’t act like a wannabe cop, you don’t get into situations like that. If you follow Neighborhood Watch regulations, you don’t get into situations like that. If you don’t decide it’s your sacred duty to PERTECT YER TERRITRY! you don’t get in situations like that.
It’s strange. I’m a white, middle-aged, pudgy male and yet I’ve never once had any kind of confrontation with an African-American man, teenager or otherwise. Wonder how I managed to be so lucky?
Something for which we have absolutely no evidence whatsoever outside of the liars assertion. The fact that Zimmerman had two lacerations on the back of his head does not indicate that someone, anyone picked up his head and smashed it into the ground. We also have absolutely no evidence whatsoever, other than the liar’s assertion, about exactly when the gun was produced. At whatever point the gun was produced, or at whatever point Zimmerman threatened use of the gun, Martin was then free to use whatever force could muster to protect himself from Zimmerman’s gun.
What evidence shows that I am wrong about what, exactly? Because the general consensus is not that Zimmermans story is true, the general consensus is that there is so little evidence it is difficult to ascertain what is true. So what is it that you are absolutely certain of, based on the evidence?
And I have to say it is amusing to see how offended you are by anybody else’s certainty. At least I have the decency to own it as my certainty as opposed to your righteousness about your omniscience. Which is, of course, the reason you become so offended: how dare I be certain when you know all?
Here you go. Fact is, they were wrong. Plus we don’t have any idea which segment of the Martin family said that. It could have been his third cousin Steve from Albuquerque who hadn’t seen him since 2004, or whatever.
Coffee recapitulates phylogeny.
Do you prefer “Latino”?
Of course, neither term really applies to actual Spaniards.
So from this should we take it that your opinion is also that Zimmerman’s report of the altercation and who did what is true, or close enough? Whether he could be proved guilty under the law is not my question… I am asking if you believe his story. And if you do believe the story, can you tell me why? Especially the parts about the smothering smashing gun grabbing arm spreading he didn’t know he hit him… Do you believe all that?
And if by chance you do not believe all and you believe something else, perhaps that Zimmerman is lying about all of that because he really did kill Martin unjustly, then that would mean you believe he’s legally guilty as well, you just don’t think it can be proved. Could that be true?
And you know we have no evidence for that how? Did you follow the trial? Of course not, you couldn’t be bothered because you already knew the answers…
There are multiple experts who testified that those wounds were consistent with his story. We do not have to believe him for his own sake, we have to believe him because the evidence shows it’s true.
Go watch the fucking trial. The one with all the evidence that showed he was not guilty of murder. The one that proved you utterly, completely, 100% wrong.
I’m not offended by your certainty. I’m offended by you spreading your ignorance everywhere, by you insulting those who have repeatedly shown how wrong you are, and how stupid you are, and how you have no basis for any certainty about what happened because YOU KEEP IGNORING THE FUCKING EVIDENCE.
I do not know all, but I know a fuckload more than you. Because, unlike you, I actually pay attention to the facts of this case, and the law involved, and I do my best not to let any prejudice get in the way.
TL;DR - I’m not offended by your certainty, but by your stupidity.
I absolutely believe his guilt cannot be legally proved.
If you want my speculation on the events, I can give it. Utterly meaningless in any context except chatting about what might have happened…
I think Zimmerman got out of the vehicle in order to follow Martin to ensure he didn’t get away. I believe him when he says he didn’t know what address he was near. I believe he entered the cut-through to find Martin, that Martin hid and Zimmerman passed him, then Martin emerged from hiding and Zimmerman reversed direction, and they came face to face.
I think that Zimmerman asked him what he was doing in the neighborhood, and did so in a very accusatory and insulting way. I think Martin took offense and shoved Zimmerman, Zimmerman shoved back, and then Martin punched Zimmerman, breaking his nose and knocking him down. At that point I believe Zimmerman began screaming for help and Martin began shoving him – not by the head but by the shoulders – in an effort to get him to stop shrieking. This caused the lacerations on the back of his skull. Zimmerman then worked the gun free and shot at martin. This is consistent with the expert testimony about both the distance from which the gun was fired, and the expert testimony that showed that the bullet hole in Martin’s clothes proved that Martin was not on his back or standing straight up when shot, but rather was leaning far forward.
I believe Martin then rolled back off Zimmerman, and Zimmerman did not realize instantly that his shot had hit, since martin was still able to speak. This comes from the expert testimony about the pericardial sac filling with blood and the amount of time that took.
That’s my opinion. Because it can’t be proved, it’s meaningless except as interesting conversation fodder.
No, the evidence shows reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case (if we accept the jury’s verdict). That’s a far, far cry from saying that the defense’s story is true.
See above. The prosecution failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s far from saying Zimmerman is innocent of any wrongdoing.
We have evidence Martin struck Zimmerman; we do not know for sure who initiated the altercation. It is entirely possible Zimmerman grabbed or shoved Martin first. You don’t know, and you never will know, for sure. Accept it.
But in fact, we DO know this (that Zimmerman erroneously assumed Martin was a criminal, and went after him on that assumption) with near certainty,** because George Zimmerman said so.** It is a fact - we have it on tape, and he admits to it - that Zimmerman believed Martin was a prowler, a criminal of some sort who was up to nefarious work. It is a fact that Martin was not, and that he was merely returning from the store to the place he was staying. You know these facts to be true.
Zimmerman’s error was, of course, not a crime. But it was an error. I don’t know why you’re so weirdly stubborn about acknowledging facts that even Zimmerman himself acknowledges.
Indeed, I would agree people who merely step out of vehicles should not be attacked, but that wasn’t what I said Zimmerman did wrong.
You’re asking a falsely misleading question by stating his act as simply “leaving his truck.” I certainly would not see any moral problems had he “left his truck” when he got home, thinking “huh, that black guy I saw didn’t have a raincoat, I hope he doesn’t get too wet before he gets back to his place.” Which is what I would have done.
Let me put it more accurately; suppose Zimmerman had been unarmed. Would he still have been wrong to assume Martin was a criminal, and go chasing after him, against the advice of the 911 dispatcher, with a baseless suspicion? Yes, that would have been stupid and wrong. His assumption would have been wrong, and his actions pointless and reckless.
Does his being armed ADD to his moral culpability? Why, I believe it does, yes. A person who elects to arm themselves assumes greater moral responsibility for the consequences thereof. But that is just my opinion.
That certainly is quite possible, and would have been an awful thing.
No, I’m sorry, but you’re wrong, I am saying nothing of the sort.
No, we don’t. We know Zimmerman thought he was suspicious. The “fact” that he thought Martin was a criminal is an invention of yours.
What prosecution evidence contradicted Zimmerman’s story?
See, here’s the point you seem to constantly miss. If Zimmerman testifies that he shot Martin while Martin was on top of him, you don’t have to believe him.
But you are not permitted to say, “Since I don’t believe Zimmerman, I will conclude that the shot hit Martin while Martin was standing straight up.”
Do you understand that distinction? In order to conclude that the shot hit Martin while Martin was standing straight up, some piece of evidence must say so.
What piece does?
No, it shows it could be true, especially if you assume he exaggerated, since someone who had their head bashed into concrete repeatedly would have more than a couple of little lacerations.
It’s kind of cool the way you can be so forcefully vague. Because of course the trial did not prove that I was 100% wrong at all, and it did not prove that Zimmerman’s story of defending himself was true. The only thing the trial actually “proved” was that there were enough questions in the minds of the jurors to lead them to have reasonable doubts. That’s all. That you cannot distinguish between the jurors having doubts and having anything else, positive or negative proved to be 100% anything, is not surprising.
Yes!!Exactly as I said: you are offended, insulted, that I have the gall to be certain about anything when you are The Giver Of Truth. How dare I? :D:cool:
You are confused: I ignore *your interpretation *of the evidence, not the evidence itself. Again, I recognize that you are incapable of discerning the difference, but that is your burden, not mine.
? I’m not concluding anything in particular.
Exactly right. So neither. White Spaniard is fine – even if we’ve gone through the ‘color scheme bullshit’ enough times here guess we have to play. I don’t see what more “ethnic” divisions they need.
BTW, I never applied to any school or job as a minority while Stateside for 20 years – simply because I am not.
He explicitly referred to Martin as being one of the “fucking punks” and how “those assholes always get away with it.”
So yeah, he pretty clearly believed Martin was a criminal unless you think that he wasn’t referring to prowlers when he referred to “fucking punks” and the “assholes” who “always get away.”
Speaking of which, since members of Team Zimmerman(and here I’m not referring to any posters here) have long claimed that there’d been eight burglaries committed by black males in the neighborhood in the past two years, how could they know ALL of the burglars were “black” if they “always” got away.
Were all the burglaries recorded or did all of them have eyewitnesses?
Thanks for the response and I know how you feel at the end. I’ve had plenty of well-meaning people compliment me on how well I speak English, particularly without an accent. I always say, “thanks, but I’ve lived here since I was two.”
My father on the other hand still sounds like he’s fresh off the boat.