Psst…darlink…this had nothing to do with SYG.
Actually, depends on the issue. If there are only two possibilities, you don’t believe him about possiblity A, Possibility B must be true.
It’s just rare that there are only two possibilities.
Except of course, that’s not a fact. At least not a a fact that’s been proven conclusively by evidence. You believe it is a fact. Which of course means, in your world, that it is immutable truth. But as ever, that is your personal burden, not reality.
That may be ok in the real world, but not in court. You would still have to prove B.
No, it’s an observable fact. I observe it using my ears, listening to the tape recording of the call. Prior to the dispatcher advising him not to follow, you can hear wind noise and heavy breathing. After that, you can’t. He stopped, and we can observe it as clearly as if we had video of it. Belief is irrelevant, it remains a fact regardless of your, or my, belief.
That you continue to ignore the evidence doesn’t surprise me, but it does make your beliefs, and your claim it’s not proven, false.
Sadly, individual jury embers’ stories confirm this to be a deciding point.
Even disregarding that GZ initiated it all and behaved aggressively there is no sufficient evidence that use of gun was justified. Evidence as in conclusive – of course, provided that running away is not an option when you provoke someone and that someone knows how to throw a punch. Which leads me to horrible misuse of SYG – I’ll take your ground and then defend it as if it was mine.
Oh he knows. The writers and producers know. They are playing to their audience, the retards that refuse to look at evidence and only see race.
I have seen no facts proving the deceased acted in a rash manner prior to the shooting.
There is a large amount of evidence showing Zimmerman was acting in a very rash manner.
As such, I am of the opinion that it is more likely that Zimmerman was at fault than the deceased.
No, but ya know, maybe she wants to buy some extra junk food or a souvenir?
I’Il pay admissions…
The quote that I heard from that juror that blew me away was (paraphrased): “I think Zimmerman went too far, but I believe he’s learned his lesson.”
At this point I’d like to formally thank Trayvon Martin’s rotting corpse for helping to teach poor Zimmie a valuable lesson.
Everything so far coming from the jury confirms what I’ve been thinking: the crazy SYGF law has nothing to do with this verdict.
Really? You don’t think punching and beating Zimmerman counts as “rash”?
Oh? It wasn’t presented at the trial, then, and hasn’t been made available to the general public. Perhaps you’d be so good as to share this secret evidence.
Given your opinion is based on a complete misunderstanding of the facts and the evidence, it’s entirely worthless.
The quote in my post #509 says otherwise.
From the quote cited in post #509.
No, and I’ve outlined why above. Here, let me repeat:
"We know that Martin called his girlfriend. She says that he told her “a man was watching him”, that he turned around and said “what are you following me for”, that she heard zimmerman ask “what you doing around here?”, and then the phone was dropped or otherwise stopped mid call. A few seconds later Zimmerman shot Martin.
If you turn to someone following you to tell them to back off, and they show a gun, you could well assume they intend you no good. Depending on the range between you, going at them as hard as possible could well be a much better self defence move then turning and running. The latter just gives them an exercise in target practice."
In short, just the fact that Zimmerman was punched does not prove rash action on Martin’s part.
Whereas we know quite a bit about Zimmerman’s behaviour up to the shooting. He decided that Martin was suspicious because “he was just walking casually”. Having reached that conclusion and called the police, he then ignored the advice that there was no need for him to follow him on foot. He admits that he did not identify himself as Neighbourhood watch.
So all in all, I see far more evidence that Zimmerman was acting in a rash manner than Martin.
No, he didn’t.
When you stop repeating this error, it might be possible to take the rest of your argument seriously.
If some people in that jury walked out of deliberations thinking that poor Georgie has suffered enough already, then we can safely say a conviction was never in the cards. It doesn’t matter how the law is written. We are tallking about attitudes and biases that were brought into the courtroom and influenced how the jury looked at the evidence.
The timeline is a matter of record.
7:09:34 - 7:13:41 — George Zimmerman calls the Sanford Police Department (SPD) from his truck; total time of the call is 4 minutes 7 seconds.[13]
7:11:33 — Zimmerman tells the police dispatcher that Trayvon Martin is running.
7:11:59 — In reply to the dispatcher’s question, “Are you following him?” Zimmerman responds with, “Yes.” Dispatcher: “OK, we don’t need you to do that.” Zimmerman: “OK.”
7:12:00 - 7:12:59 — The girl calls Martin again at some point during this minute.[14]
7:13:10 — Zimmerman says he does not know Martin’s location.
7:13:41 — The end of Zimmerman’s call to Sanford police.[14]
7:16:00 - 7:16:59 — Martin’s call from the girl goes dead during this minute.[14][15]
7:16:11 — First 911 call from witness about a fight, calls for help heard.[16]
7:16:55 — Gunshot heard on 911 call.[17]
So, let me guess which straw you’ll cling to here? Being told that “we don’t need you to do that” isn’t advice to stop doing something. Or that despite this advice coming 145 seconds after he left the truck, somehow 240 seconds wasn’t enough time for him to return.
I note of course you’ve only queried one point from my statement above. Should I assume you accept he was rash not to identify himself as neighbourhood watch, and rash to conclude that someone was up to no good because they were “walking casually”. Or that hitting someone may be a wise thing to do if you see they have a gun?
Not even then. You have to have positive evidence in the record to support any findings of fact.
Let’s distill things to their simplest form: The state of North Brickerota has a law forbidding screaming between midnight and 6:00 AM. Carl is on trial for violation of that law.
The arresting officer is the only prosecution witness. He testifies that he arrested Carl because he stopped Carl at 2:00 AM and asked him if he had been screaming, and Carl denied it…but he did so very unconvincingly. The officer never testifies that he heard anyone screaming.
Carl is the only defense witness. He denies screaming. He also says the officer beat him, despite having no injuries, and he claims that he was out for a jog, even though he was sixty miles from his home.
Now, there are only two possibilities: either he screamed, or he didn’t. You’re the finder of fact. You are convinced that Carl is a liar.
Can Carl be convicted on that record?
This is the best summary of ‘what might really have happened’ that I’ve seen. None of it requires any lie on Z’s part, merely his glossing over this: “I think Martin took offense and shoved Zimmerman, Zimmerman shoved back, and then Martin punched Zimmerman”. Z’s story, when he had no idea what evidence would turn up, nevertheless is corroborated by every bit of evidence that did turn up. The only reasonable conclusion is that his story is almost entirely the truth, and he lied or glossed over (if he actually did) only one tiny detail where he realized (after the fact) that he had screwed up. I don’t know if that detail would make him guilty, legally, but it’s about the only point in his story where ‘deliberate lie or gloss’ is more plausible than ‘misremembering a traumatic and chaotic situation’.
Thanks, Bricker.
Note: In Bricker’s scenario, Martin panicked due to Zimmerman’s screaming. It doesn’t even require Martin to have been a wannabe thug, just a scared teenager who suddenly found himself in over his head. And a Zimmerman discovering the same thing, at the same time. In other words, a stupid, senseless tragedy all around.
Note 2: I realize that the post I’m responding to is over 24 hours old, in a fast moving thread that I just got back to now, but I feel compelled to respond, anyway. Sorry if what I said has already been said.
Hmmm. I’d have to think longer than I have available right now, just because of all the other stuff thrown in.
But simplifying…if the officer heard a scream, (court officer, we assume truth…stupidly, but we do) only two humans were within the area where the screams occurred, (I know… play along) human A says it was not him, human b says it was not him. Someone screamed, because we believe the cop. Human A comes across as a lying fuck. Human B comes across as deeply sincere. I disbelieve A and vote to convict. No?
(I’m in a mad rush)