Zimmerman took out a restraining order on the ex-girlfriend, too. It was mutual. And eventually it went away.
Still waiting for how this proves your scenario.
Um…my post didn’t say anything about a 4-minute head start.
Then answer the question.
If it’s only about race, what is the source of passion on the other side?
This, right here, is proof (were it needed) that you do not understand the nature of guilt and innocence, the nature of evidence and proof, and the workings of the justice system.
An arrest is not proof of guilt. A charge is not proof of guilt. A restraining order is not proof of anything.
That he was never convicted means, as far as the law is concerned, he is innocent. With your disgusting “no smoke without fire” attitude and wish that Zimmerman be punished for doing nothing more than upsetting you, you are displaying the very behaviour you (falsely) see him having done, and so strongly criticise him for.
You are suspicious of him without reason, as everything that was suspicious has been deemed by the investigators as nothing, and you think Zimmerman is a murderer because he had false suspicions about Martin.
You think Zimmerman should be punished solely because he falls short of your personal standards, despite the fact that you know full well there is insufficient evidence to convict him, and this despite criticising Zimmerman for taking the law into his own hands.
Hypocrite.
For me, it’s the fact that the state has failed to prove their case, and the fact that Zimmerman is being railroaded as some “racist vigilante”, when neither have been proven. Our justice system is built on the “innocent until proven guilty” mantra, but there seem to be a lot of people on “Travon’s side” who assume it’s either “guilty until proven innocent” or that “the ‘White’ guy should get it”. And, really. That irks me.
all this fucking arguing - and everyone here appears to miss the fact that the juror’s have asked for additional clarification on manslaughter -
sounds like they do not entirely buy the defense’s claim of self defense.
What? I know for sure he’s guilty, to the extent that anyone can feel certain enough about something to feel comfortable convicting them. Seeing as how I am not the Omniscient God Almighty there is always the possibility that I am wrong, but I am ok with that because I don’t believe that there is enough of one to stop me from voting to convict. aka “reasonable doubt” - none for me.
You know for sure he’s not. Which has nothing to do with what I think, that’s about you. Except that of course, I do believe you are wrong in your certainty.
That I can see how something is reasonable for you, as you have presented your thought processes, has zero effect on my view of the facts and evidence. You have arrived at your beliefs by traveling through a landscape that makes sense to you, accepting and rejecting things that make sense to you.
So? My mind works very differently than yours, my reasoning processes are very different than yours. I accept and reject things differently than you.
I can accept that we are both generally reasonable people and still arrive at completely different answers, and that fact doesn’t cause me to question my answer at all, because my answer isn’t dependent on considering your answer, it’s dependent on my evaluation of the facts that I’ve been given. If you had shown me a reasoning process that I related to as being like my own, then I would consider your conclusion as possibly calling mine into question. But it isn’t, so I wouldn’t.
As much as you want to believe it, Steophan, there is very little in this world that can be conclusively stated as the Only Complete Immutable Truth, so you can be a generally intelligent person with decent reasoning abilities, and so can I and we can still find ourselves with very different answers to the same question. It happens billions of times a day. If the world worked the way you want it to, there would never be any conflicts of any kind. Which would be great, if it were true.
It wasn’t missed.
Take it for what it’s worth, but over on HLN they were (turned it off after the two Black people started arguing) speculating that it was the lady from Chicago who asked for clarification, and that it’s 5 - 1 for.
Again, take it with a grain of salt.
5-1 for conviction, or acquittal?
I have a question.
You’ve said, IIRC, that even if you were to learn Zimmerman did nothing initially except say, “What are you doing here?” and Martin then punched him, rode him to the ground, and Zimmerman shot him, that you’d be comfortable voting guilty. Is my recollection accurate?
If not, apologies. If it is, my question is: let’s assume the intent of the Florida legislature was to make incidents like that not be a crime on the part of the shooter. What kind of language might they draft to accomplish that goal?
And how would it differ from the current law?
They were saying that it’s 5 for acquittal and 1 for conviction, and that the lone holdout is likely the woman from Chicago. Again, take it with a grain of salt, as I don’t know how they would know that.
But last I saw on HLN, they were having a shouting match or something.
No, wait. They’re still going. The chick who looks like Mrs. Cleo is crazy.
The scuttlebutt right now is that there’s been an interview with neighbor Frank(?), who says he “has it on very good authority” that the jury was 5/1 for acquit. Insinuating a leak from inside the jury room.
But, realistically, I’d take that with a pound of salt.
Shall we reopen the discussion of facts vs. inference (including adverse) vs. speculation? Circumstantial evidence demands inference.
I can definitely infer, based on the time, the evidence of travel, the debris field, etc. that the incident did not go:
[ul]
[li]Martin punches Zimmerman once at the T, knocks him down.[/li]
[li]Martin continues to pummel Zimmerman, who does absolutely nothing except perhaps roll a few times.[/li]
[li]Zimmerman continues to do nothing at all while Martin bashes his head, smothers him, punches him, and reaches for his gun, at which point Zimmerman suddenly overwpoers Martin from beneath him, holds his arms back, reaches for his gun between himself and martin’s leg which is in his armpit, pulls it out and shoots.[/li][/ul]
So what reasonable inferences can we make about what did happen between “Why are you following me?” and BANG!
Supposedly Zimmerman took a beating, his injuries AND the very minor single injury on Martin’s hand are offered as proof.
Confronted with the question of how someone who supposedly gave a beatdown to Zimmerman could only have one small cut on his hand, we are told that the person punching doesn’t have to hurt their hands. (coulda woulda shoulda maybe explanations for the absence of compelling evidence on Martin’s hands). Okay. We are also told that Zimmerman didn’t hit Martin and told that the proof is Martin’s lack of injury AND Zimmerman’s lack of hand injury.
So where is the unacceptable problem with making the same type of inferences in reverse? If Martin’s hands weren’t really hurt pounding the shit out of Zimmerman’s face, then Zimmerman’s hands weren’t really hurt pounding the fuck out of Martin’s gut.
Zimmerman has some face injuries to prove hits on his face, but Martin wouldn’t have injuries simply because ***he died ***before bruises could form.
Since there are things which remain unaccounted for in Zimmerman’s tale, like exactly what happened between the T and the last few seconds almost forty feet away from the T, if we accept that Martin struck Zimmerman at least that first time…what the fuck happened then? Zimmerman just stood there? Laid there? Crawled? Rolled? Something happened, and it is reasonable to infer that the two people hit, grabbed, slapped, pinched, kicked or otherwise engaged in some kind of altercation that caused them to travel over some distance before landing in the final position. If we do not infer this, then we are stalled out at the first punch.
But indeed, there can be a very hazy line between reasonable inferences and pure speculation. if you have to stack inference on inference for too long a string without some kind of evidence in between, it starts to get shaky. I don’t know how the law decides, given that this is the job of the jury.
But to assert that there is no place for considering what might have occurred or could have or would have occurred is mistaken. Reasonable inferences arrived at from logic and reason applied to the facts are the very essence of what juries must do, because most cases are made up of more circumstantial than direct evidence, and that’s what you do with circumstantial evidence: draw reasonable inferences from it.
If you stack inference on inference at all, it’s invalid.
I have to say one thing. Going over to the comments sections of the “major” cable news networks (CNN, MSNBC and FOX), I’ve never seen so many comments stemming from one case.
And… Here we go.
CBS News reports a verdict has been reached.
Okay–speculation time is over.
Verdict reached…let’s see.