I am absolutely motivated to my certainty by his lies: by their quantity, their content, their fundamental lack of believability, and the fact that they are concentrated around crucial issues that make or break his guilt. I admit I am astonished that you consider his statements to have “a few flaws” “minor inconsistencies”. I never paid the slightest bit of attention to things like the number of blows, because I agree that that is a mild exaggeration that doesn’t make any difference.
I do not believe for a second that it is a minor inconsistency for him to have said all the different things he has said to cover the fact that he absolutely continued to look for Martin, because that’s meaningful. If he really had not continued to look for Martin, there wouldn’t be so many different stories.
Almost nothing about his story of the actual altercation is believable, Martin would have to be an octopus. He offers no explanation of what he was doing, how he suddenly gained magical strength to control and restrain Martin so that he could shoot him, Why and how he could not think he had hit Martin, when he shot him at virtual point blank, Martin said supposedly you got me, and fell over on his face. Then there’s the whole arm spreading ridiculousness. I see completely unbelievable, inconsistent, illogical stories that if they are other than what he’s telling us, he is guilty, and that itself is a powerful piece of evidence for his guilt.
Honestly, Human, how many “flaws”, “inconsistencies”, do you need before you start questioning what the real truth is?
It has been my observation in life that stories only change in significant ways when they are just that, stories. I believe it was Twain pointed out that if you never lie, you never have to remember anything, and as someone who gave up lying 35 years ago, I can attest to the truth of that.
If you can explain how walking in the same direction as another person is “a physical act which in and of itself places another person in fear of imminent injury”, then your argument has some substance. Maybe there’s a plague of people injured by having someone walk in the same direction as they, and I’m unaware of it.
Wow, there is so much wrong with this. There is no evidence that Zimmerman engage in aggressive or threatening acts. Martin came to HIM when he was in his truck and Zimmerman stayed there without engaging him. Who is the aggressor in this situation? It’s Martin. At this point Martin runs behind the houses and to the south. He is gone before Zimmerman steps out of the truck to follow. When it’s suggested he doesn’t follow he stops running and travels East. Not South, East. Per the evidence Martin goes to his house. The next confrontation again begins with Martin. He comes to Zimmerman at which time Zimmerman is assaulted.
There is no evidence that Zimmerman attempted direct confrontation or that he touched Martin in any way. There is evidence that Martin approached Zimmerman twice and assaulted him. It was at this time Martin was shot.
So NO, you can’t menace someone and then shoot them. You CAN keep watch on your neighborhood and call the police on suspicious activity which is what Zimmerman did and Martin did not. If Martin thought Zimmerman was acting suspicious he had all the tools and opportunity to deal with it properly.
Your belief at the start of the trial was that GZ was guilty. That belief would have excluded you from jury duty. The evidence presented during the trial did not convince the jury that GZ was guilty of 2nd deg or manslaughter. After hearing the evidence, reading related Florida laws, and considering the jury instructions , the jury found GZ not guilty.
Many news outlets manipulated the evidence and in some cases, simply made stuff up. Many facts of the case were ignored, twisted, spun, or creatively pulled out of their collective butts.
Many celebrities sought to increase public awareness of their own careers by passing judgement on a case they knew little about.
I have no idea how anyone could have formed an opinion about the guilt or innocence of GZ based on the horse poop that was being displayed daily by the media and constantly on the internet.
A call for a trial is one thing. Demanding that GZ be found guilty before the trial started is another.
I would agree with you excpet that media outlets such as NBC/MSNBC are still playing the race card and ignoring most of the evidence presented in this case.
Now we have AG Eric “fast & furious” Holder saying he will be turning his Just-Us Dept loose on GZ. While this case “should” be over because there was a jury verdict, many in the government aren’t willing to move on.
Why “should” this case be over? If Zimmerman can be charged civilly, then let him defend himself over that. And the only reason the race card was played is because Zimmerman is a raging racist
It “should” be over because he’s been found not guilty of murder. That should be the end of it. The justice system should not be desperately searching for some legal means to assuage the demand for vengeance by an ignorant populace, and the idea that Martin’s family should be able to get blood money is fucking barbaric.
I thought it was us “gun nuts” who were the shoot first, ask questions later type. Now it seems like the other side wants to make it legal to use (deadly?) force against someone for walking up to you. I hope I’m never broke down on your street and knock on your door for help, lest I be punched for “menacing.”
Are you astonished that Detective Serino came to the same conclusion?
[QUOTE=Stoid]
I do not believe for a second that it is a minor inconsistency for him to have said all the different things he has said to cover the fact that he absolutely continued to look for Martin, because that’s meaningful. If he really had not continued to look for Martin, there wouldn’t be so many different stories.
[/quote]
Unless, of course, it was a documented phenomenon that people in highly stressful physical incidents have their memory of the incident affected. This was actually testified to in the trial, and explains why experienced police investigators concluded that any inconsistencies in Zimmerman’s accounts were minor, and to be expected. It was also testified to that one reason police conduct multiple interviews in cases like this is because the memory can return over time, and more blanks filled in and errors corrected. This is why police wait 72 hours before interviewing officers involved in shootings.
It would actually be suspicious if Zimmerman’s story did not change a bit between the night of the shooting and later interviews, as it could point to a story that was fabricated and practiced beforehand, rather than being honest but flawed recollections.
Had we access to a Matrix-style simulator, it’d be a worthy endeavor to put you in it (having volunteered, of course) and subject you to an unexpected, bloody, physical fight to the death, then see how well you can recount what happened. I think you would be stunned at the outcome.
[QUOTE=Stoid]
Almost nothing about his story of the actual altercation is believable, Martin would have to be an octopus. He offers no explanation of what he was doing, how he suddenly gained magical strength to control and restrain Martin so that he could shoot him, Why and how he could not think he had hit Martin, when he shot him at virtual point blank, Martin said supposedly you got me, and fell over on his face. Then there’s the whole arm spreading ridiculousness. I see completely unbelievable, inconsistent, illogical stories that if they are other than what he’s telling us, he is guilty, and that itself is a powerful piece of evidence for his guilt.
[/quote]
And for all that, what physical evidence exists supports the broad strokes of Zimmerman’s account. We know Martin was on top of him when the shot was fired, from 2-4 inches away. We know Martin punched Zimmerman, and that his head struck the sidewalk. We know Zimmerman’s hands were unmarked. We know he fired a single shot, and that he subsequently got atop of Martin. We know Zimmerman’s blood was on Martin’s shirt. We know Zimmerman’s back was wet and covered with grass, and that Martin’s pants had grass stains on the knees.
Can you construct a theory in which Zimmerman is guilty and yet account for all those facts? Probably; the prosecution tried to do so with the claim that Martin was trying to escape from Zimmerman when the shot was fired. You also have your similar theory, in which a grapple attempt by Zimmerman leads to a fight, and then a prolonged struggle for the gun, in which Martin is only trying to keep from being shot.
But it’s simply not enough to speculate as to what could have happened. You must prove that it’s the only thing that reasonably could have happened.
In a case in which the evidence reasonably supports both the defendant’s guilt and his innocence? A heck of a lot more than there were in this case.
Maybe your experiences didn’t include something like what Zimmerman and Martin were engaged in, or the policemen who are told to wait three days before trying to recall what happened.
I don’t see how anyone could have formed an opinion based on the horse poop either. I didn’t even pay any attention to the horse poop. That’s why I only looked at the actual evidence itself: the police reports, photographs, interviews, etc. As I explained, listening to the closing arguments let me know that the trial included almost everything that I had examined before the trial, except for the information about Zimmermans past problems with violence.
I came to my conclusions based on the evidence, not on anybody else’s opinion of the evidence or distortions of the evidence.
What are you referring to? I still feel as I have always felt: I could come to the conclusions I came to sitting on the jury and be perfectly comfortable with it. The fact that other people didn’t reach the same conclusions doesn’t mean they were legally impossible to reach.
And I guess I would have to sit down and create some kind of chart of exactly which evidence led to which inference in order to figure out whether there really was sufficient evidence to make reasonable inferences leading to my conclusion. I believe there was, but I have not broken it out in that fashion to prove it to myself at this point. Interesting exercise, though.
Except you can’t prove that. The FBI couldn’t prove that.
Crump and Sharpton played the race card from the very beginning. NBC/MSNBC allowed Sharpton to take time away from his show to pander to the lynch mob-types. Entertainers like Spike Lee published Zimmerman’s home address in an effort to foster violence. Except it was the WRONG Zimmerman. Oops. The New Black Panther party offered a reward for the killing or kidnapping (wanted dead or alive) of GZ. NBC/MSNBC is still playing the race card in order to lessen any fianancial damages they may have to pay GZ for deliberately falsifying NBC “news” stories about him.
It was TM who called GZ a nigga and creepy azz cracker. It was TM who then returned some 300 feet to confront/physically confront GZ near the “T”. It appears that TM was the raging racist.
The horse poop is coming out of both ends of this case.
Those who support gun rights and advocate self defense would be far more prejudicial than somebody without a rooting interest in the case. Anybody who looked at the evidence at length prior to the trial would be unfit to serve on the jury.
The good news is reasonable people can sift through the nonsense and look for real facts about the case.
Zimmerman will not go to prison for his stupidity and criminal behavior (IMHO), and I accept that. Zimmerman now stands in the court of public opinion where the standard for his bullshit now rises to a level higher than simply saying Trayvon was a wild animal that mercilessly beat poor old GZ for no apparent reason.
Trayvon never got the luxury of a criminal trial to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that his non-lethal actions were illegal and unjustified. He left Zimmerman with a bloody nose(even his own lawyer wasn’t sure during closing) and two scratches on his head. Trayvon should have had to answer why he put those wounds on Mr. Zimmerman, and I wonder what kind of story he might have been able to tell???
Instead Trayvon Martin is dead, and for the sake of Zimmerman’s defense we were supposed to just assume without any evidence other than the statement of the accused that Trayvon was a killing machine. Just the statement of a guy who had been arrested previously for violence. Just the statement of a neighborhood watch “Captain” who didn’t know where he was. Just the statement of a Florida resident, criminal justice student, CCW permit holder, packer of heat, whose friends were gun owners, who said he didn’t know about self defense law in the state of Florida.
That 4 minute silence from the defense can now just as easily let our imagination run wild with all of the shit GZ might have done to antagonize a young man he didn’t like in his neighborhood. GZ certainly didn’t go back to his car in those 4 minutes. Just the same as the defense claimed Trayvon should have retreated to safety.
You premise is founded on biased principles. You see the justice system as desperate and searching for a reason to convict him. I see it as, much like the OJ civil case, a trial that should go forward because he may be convicted of lesser charges without such stringent qualifications. He won’t face as harsh a penalty, so it all evens out at the end. Unless you are speaking out against being able to sue someone civilly at all. Are you?
Yeah, Terr seems to fit the bill too
Of course there are legal criteria for proof and I accept that. I accept that they didn’t prove Zimmerman was guilty. I accept that the jury may disregard whether or not he is a racist in their verdict. What I do not accept is that there isn’t sufficient proof floating out there in the public ether that can speak to him being one way or the other.
And they were correct to, because it was racially motivated. It just so happens we require a higher standard of evidence to use that as a consideration in court. Fine, I accept the verdict in that respect. But I still am convinced Zimmerman is a racist
“Pander”, like the word “propaganda”, is only used when you disagree with something. That’s ok too, I use it that way as well. So in this case, it wasn’t pander, it was Sharpton rightly bringing the racial element of the case to supporters of Trayvon.
That’s all it was, a mistake. It happens. Would you have that be made illegal?
Which was also wrong
That’s a huge simplification of what happened. And besides, being stalked in the dark by a gun-wielding lunatic affords one some leeway in language