All done many times over and then many times more than that by me and by others.I’ve done it a number of times in the two major threads over just the past week or 10 days, you with the face has done it multiple times, many others. If you have read much of the thread and are still asking the question, then I don’t know how to say it to you in a new way that you will recognize the content as being what you’re asking for.
This is an extreme case, though: no accepted scientific method, family members of both potential screamers swearing it’s their relative, a low-quality recording through a cell phone from a distance…there’s nothing to base a conclusion on except whatever conclusion you’ve already reached (the general “you”, not you in particular) from other evidence. That makes it worthless as evidence.
Ok, understood. Thanks for providing a scenario.
To interrupt this lively theoretical discussion with the actual trial news: defense just told the judge that they will be done with their case on Wednesday.
Perhaps. There’s no case that I can find that definitively equates pointing a gun with malice, and no case I could find that definitvely rejects that as the only required evidence.
What are the Florida trial rules about redirects and rebuttal witnesses?
At last we find a point of agreement, I feel exactly the same.
Absolutely true, and applicable to a host of things you have consistently rejected because they were not witnessed directly.
Good evidence he stopped his physical motion for a moment to deal with his flashlight and finish the call, yes. How is that any kind of evidence for which direction he would move in after that, and what his intention would be? He wasn’t planning to remain in that spot, or he would have just told that to the operator when he asked where the cops would find him.
So he’s not staying there, where will he moving to?
He didn’t know where he would be in five minutes, that’s why the cops have to call.
Why doesn’t he know?
If, as you relentlessly insist, he did not intend to continue trying to find and follow Martin, then what is your contention about what he was planning to do for the next few minutes instead which made it impossible for him to tell the operator where the cops would find him when they arrived?
[ul]
[li]Was he going to go ahead and go to the store? [/li][li]Was he going to visit a friend? [/li][li]Hit the gym? [/li][li]Drive in circles? [/li][li]Or simply wander aimlessly?[/li][/ul]
Please apply your extremely well-developed talent for speculation to throw out somekind of reasonable suggestions which explain what Zimmerman could possibly have intended to be doing in the few minutes between ending the call and the cops arrival that did not include looking for Trayvon Martin but still made it impossible for him to specify where the cops would be able to find him? Anything remotely reasonable. Anything at all. Please.
And I open the question to any and all who agree with Steophan that the evidence indicates that Martin did not intend to continue looking for Martin.
Just that. Not what happened later, not what Martin may have done, no hand-waving, no diverting attention, no dismissing it as unimportant, no discussion of what has to be proven to what standard,nothing else. *Just tell us what Zimmerman’s plans were after ending the NEN call that prevented him from telling the operator where he would be that did not include him looking for Trayvon Martin. *
I eagerly look forward to hearing your ideas, as this will be a whole new area of speculation that you all have managed to avoid up to now.
There you go trying to flip the burden of proof again. A video/audio recording or photos must be accepted as factual unless proven to be edited or otherwise staged and fraudulent.
Bases that you have rejected. You seem to believe, by asking repeatedly to get answers to things that have been answered repeatedly, that if you do not agree with whatever bases I and others have for our view that he’s guilty, then those bases actually cease to exist altogether, rather than acknowledging that we simply view things very differently. So what end is served by typing it out again so you can reply again: I don’t agree with the way you see the evidence, therefore there is no evidence.
Case in point being Zimmerman’s conversation with the NEN operator. It certainly exists. Some people (by not asking too many questions about it or thinking too hard) believe that is is evidentiary proof that Zimmerman stopped looking for Martin and did not plan to resume. Others (by considering it in context and asking obvious questions) believe that this is evidentiary proof of precisely the opposite, that Martin absolutely planned to continue looking for Martin.
I acknowledge that others see in it evidence for their point of view, and I see how, even though I also see that they are not looking too closely in order to have that view (see prior post).
Can you see it as evidence for my point of view that he’s guilty, even though you may disagree with that interpretation of it? (And if that is so I invite, I ask, I plead with you to answer the question I posed in the prior post…) Or will you say I have no evidence at all?
All to say: no, I am not concluding he’s guilty simply because he has lied, and I’ve given my bases many times. But your choice to ignore my bases and declare they do not even exist does not actually function to alter the existence of those facts and unfortunately I have no power to change your choice.
I’d say the evidence supports multiple plausible interpretations, which is true of most aspects of this case. Hence, reasonable doubt. But, I’ll take a crack at this one.
On the NEN call, the dispatcher and Zimmerman have this exchange:
So, Zimmerman is clearly unable to give the address of where he parked.
Next:
Zimmerman doesn’t want the police sent to his house, because he doesn’t want to give out his address.
Next:
Why did Zimmerman change his mind? One possibility can be gleaned from earlier in the conversation:
As you see, earlier in the conversation Zimmerman tried to convey how to get to his car to the dispatcher, but was unable to do so clearly. The dispatcher’s recap was wrong, and Zimmerman knew it. He was then distracted by Martin running.
So, a bit later, when the dispatcher offers to have the police meet him at the mailboxes, Zimmerman knows that the dispatcher probably won’t be able to direct the police accurately. When Zimmerman tries to give directions again (while banging his flashlight, and adrenalized from running a bit), the dispatcher cuts him off and wants the address, bring it back to the “What address are you parked in front of?” exchange.
So, Zimmerman likely has no confidence that the police will arrive at the mailbox if he leaves it at that: the directions repeated back to him were wrong, and the dispatcher cut off his second attempt to convey them, but Zimmerman was unable to give the address where he was parked and unwilling to give out his own.
Having the police call him neatly solves this dilemma. He can find an address nearby to direct them to, or just repeat his directions to fresh ears instead of trusting the dispatcher to get them right when he didn’t before.
It’s possible that in the meantime, Zimmerman would keep an eye out for Martin so he could convey that information to police. Heck, it’s possible Zimmerman decided right then and there to apprehend Martin himself. But that’s just one of many plausible scenarios. Hence, reasonable doubt.
Please tell me the post number in which you did so. Just give me the number. TIA.
Surely you agree that the large majority of your case against Zimmerman is his alleged lying?
Maybe I’m misremembering because of the bulk of your writing on the topic of Zimmerman’s lies, or because you also write things like this:
Your case against him seems to consist solely of his alleged lies, and interpretations of evidence that you admit doesn’t point to any one answer. That’s textbook reasonable doubt to me, which is all I am arguing for. How can your bases overcome reasonable doubt in light of your own remarks?
FWIW, while I share many posters’ opinions about Stoid’s thought process, the first and third of these at least are not illogical on their own.
What she’s saying is that she’s read enough reliable evidence in the media to be sure enough to convict GZ. She hasn’t been following the trial closely, so she doesn’t know how much of this evidence has been introduced at the trial.
Thank you for opening your mind, even though you may not see it like that.
Asking a legal question now. The finders of fact, in this case the jury, have an awful lot of room to decide what is true or not, and on appeal those factual findings are rarely considered at all - (that was the most enlightening, frustrating, potentially terrifying thing I learned in my extensive study of the appellate process- contrary to what many people assume, an appeal is not a do-over, the appeals court doesn’t re-examine the evidence and in fact appeals based on a claim of insufficient evidence almost never succeed because the appellate court can’t assess witness credibility, etc.) What becomes difficult to parse, and actually makes up a lot of the arguments happening in this thread even though it’s not always obvious, is where the legal rules and the room the jurors have intersect.
To start with, simply “reasonable doubt”: for the jurors themselves, that isn’t some lofty standard they are trying to identify and adhere to- it is presumed that through the selection process itself these 6 people have been judged to be citizens who represent “reasonable” minds to begin with. They embody the concepts themselves, which is why it is they who must be convinced by the evidence.
Of course there are rules given to them about the way they look at the evidence and consider it, hence jury instructions.
But as we’ve clearly seen through a couple thousand posts, people can see things VERY differently.
Given that, let’s assume that the jury does what hardly anyone is very confident they will do: convict. When they are sitting in that jury room, they all turn out to view things very much the way prosecution has encouraged them to, which is very much the way I and many others see it. They do not find most of the witnesses very credible, they think Zimmerman is lying his ass off, they genuinely, however hard it is for some people to accept, really, truly, in their heart of hearts do not have any doubt at all that George Zimmerman did not have what they consider a reasonable fear for his life at all and he totally went gonzo on Martin and he committed second degree murder.
Given that the prosecution brought the case, and the judge denied the motion for acquittal, finding sufficient evidence for a jury to decide the question, how could the jury be said to have erred by coming to honest held conclusions based on the evidence? Other than by that incredibly difficult standard of asking the appellate court reverse the denial of the motion for acquittal, which would involve the appellate court doing the ultra rare thing of considering the evidence de novo, where is the appeal that seems so widely expected? If the case was so fatally defective that no one can imagine allowing a jury’s findings of fact and conviction based on those findings to stand, why/how was it brought?
I ask the question in a sincere quest for understanding; I understand very well that criminal and civil appeals have some important distinctions, what with the whole human freedom thing being on the line, hello, and my most extensive research and understanding is about civil appeal. So I welcome the education.
Thanks.
What??? You can’t just dump a video into the evidence and expect everyone to automatically accept that it is authentic, etc. Shit, you can’t do that with anything… documentary evidence (writings, audio, video, etc.) has to have some kind of backup proof that it’s worthy of belief as a real and true and unaltered original, someone with some type of authority to say so has to “vouch” for it in some respect. A lawyer can’t just produce a thing and inform the court that “it is what I say it is” - no no no no.
The burden of proving that a thing what it is represented to be is on the party asking to introduce it, and I’m pretty certain that no lawyer can ever say what a thing is, a witness has to take the stand and testify to what it is by their own knowledge. The only stuff that escapes these rules are things which can be judicially noticed, like court records, the fact that the sun rises every day in the west… etc.
Politics.
Not in Richards account, but my vote goes to the prosecutors emphasis in his opening (which I watched a couple of days ago finally), which is what i was thinking of when i called it for M2 at the start: “these assholes, they always get away.”-frustration, anger,resentment ＝ spiteful intention that goddamnit, this is one asshole who is not getting away!
All contained in original intention, which was only to find and prevent him from getting away. When encountered, makes some move to detain, altercation, altercation inflames zimmermans existing frustration-anger-resentment, triggering impulse control issue, add some pain, anger frustration resentment is morphing into genuine rage and all possibility of behaving reasonably has vanished, he sees a perfect opportunity to do some hard core venting of that anger and hell its a fight, an easy self-defense plea ＝ trayvon dead.
Murder murder murder murder.
Yep, because the benefit of the doubt - all of it - goes to the defendant. Unless you have proof he is guilty, he is not.
I don’t need evidence for where he went, you do. We already have evidence he stopped (as you’ve admitted), you need to not only provide proof that he moved again, but proof he moved where you are saying. If there’s no proof, no guilt.
Not relevant. You are claiming he moved, you are claiming he’s guilty, why don’t you know?
Neither he nor I have to account for his actions. You (insert formatting here) have to, and you have spectacularly failed to, and your attempt to divert from that failure is also not working.
He went to check that the house that Martin had been looking at hadn’t been burgled, and, as it hadn’t, felt it unnecessary to mention it. There, both reasonable and fits the facts.
He never said it was impossible for him to say where he would be, by the way. That’s unfounded speculation. He simply said it would be easier for him to direct the cops himself.
Do you understand that everything after the quote is pure speculation without any evidence? Reasonable doubt reasonable doubt reasonable doubt reasonable doubt.
They are illogical when combined with previous statements posted by her.
She has stated that she doesn’t think the state has proven it’s case and that the state has messed it up too badly to fix.
Given that AND her statements that she would vote to convict Zimmerman if she were on the jury, what is the differentiating factor that allows her to simultaneously believe that the state hasn’t proven its case and that Zimmerman should be convicted?