I guess you missed the posts where she said she didn’t need to bother following the trial because she, in classic Stoid fashion, already knows better?
There has been a great deal of argument and disagreement with her and several lawyers and other knowledgeable people (and also me) where she has repeatedly been shown her interpretation of the law is utterly wrong, the “evidence” she claims to present doesn’t exist, and the inferences she draws are legally invalid.
I can certainly see how you might feel that way, since you have conducted yourself entirely in a calm, civil and open-minded manner. A beacon to us all.
But wait, maybe you can answer my question! Assuming that Z was innocent of racist bias, how did he come to think that Martin was a drugged up thug? You think it was the Skittles?
That’s funny. You jump to a conclusion, then when called on it, double down on it. Very classy indeed. I forgot that when something is inserted parenthetically like (correctly), that automatically makes it gospel and beyond debate, therefore meaning you get to retain your status as arbiter of conclusion jumping the world over and in this thread in particular. Here’s a LOL, just for you.
If you want to advance the cause of reading comprehension, try not to post emotional, incoherent half-thoughts that require us with lesser minds and biased dispositions to connect dots.
So, just to ensure I’m following, Occam’s razor should be applied to the detective’s statement, meaning the most obvious conclusion requires us to ignore Jeantel’s testimony because, after all, “by the house” could mean he was by the mailbox, it could mean he was in the driveway, who knows where? Who could solve such a mystery? “By the house” could place him anywhere, including 300 feet away, back at the T, hiding in wait for Zimmerman. Is that it? It’s hard for us weak-minded to keep up with the Zen wisdom of your commentary.
And if you respond, remember, stay classy, sis. And always, always, keep on LOL’ing.
Pure conjecture – and possible racial bias – on Z’s part. How in the world would Martin, who was totally new to the neighborhood, have any idea which houses had been “broken into lately”? All he saw was a dude chasing him, for no apparent reason, at twilight under the rain.
That would get my attention – would it not yours, Rick?
No, I don’t think it was the Skittles, I think it was the black guy who wasn’t a resident there walking slowly, in the rain, looking at houses, where there had been several burglaries by young black guys. Reasonable suspicion, racial bias perhaps, but not racist. The two are not identical.
Well, that’s a bit short, isn’t it? You’re not telling us whether you concur with his assessment, only that it was his. Which we know, already.
So, based on this evidence, you find his presumption reasonable, that Martin was likely on drugs and up to no good? And Martin’s race had nothing whatever to do with it?
Sure. But the question was not what Martin thought. It was: “Assuming that Z was innocent of racist bias, how did he come to think that Martin was a drugged up thug?”
And the answer to that question is: He found it suspicious that Martin was walking slowly in the rain and looking at houses in an area that had had break-ins recently.
I think it was absolutely understandable for Martin to be worried about someone following him.
So you don’t think that, in a neighbourhood that’s had several burglaries by young black men, it’s reasonable to be more suspicious of young black men acting unusually than old Japanese women?
Racism is prejudice. A reasonable suspicion is not prejudice, it’s a judgement based on evidence. Postjudice, if you will.
I most likely have reached the same conclusion. But I can’t be sure of that; I’m adding my own conjecture to the situation. Knowing what I now know, I suspect Martin was walking slowly because he was on the phone with Jeantel. And he was looking at houses in the same way that anyone who is walking looks at houses: what else is there to look at?
But I don’t think Zimmerman’s conclusion is blatantly, obviously wrong. He didn’t know Martin was on the phone. And he saw someone acting suspiciously. If I learned that a police officer who saw the same scene pulled to the curb and asked Martin if he could speak with him for a moment, I wouldn’t be shocked.
I think the drugs thing is extremely thin. And while I grant that Martin’s race may have had something to do with it, I’m reasonably confident that Zimmerman would have made the same call about a white teenager. Zimmerman liked making calls.
I think people look at houses differently if they are unfamiliar, and it’s entirely possible that Martin was looking more closely than a resident would at the surroundings he was to live in. I also think that it’s reasonable to consider such unusual behaviour suspicious in the circumstances.
And we are supposed to buy that strictly on his say so? While of course, obviating all the other “inconsistencies” in his narrative. Why is that?
We’re agreed. And I think he acted according to the “fight or flight” principle. Human nature, you know. Precipitated by the reckless vigilante acts of someone else.
You don’t have to. You can also consider the fact that it is consistent with all the other evidence in this case.
And if that’s not enough to satisfy you, then please remember the phrase “reasonable doubt.” You don’t have to believe the reason that Zimmerman gave for his suspicions. Unless you can refute it though, it amounts to another tick in the reasonable doubt column.