The pitting of people who mistakenly conflate justice with legality (Martin/Zimmerman related)

I guess you didn’t actually follow the trial, because none of those things are true. They are things that were reported by the media, or speculated by commentators, but have been shown to be either false or, in the case of the watch guidelines, irrelevant, as he was not on patrol at the time of the shooting.

I believe your quip, “WAS MY INVENTION”, sums up most of your argument.

Now you can explain why YOU consider my statement, “[2] TM chose to attack an armed victim and he died as a result of his bad choice. Maybe TM should have tried harder to stay in school?”, to be bigotted. I assume your explaination will be just as “inventive” as your other posts.

Florida law allows for people to defend themselves with lethal force “IF” they believe they are in imminent danger. TM was beating GZ. GZ defended himself. The jury found GZ not guilty.

(p.s. I suppose I could sue you for your game of Clue but I don’t believe you own one. Oh, well.)

Your inability to figure out what we know, as distinguished from what you’d like to believe, is breathtaking.

Yes, we know he was armed. No, we don’t know he was “stalking.”

Yes, we know those things – agreed. But since he was not on “Watch,” duty, why is this of interest?

Nope.

Do you understand what argumentum ad ignoratium is?

Certainly! It’s Latin.

We don’t know he was “stalking” in the legal sense, true. But there is little doubt that he was “stalking” in the sense of following his target in a manner to place the victim in fear.

Not being on watch duty (or at least acting as though he was) is a double edged sword.

On the one hand, sure, he doesn’t have to follow any guidelines and can instead take his gun and chase people down like a real life vigilante.

On the other hand, if he had been on watch duty (or acted that way) he could have identified himself as such, making it less likely that his target would reasonably be placed in fear of pursuit by an unidentified man.

It’s the reason I wrote “I think it is highly probable” instead of “I know”.

I strongly suspect that if there had been an unbiased witness watching everything take place, they would have come to the conclusion that the total of Zimmerman’s actions constituted “provoking force.”

Suspect, not know. Maybe Zimmerman grabbed Martin, maybe he threatened him, maybe he flashed his gun. He thought he was chasing a criminal after all. Adding whatever he did at that point together with his previous actions of being an unidentified, armed man following his target home, I suspect it adds up to “provoking force.”

But since I don’t know, and there was no possible way to prove it (the only witness being dead), the verdict is no surprise.

Actually here on Planet Earth we know that Trayvon Martin and Zimmerman had a confrontation but we don’t know which one of them escalated it from verbal to physical only that Martin seemed to have gotten the upper hand at one point.

Then the question becomes why you used the word “stalking,” when other, less loaded words would also have been accurate?

And this description – are there also less loaded, equally accurate words that could be used here?

And those witnesses would be using the Florida law definition of provoking force?

Note the “In the same vein” and the post to which I was responding.

What are you basing that on, given that the evidence shows that he stopped following Martin, and that (for whatever reason) Martin chose to return to where Zimmerman was?

We know GZ went out with a gun and grudge and ended up killing a boy. None of your prattling about “INVENTION” changes the fact that we now have a clue of a possible reason why GZ started that night in a foul mood.

Have you alternate-reality denizens ever explained why you think TM attacked GZ? Was it just “Here comes an innocent cracker minding his own busy. I’m having me some fun …”?

BTW, GZ’s acquittal does not prove he wasn’t morally culpable. Jurors said as much themselves. Those who pretend not to comprehend that much are either lying or extremely stupid.

No evience shows that, no matter how often you say it.

Of course it does. Zimmerman said he stopped following (evidence), and we can hear in his call to the dispatcher that, when he says he stopped, the wind noise decreases and his breathing slows (more evidence).

Jeantel said Martin was right by his house when they spoke, and had lost sight of Zimmerman (two bits of evidence), and the fight did not occur there, but near the point Zimmerman claims he stopped (more evidence).

Do you still not know what evidence means? You may choose to reject that evidence (but the only reason to do so is inherent bias), but even if you reject it it still exists.

The wind noise might decrease for the more obvious reason that the wind decreased. You offer a complicated rationale for a rather simple fact. Similarly, his breathing rate might have lots of explanation, only one of which you think is worthy. For instance, he might simply have found it too difficult to talk on the phone while running. Duh.

Jeantel was not there. And if you lose sight of someone you are following, you stop to try and decide which way to go, yes? Which is not at all the same as “stopping” in the sense of abandoning pursuit. This “evidence” you insist is definitive is not. Such evidence does not contradict your position, but neither does it support.

No, it supports but does not prove my position. You, however, have no evidence that my position is wrong. There’s no evidence that Zimmerman continued to follow Martin, no evidence that he started the physical confrontation, and no evidence that he intended any form of confrontation. There never has been such evidence, right from the start, which is why the original investigators did not wish to charge Zimmerman, and the prosecutor had to bypass the Grand Jury which would have investigated the evidence prior to the trial.

It’s why the eventual trial was such a farce, with the *prosecution *witnesses and lawyers actively demonstrating Zimmerman’s innocence.

No amount of wishing it was otherwise, of baseless speculation that events may have happened in ways not supported by any evidence, and no matter how much you feel that Zimmerman should be guilty of something just because he happened to kill someone, will change the fact that he is innocent, that he has been found not guilty in court, and that that cannot be changed. There was nothing, either presented in court nor revealed outside, that could lead a reasonable person to conclude that Zimmerman was not defending himself, and nothing that could lead them to conclude Zimmerman started the fight.

Stoid, ywtf, Honesty, and a few others are clearly not reasonable people. If you are, and if you actually think I’m wrong, then show the reasons for it. Feelings and speculation are, quite literally, nothing here.

Sure, but your playing both ends against the middle. You offer evidence that does not contradict your thesis as positive support for your thesis, and then insist that your opponents must offer definitive proof of theirs. If you are allowed to offer an absence of evidence as positive proof, then your opponents must be allowed the same privilege. Otherwise, you are playing a rigged game.

If I were a juror, I would have been compelled to vote for acquittal, given the legal complications of Florida law and in accordance with my sworn duty as a juror.

Nonetheless, I would and do hold Z morally responsible for what happened, if for no other reason than he was the guy who brought the gun.

I’m offering evidence that positively supports my thesis as support for it, and asking you for evidence that it’s false. You have, like many others, refused to do so.

The person who is morally responsible for Martin’s death is whoever threatened or used violence first. Simply carrying a gun does not reach that standard. There is some evidence that it was Martin who started it, and none whatsoever that it was Zimmerman. To conclude that Zimmerman is responsible simply because he was carrying the gun, regardless of the other circumstances, is bizarre, and implies that you believe one could never morally defend oneself with a firearm.

You need not be utterly positive to hold a valid opinion. Did it never occur to you that the wind noise lapse might be simply a matter of the wind not blowing? If it didn’t, why not? And if it did, why wouldn’t you honestly offer that possibility? An honest argument admits its own weaknesses, that is its defining characteristic. A dishonest argument seeks to promote the possible into the likely, and then to the certain. Similarly, did it never occur to you that there are a thousand possible reasons why one’s breathing pattern might change, yet you keep insisting that there must be only one. And then insisting that we accept that one as proof positive!

And yes, Z’s choice to arm himself speaks to character and mind set, and not in a good way. Good Lord, man, if he can’t feel somewhat secure in a gated community, of all places, what does that say about him?

If houses in my gated neighborhood were being continuously robbed, I would not feel safe either. I would want a gun in that situation no question.

From the beginning, I have said that the folks who thought Zimmerman was guilty would never change their minds regardless of the evidence. They all seem to be sure he was a racist despite zero evidence for it, that he stalked Martin, despite zero evidence for it, and that he started the physical fight, despite zero evidence for it. I cannot speak for the type of mindset that allows someone to hold such opinions, but it seems that some people like to think they know what was going through Zimmerman’s head and the type of person he is despite not knowing him personally. They ascribe racist motivations because they are unable to fathom someone non-black finding a young black man suspicious for any reasons other than racism. Once they believe he is racist, it is only a short leap of logic to believe he would then setout to apprehend Martin or kill him. The sad thing about folks with this mindset is that these beliefs shows that they are the ones with actual racist tendencies, as ascribing the above mindset to Zimmerman without any evidence clearly shows. Of course, no debate or argument will allow them to believe this of themselves or to believe that Zimmerman was factually as well as legally innocent of any crime as they have a picture in their head of how they think the events happened that night, lack of evidence be damned.

Why are you claiming I’ve said it proves it? I haven’t, I said (correctly) that it supports it. If you wish to claim my theory is false despite there being some supporting evidence, you need to present stronger contradictory evidence. You could also say that the evidence is so weak we can’t possibly know what happened, but in that case you must also then accept that, with no evidence to show Zimmerman’s guilt, we should treat him as innocent.

This really is what this is about, isn’t it? You genuinely don’t believe that someone should have the right to defend themselves with a gun, even though - as this case so amply demonstrates - there may well be, even in a gated community, the need to.

What it says about him, in my opinion, is that he values his own life higher than that of someone who attacks him. I don’t consider that a character flaw.

Oh, I see. So Z was just strolling along, minding his own beeswax, and then Martin, who *allegedly *went to the 7-11 for tea and Skittles, spotted him and thought to himself “I’m gonna bust that cracker’s nose! Maybe kill him, haven’t make up my mind yet…”

If I had wanted to say so, I would have, I don’t have any problem expressing myself. So if you would be so kind as to restrain your genius for telepathic psychoanalysis, that would be good.