I think we can all agree that it takes some serious balls to chase after a suspected thug in the first place.
Brandishing a gun is only one increment beyond that. It’s all in the same realm of ballsy stupidity. I think you’re giving Zimmerman way to much credit in the self-restraint department if you think such a thing was out of his reach for him.
All right, if you agree that the voice was likely Martin’s, I have no what we’re arguing about then. Motive for the shooting? I’m not laying my life down on the line on my theory, so we don’t have to argue over that.
So giant pussies don’t have a right to defend themselves? Frankly acting like a giant pussy sounds like a good self defense strategy to me. Frankly I consider fearless a synonym for moron. Your statement about the grocery story is stupid. What if you said, “I don’t need to fasten my seat belt, I’m just going to the grocery store”. If you know a situation is hazardous, the proper response is not to be armed, but not to go there. I’ve known people who have been assaulted in their own driveway.
I really should walk away. My opinion is my opinion. I thought maybe you with the face might find some interest in my opinion as it boils down to being pretty similar. I thought maybe it would provide some potential insight into some aspects of their opinion. In the process I found some better reasoning than my own and have incorporated it.
I didn’t come to this thread to get into a Great Debate, but I just can’t seem to walk away.
Yes. I am pretty sure the courts will have “facts in evidence” pretty well covered. I’m delving into conjecture, opinion, and guessing. This is IMHO after all.
All we know for sure is that someone is yelling help in the background of a grainy 911 tape. It’s the same word over and over again, at varying pitches, volumes, and lengths. It’s not much to base a voice print on. Let me put it this way – if I were sitting on the jury, I’d disregard any testimony from one of these “voice experts” unless they were very convincing in person. I’m actually surprised at this point that voice analysis experts are even weighing in at this point, given how little source material they have to work with. Zimmerman yelling for help makes sense given the little narrative I’ve constructed in my head. Martin, I just don’t quite see it.
However, I’m not a voice analysis expert, and I can see that I’m in the minority even among other people Team Trayvon, so take my opinion on the matter with a healthy dose of salt.
Statistically, buckling your seatbelt makes perfect sense. It’s mathematically proven to make you safer.
I’ve never been convinced that arming yourself raises your life expectancy. I see it as a response to fear, not logical thinking.
I started a poll on the subject. 91-93% of Dopers don’t feel the world they live in is a dangerous place. 7-9% do. I think that’s telling.
There’s a difference to being fearless when you should be afraid, and just acknowledging that your fear is irrational in the first place and dumping it.
You believe it is not possible to restrain someone by grabbing his sleeve? Only brandishing a gun will do it?
This goes to what has been pointed out in the past - you are picking and choosing what you believe purely on the basis of whether or not it implicates Zimmerman in a crime of some sort.
Regards,
Shodan
I did find your opinion interesting. That is, until it wandered off into you saying stuff about me wanting to be right and that I’m hellbent on portraying Martin as angelic. None of that was necessary or called for. Especially since it doesn’t even sound like we disagree about whose voice that was on the tape. We kind of took a detour into WTFness.
But aside from that part, I thought your view was an interesting take on the situation, even if it differed from mine.
But cherry-picking by pro-Zimmerman people is just a coincidence.
Yes. He did complain that “they always get away”. I am guessing he did this initially by observation, following and “keeping an eye on him”. Until Martin went off the sidewalk into the pathway area probably intending to cut through back to “his” house.
I believe he would have grabbed at him when Martin failed to heed his instructions to stop and wait for the police to arrive. Do you think the self appointed neighborhood watch captain wouldn’t expect his directions to be followed?
You don’t tell lies often in real life do you?
We should ignore what evidence we do have, simply because we know there is evidence that we don’t have? I think it is much more damning if the prosecutions case incorporates all of Zimmerman and the witnesses statements in its narrative than if it asks the court to disregard some parts but believe other parts.
This goes to what I said earlier in the thread, shortly after we starting talking about the foresensic findings.
Folks already have made up their mind as to who is yelling on that tape. We all have a story that we’ve created based on how we’ve processed the evidence, combined with all of our assumptions about how people act in such-and-such situations. (I’m included in this “we”).
So we could have a team of 5 independent analysts all who deny that it was Zimmerman on that tape, using all kinds of fancy methods and state-of-the-art technologies. But unless you already believe it was Martin based on your reading of the facts in evidence and the narrative you’ve constructed in your head, you’re probably going to reject these forensic opinions, or at least minimize their value relative to your own personal opinion.
I’m not saying this in a disparaging way. I’d probably be the same way if the experts said it wasn’t Martin on that tape. This is just how it is.
Cheap advertising. 
Most really good high profile criminal investigations I’ve seen happen with the public basically having little to no information at all. More information for the public is almost always a sign that the investigation isn’t being done well.
I think it is very telling that when the prosecutor from Northern Florida took over she instituted a media blackout, the fact that anything has come out after that means there’s a lot of unprofessionalism still going on.
But to your point, we actually still don’t know exactly what Zimmerman’s “side” is. We’ve seen a pseudo-transcript of part of Zimmerman’s statement (we haven’t seen the actual statement, and since he was interviewed for 5+ hours we haven’t even seen a paraphrasing of his entire statement), and then a lot of stuff from random people who aren’t Zimmerman, and whose random statements to the media don’t mean anything in a court.
I sincerely apologize for the snark. Sometimes it is hard for me to be impersonal in these situations. One of many reasons why you won’t find me Great Debates.
Peace.
My take is that Zimmerman didn’t expect to catch Martin at all. Martin had a head start, so all he was trying to do was trying to keep Martin in sight, so he could tell the police where he was. We wasn’t expecting to actually encounter Martin.
I hate to say it, but without some blockbuster evidence turning up in court, I think this will entirely hinge on who paints the more believable story that incorporates ALL of the statements and facts as we know them.
If it goes to a jury that is what they will probably do as well. 48% match to Zimmerman is going to be fairly easy to spin into reasonable doubt. :mad:
Hopefully there will or already has been a Martin sample tested against it the will raise the match to 90% range that a lay person will find much more conclusive.
Yep. And Zimmerman has the advantage of buying his own bullshit. Remember, it’s not a lie if you believe it. 
or
No, I don’t think he’d expect a hardened criminalistic drugged-out thug to listen to him just because he told him to stop. I think Zimmerman is an idiot, but I don’t think he’s naive.
I think he anticipated the kid would, at a minimum, try to run away (“these assholes always get away”, remember?). I’m sure it also occurred to him that Martin would put up a fight (he had his hand in his waistband, remember? That’s exactly where Z had his gun.). So knowing that these two thoughts were in the forefront of his mind, I find it difficult to believe that Zimmerman would have opted not to have used his gun to stop Martin in his tracks and protect himself. With his gun out, he can kill two birds with stone. Detain the kid and protect himself from the enemy.
Under your theory, we’re supposed to believe that Zimmerman would have attempted to restrain Martin using the less effective method possible (hand contact) and the one method that would leave him vulnerable to any weapon Martin might use against him.
Seriously, do you not see why I’m inclined to disagree with you? I’m inclined to see both Martin and Zimmerman as rational actors. By having him delay having his gun drawn until the last minute, you have him acting irrationally.