Zimmerman Not Guilty - DPChallenge Forums

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

07/15/2013 10:59:46 AM · #126

Originally posted by frisca:

Originally posted by Cory:

Fine. I'll go back and beat the shit out of the dead horse point by point. I'd hate to be seen dismissive.

yeah, sarcastic is a way better look for you. ;)

Heh, well, admittedly, it is better than dismissive. ;)

Really though, I wasn't being sarcastic - Look here, I did go beat the dead, rotting horse-corpse just for you. And I think that I've now beaten it into a rather nicely creamy pink protein shake of sorts. Smells awful though. ;)

Message edited by author 2013-07-15 15:01:02.

frisca

Nikon D70

07/15/2013 11:04:02 AM · #127

I will readily admit that I haven't voiced my thoughts on this result because I did not adequately research the evidence presented at trial. I don't think character of anyone should be the issue, but simply their actions. I didn't find any HUGE problems with the jury instruction, but then I'm not at all versed in US criminal law.

I think about this case, the case where the guy (a white guy) ~~stabbed~~ shot the prostitute in the neck (she died) and he was acquitted, and finally the case of the woman (a minority) who fired warning shots and was convicted and got something like 20 years and I read these headlines and I take a step back to see the big picture, it isn't pretty.

eta: fixed my facts. Thanks Cory

Message edited by author 2013-07-15 15:41:01.

cowboy221977

Canon EOS-60D

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

07/15/2013 11:05:59 AM · #128

Man this converstion has really taken off.... By the way...Having a concealed weapon w/ permit is not the end of humanity. I have my permit. The only places that I don't carry is to work (it stays in my truck), any govmt bldg, and church.

Luckily I have not had to use it in the United States.

07/15/2013 11:22:57 AM · #129

Originally posted by frisca:

I will readily admit that I haven't voiced my thoughts on this result because I did not adequately research the evidence presented at trial. I don't think character of anyone should be the issue, but simply their actions. I didn't find any HUGE problems with the jury instruction, but then I'm not at all versed in US criminal law.

I think about this case, the case where the guy (a white guy) stabbed the prostitute in the neck (she died) and he was acquitted, and finally the case of the woman (a minority) who fired warning shots and was convicted and got something like 20 years and I read these headlines and I take a step back to see the big picture, it isn't pretty.

What about OJ? Why didn't he get screwed?

Which prostitute? Not this one - that guy is almost certainly going up for 2nd degree murder, despite the fact he's white. I can't find one where he was acquitted.

There is a case where a guy in Texas shot a prostitute in the neck, and she died after what must have been an agonizing couple of months. Again, there was no contest that he did it, and the reason was, according to the law, justifiable, so a conviction would be absolutely wrong. Changing this law, however, does seem prudent, since I don't really think it should have fully covered this situation due to the fact that the transaction was indeed a crime itself.

Originally posted by some article:

Gilbert had admitted to shooting Lenora Ivie Frago in the neck on Christmas Eve 2009, when she accepted $150 from Gilbert and left his home without having sex with him. Frago, who was paralyzed by the shooting, died several months later.

Gilbert's defense argued that the shooting wasn't meant to kill, and that Gilbert's actions were justified, because he believed that sex was included as part of the fee. Texas law allows people "to use deadly force to recover property during a nighttime theft."

The mistake made by the black woman was a simple, but crucial one. See my point about regarding shoot to maim. You do not fire a weapon for any other reason than to kill, if she had killed him, the outcome would almost certainly have been different.

..

I don't mind how that looks - it seems to me that the law follows precedent, and the rule of law itself. The police are shitheads WAY too much of the time, and likely engage commonly in far more egregious profiling than Zimmerman could ever be accused of. However, in general I think the courts do a reasonable job, and I think they tend to apply the law with a reasonably even hand - especially when you consider the fact that it's a jury who actually makes the guilty/not guilty decision. Maybe not perfect, but I don't know of a legal system that is less prone to 'getting it wrong'.

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

07/15/2013 11:35:43 AM · #130

Originally posted by blindjustice:

After all this, no one has answered why Zimmerman was following this kid, and wouldn't let it go, this night.

Without editorializing, why was he following an unarmed kid with skittles and an iced tea?

Originally posted by Cory:

Why does it matter?

It's not illegal.

Why do you continue to bring up this fallacy, it's not relevant to the incident, which really didn't begin until Martin attacked Zimmerman.

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

First, there is no conclusive evidence that Martin attacked Zimmerman. There is another version of the events leading up to the physical altercation presented by the friend who was on the phone with Martin at the time of the first verbal (and apparently physical) exchange. The friend claims that Martin said to Zimmerman, "Why are you following me?" To which Zimmerman replied, "What are you doing around here?" or something to that effect. Then she hears the phone drop and Martin say, "Get off me, get off me." There are no eyewitnesses to these events. How do we know that it wasn't Zimmerman who punched first?

And, by the way, Zimmerman claims he thought Martin might be "on drugs." Doesn't that make this suspicious character even more potentially dangerous? So, what kind of an idiot follows a suspicious character around who might be on drugs? Answer: The idiot with the gun in his pocket.

As to the question about when the incident began, some of us perceive the beginning at the point where Zimmerman decides to pursue Martin, and that's why we keep bringing it up. Whether it's illegal or not doesn't really matter, because absent the pursuit, there would have been no incident. That was a choice Zimmerman made, and it was within his power not to follow. When you consider that Zimmerman was armed with a deadly weapon, that he thought the kid was suspicious, possibly dangerous, possibly on drugs which could potentially make him more dangerous, that Zimmerman was the one with all the police/legal/Neighborhood-Watch training, and that the 911 operator told him not to pursue, he at least bears some moral responsibility for making the crucial decision from which everything else follows. Why is that difficult to understand?

Originally posted by Cory:

Ok. Point by point Judith.

No evidence Zimmerman was attacked by Martin. I don't even like answering you on these points, but for Frisca I will.
-Injuries to Zimmerman - Bloody Nose, bleeding wounds to the back of the head -- VS -- Injuries to Martin - bruised knuckles, gunshot wound
--Conclusion, you're either ignoring what I've said ten times already, along with all the physical evidence, or you somehow insanely think this indicates that Zimmerman was attacking Martin.

You've misunderstood me. My point is how do we know who initiated the physical attack? Obviously, TM managed to land some blows on GZ, but there is no eyewitness to the initiation of these events.

Originally posted by Cory:

Rachel Jeantel, your only even close to valid point, is about the most disastrous thing that happened to the prosecution. If you want to blame someone for Zimmerman walking, blame her. She was surly, used racial slurs like they were a non issue, and because of the culture she is a part of, would almost certainly have felt compelled to say whatever she thought would benefit her friend, and screw that 'creepy ass cracker' over for shooting him.
-I completely dismiss her as being anything even close to unbiased or reliable, if anything she served as a great character witness, since I think you will agree that we do tend to act and think in a similar manner to those who we identify as our friends.

You can dismiss her testimony if you want to, but she did report the same events immediately after the shooting as she related on the witness stand. Even if you dismiss her testimony, there are contradictory reports from the eyewitnesses as to who was atop the other during the fistfight, and contradictory reports as to who was yelling for help. Furthermore, there was at least one policeman-investigator who testified that he thought GZ should be charged with manslaughter as he didn't think GZ's injuries warranted a claim of self-defense requiring deadly force. So take the girlfriend out of it and you've still got plenty of witnesses who contradict the claims of GZ.

Originally posted by Cory:

As for Martin being 'on drugs' and the fact that you somehow think this proves Zimmerman wouldn't have followed him, let's remember that HE WASN'T TRYING TO CONFRONT TRAYVON, he was trying to help the police to confront him. Trayvon approached Zimmerman in his vehicle, then took off, and subsequently circled back on him to confront him. Even ignoring the fact that Trayvon's text messages were full of stuff about drugs and fighting, it does seem that the aggressor was not Zimmerman. No one KNOWS anything here for sure, that's why we try to use the evidence to indicate what is likely. It doesn't take a salty sailor to tell which way the wind is blowing here.

You've misunderstood me again. I didn't say that GZ wouldn't have pursued if he believed TM was on drugs. I said he was an idiot to pursue, that it doesn't make sense to pursue under those circumstances, except if you're emboldened to act foolishly because you're carrying a loaded firearm. And again, you're taking Zimmerman at his word about how the events unfolded, but why should we take him at his word? Why shouldn't we look upon his every utterance as potentially self-serving since he is trying to save himself from possibly life in prison, and since there are quite a few instances where his version of events does not comport with the evidence?

Originally posted by Cory:

I want to take a special moment to examine the ignorance in your statement "There are no eyewitnesses to these events. How do we know that it wasn't Zimmerman who punched first?"
-Holy shit woman, there may not be any eye witnesses, but the fact that you are still ignoring the physical evidence is just upsetting to me - arguing with you is like fighting with a brick wall, no matter how many punches I land, you're not even going to notice.
--I'll just go over it once more, for Frisca of course, so as to not be dismissive - The evidence indicates that Martin was never punched, not one single time, and it clearly shows Zimmerman had the holy shit beaten out of him. Pretty sure Martin threw the first punch.

The evidence also indicates that GZ lied about TM covering his nose and mouth with his hands. There's evidence that indicates that GZ lied about TM seeing the gun or going for the gun. There's evidence that indicates that GZ lied about TM being over him at the moment the shot was fired.

I have to get some work done now but I'll respond to your other points later. Suffice to say at this point, you are taking Zimmerman at his word completely, I am not, and therein lies the basic disagreement. And I'll say it again, if GZ stays in his car and doesn't try to "help the police," as you put it, (and again, you're taking GZ at his word that he was merely trying to find the name of the street), then there's no shooting, a pretty simple truth that you don't want to deal with.

Message edited by author 2013-07-15 15:38:40.

Spork99

Canon EOS R8

Canon RF 16mm F2.8 STM

07/15/2013 11:47:18 AM · #131

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by blindjustice:
After all this, no one has answered why Zimmerman was following this kid, and wouldn't let it go, this night.

Without editorializing, why was he following an unarmed kid with skittles and an iced tea?

Originally posted by Cory:
Why does it matter?

It's not illegal.

Why do you continue to bring up this fallacy, it's not relevant to the incident, which really didn't begin until Martin attacked Zimmerman.

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
First, there is no conclusive evidence that Martin attacked Zimmerman. There is another version of the events leading up to the physical altercation presented by the friend who was on the phone with Martin at the time of the first verbal (and apparently physical) exchange. The friend claims that Martin said to Zimmerman, "Why are you following me?" To which Zimmerman replied, "What are you doing around here?" or something to that effect. Then she hears the phone drop and Martin say, "Get off me, get off me." There are no eyewitnesses to these events. How do we know that it wasn't Zimmerman who punched first?

And, by the way, Zimmerman claims he thought Martin might be "on drugs." Doesn't that make this suspicious character even more potentially dangerous? So, what kind of an idiot follows a suspicious character around who might be on drugs? Answer: The idiot with the gun in his pocket.

As to the question about when the incident began, some of us perceive the beginning at the point where Zimmerman decides to pursue Martin, and that's why we keep bringing it up. Whether it's illegal or not doesn't really matter, because absent the pursuit, there would have been no incident. That was a choice Zimmerman made, and it was within his power not to follow. When you consider that Zimmerman was armed with a deadly weapon, that he thought the kid was suspicious, possibly dangerous, possibly on drugs which could potentially make him more dangerous, that Zimmerman was the one with all the police/legal/Neighborhood-Watch training, and that the 911 operator told him not to pursue, he at least bears some moral responsibility for making the crucial decision from which everything else follows. Why is that difficult to understand?

Originally posted by Cory:
Ok. Point by point Judith.

No evidence Zimmerman was attacked by Martin. I don't even like answering you on these points, but for Frisca I will.
-Injuries to Zimmerman - Bloody Nose, bleeding wounds to the back of the head -- VS -- Injuries to Martin - bruised knuckles, gunshot wound
--Conclusion, you're either ignoring what I've said ten times already, along with all the physical evidence, or you somehow insanely think this indicates that Zimmerman was attacking Martin.

You've misunderstood me. My point is how do we know who initiated the physical attack? Obviously, TM managed to land some blows on GZ, but there is no eyewitness to the initiation of these events.

Originally posted by Cory:
Rachel Jeantel, your only even close to valid point, is about the most disastrous thing that happened to the prosecution. If you want to blame someone for Zimmerman walking, blame her. She was surly, used racial slurs like they were a non issue, and because of the culture she is a part of, would almost certainly have felt compelled to say whatever she thought would benefit her friend, and screw that 'creepy ass cracker' over for shooting him.
-I completely dismiss her as being anything even close to unbiased or reliable, if anything she served as a great character witness, since I think you will agree that we do tend to act and think in a similar manner to those who we identify as our friends.

You can dismiss her testimony if you want to, but she did report the same events immediately after the shooting as she related on the witness stand. Even if you dismiss her testimony, there are contradictory reports from the eyewitnesses as to who was atop the other during the fistfight, and contradictory reports as to who was yelling for help. Furthermore, there was at least one policeman-investigator who testified that he thought GZ should be charged with manslaughter as he didn't think GZ's injuries warranted a claim of self-defense requiring deadly force. So take the girlfriend out of it and you've still got plenty of witnesses who contradict the claims of GZ.

Originally posted by Cory:
As for Martin being 'on drugs' and the fact that you somehow think this proves Zimmerman wouldn't have followed him, let's remember that HE WASN'T TRYING TO CONFRONT TRAYVON, he was trying to help the police to confront him. Trayvon approached Zimmerman in his vehicle, then took off, and subsequently circled back on him to confront him. Even ignoring the fact that Trayvon's text messages were full of stuff about drugs and fighting, it does seem that the aggressor was not Zimmerman. No one KNOWS anything here for sure, that's why we try to use the evidence to indicate what is likely. It doesn't take a salty sailor to tell which way the wind is blowing here.

You've misunderstood me again. I didn't say that GZ wouldn't have pursued if he believed TM was on drugs. I said he was an idiot to pursue, that it doesn't make sense to pursue under those circumstances, except if you're emboldened to act foolishly because you're carrying a loaded firearm. And again, you're taking Zimmerman at his word about how the events unfolded, but why should we take him at his word? Why shouldn't we look upon his every utterance as potentially self-serving since he is trying to save himself from possibly life in prison, and since there are quite a few instances where his version of events does not comport with the evidence?

Originally posted by Cory:
I want to take a special moment to examine the ignorance in your statement "There are no eyewitnesses to these events. How do we know that it wasn't Zimmerman who punched first?"
-Holy shit woman, there may not be any eye witnesses, but the fact that you are still ignoring the physical evidence is just upsetting to me - arguing with you is like fighting with a brick wall, no matter how many punches I land, you're not even going to notice.
--I'll just go over it once more, for Frisca of course, so as to not be dismissive - The evidence indicates that Martin was never punched, not one single time, and it clearly shows Zimmerman had the holy shit beaten out of him. Pretty sure Martin threw the first punch.

The evidence also indicates that GZ lied about TM covering his nose and mouth with his hands. There's evidence that indicates that GZ lied about TM seeing the gun or going for the gun. There's evidence that indicates that GZ lied about TM being over him at the moment the shot was fired.

I have to get some work done now but I'll respond to your other points later. Suffice to say at this point, you are taking Zimmerman at his word completely, I am not, and therein lies the basic disagreement. And I'll say it again, if GZ stays in his car and doesn't try to "help the police," as you put it, (and again, you're taking GZ at his word that he was merely trying to find the name of the street), then there's no shooting, a pretty simple truth that you don't want to deal with.

Your personal bias against guns and in favor of criminals is simply amazing. You're willing to slant every discrepancy against Zimmerman in your pursuit of what you would call justice simply because you feel bad about a "kid".

frisca

Nikon D70

07/15/2013 11:50:37 AM · #132

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by frisca:
I will readily admit that I haven't voiced my thoughts on this result because I did not adequately research the evidence presented at trial. I don't think character of anyone should be the issue, but simply their actions. I didn't find any HUGE problems with the jury instruction, but then I'm not at all versed in US criminal law.

I think about this case, the case where the guy (a white guy) stabbed the prostitute in the neck (she died) and he was acquitted, and finally the case of the woman (a minority) who fired warning shots and was convicted and got something like 20 years and I read these headlines and I take a step back to see the big picture, it isn't pretty.

What about OJ? Why didn't he get screwed?

Simple answer: $$$$ and and some terrible prosecution witnesses.

Originally posted by Cory:

Which prostitute? Not this one - that guy is almost certainly going up for 2nd degree murder, despite the fact he's white. I can't find one where he was acquitted.

There is a case where a guy in Texas shot a prostitute in the neck, and she died after what must have been an agonizing couple of months. Again, there was no contest that he did it, and the reason was, according to the law, justifiable, so a conviction would be absolutely wrong. Changing this law, however, does seem prudent, since I don't really think it should have fully covered this situation due to the fact that the transaction was indeed a crime itself.

Originally posted by some article:

Gilbert had admitted to shooting Lenora Ivie Frago in the neck on Christmas Eve 2009, when she accepted $150 from Gilbert and left his home without having sex with him. Frago, who was paralyzed by the shooting, died several months later.

Gilbert's defense argued that the shooting wasn't meant to kill, and that Gilbert's actions were justified, because he believed that sex was included as part of the fee. Texas law allows people "to use deadly force to recover property during a nighttime theft."

The application of the law is the problem in that case. Each case that we've mentioned collective here has it's "reasons" for its perceived 'wonky' decision. What my point is, quite simply, is that collective the law is being applied and cases are coming down in a way that looks like rich accused, majority accused (especially where the victim is a minority and isn't a "perfect person") get away with things that minorities cannot. This is something that is plainly visible on the cases themselves. You don't see this illustration of racism so starkly in Canadian courts, for example -- it exists here as well, but not like these cases.

Originally posted by Cory:

And you don't think that is NUTS?!
..

Originally posted by Cory:

I don't mind how that looks - it seems to me that the law follows precedent, and the rule of law itself. The police are shitheads WAY too much of the time, and likely engage commonly in far more egregious profiling than Zimmerman could ever be accused of. However, in general I think the courts do a reasonable job, and I think they tend to apply the law with a reasonably even hand - especially when you consider the fact that it's a jury who actually makes the guilty/not guilty decision. Maybe not perfect, but I don't know of a legal system that is less prone to 'getting it wrong'.

Well, every justice system gets it wrong now and again, but up here we have SO MANY of our professional development hours for prosecutors devoted to wrongful conviction and things like that and I wonder if the same sort of efforts are made down south. They have paid off well here.

Message edited by author 2013-07-15 15:51:51.

Spork99

Canon EOS R8

Canon RF 16mm F2.8 STM

07/15/2013 11:51:45 AM · #133

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by Spork99:
So many "ifs" that would have made this a non-incident, plenty of them resting with the decisions made by Martin as well. If he had simply gone to his dad's house instead of doubling back to confront Zimmerman.

So you've got a stranger following you for no apparent reason, and you're going to lead him right to your home? I wouldn't.

He had a cell phone, no? He could have called the police, used 911 right then and there to say, "I've got some creep following me". Instead he chose to call his 'girlfriend' and tell her he was going back to confront this guy. Isn't calling 911 and hoping the cops show up the way you propose self-defense be done. Call and hope the cops get there before you're dead.

She never testified that TM said he was "going back to confront this guy." Where are you getting this?

It's just as likely as your proposed "Zimmerman hunted down Martin" scenario. If you believe anything that girl he was on the phone with said, you're nuts. The fact is that Martin never called for help, never called 911, never did anything to de-escalate the situation. The physical evidence only supports Zimmerman's story that it was Martin who assaulted Zimmerman first.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

07/15/2013 11:59:39 AM · #134

Originally posted by Spork99:

... simply because you feel bad about a "kid".

Come on -- a human being is DEAD, for "no good reason."

A decision can be "legally correct" without being either just or moral.

Spork99

Canon EOS R8

Canon RF 16mm F2.8 STM

07/15/2013 12:05:59 PM · #135

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Spork99:
... simply because you feel bad about a "kid".

Come on -- a human being is DEAD, for "no good reason."

A decision can be "legally correct" without being either just or moral.

A kid who had been tossed out of school for possessing drugs, one who styled himself a gangster thug.

Either one could have made decisions that avoided death, but they didn't. And the physical evidence indicates that Martin initiated the violence. There's no indication that Martin would have stopped pounding Zimmerman into the cement until he was dead had he not been shot.

So, which one would you prefer dead? Zimmerman or Martin?

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

07/15/2013 12:30:00 PM · #136

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

No, no I didn't misunderstand you at all. How do we know what we know? Do our senses deceive us? ... Pfft.

Be clear, we don't know this, and never will. We do know that the evidence strongly suggests it to be true though.

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by Cory:
Rachel Jeantel, your only even close to valid point, is about the most disastrous thing that happened to the prosecution. If you want to blame someone for Zimmerman walking, blame her. She was surly, used racial slurs like they were a non issue, and because of the culture she is a part of, would almost certainly have felt compelled to say whatever she thought would benefit her friend, and screw that 'creepy ass cracker' over for shooting him.
-I completely dismiss her as being anything even close to unbiased or reliable, if anything she served as a great character witness, since I think you will agree that we do tend to act and think in a similar manner to those who we identify as our friends.

You can dismiss her testimony if you want to, but she did report the same events immediately after the shooting as she related on the witness stand. Even if you dismiss her testimony, there are contradictory reports from the eyewitnesses as to who was atop the other during the fistfight, and contradictory reports as to who was yelling for help. Furthermore, there was at least one policeman-investigator who testified that he thought GZ should be charged with manslaughter as he didn't think GZ's injuries warranted a claim of self-defense requiring deadly force. So take the girlfriend out of it and you've still got plenty of witnesses who contradict the claims of GZ.

Ok, and I do. And there's nothing preventing her from lying then or now. Doesn't matter anyway. I'm curious why you didn't defend her blatant racism.

As for who was on top, it's pretty consistent that there was testimony that the 'bigger guy was on top' and most said he was wearing a 'dark' jacket. That could easily have been either one, but from the evidence (Zimmerman's face and Martin's knuckles), it would seem that Zimmerman was on the bottom. The grass stains on his jacket are a further point that seems to indicate this to be true.

Be clear, we don't know this, and never will. We do know that the evidence strongly suggests it to be true though.

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by Cory:
As for Martin being 'on drugs' and the fact that you somehow think this proves Zimmerman wouldn't have followed him, let's remember that HE WASN'T TRYING TO CONFRONT TRAYVON, he was trying to help the police to confront him. Trayvon approached Zimmerman in his vehicle, then took off, and subsequently circled back on him to confront him. Even ignoring the fact that Trayvon's text messages were full of stuff about drugs and fighting, it does seem that the aggressor was not Zimmerman. No one KNOWS anything here for sure, that's why we try to use the evidence to indicate what is likely. It doesn't take a salty sailor to tell which way the wind is blowing here.

You've misunderstood me again. I didn't say that GZ wouldn't have pursued if he believed TM was on drugs. I said he was an idiot to pursue, that it doesn't make sense to pursue under those circumstances, except if you're emboldened to act foolishly because you're carrying a loaded firearm. And again, you're taking Zimmerman at his word about how the events unfolded, but why should we take him at his word? Why shouldn't we look upon his every utterance as potentially self-serving since he is trying to save himself from possibly life in prison, and since there are quite a few instances where his version of events does not comport with the evidence?

No, no I didn't misunderstand you at all. The simple fact is that Zimmerman wasn't 'pursuing' or 'stalking' or even 'following' Martin at the time of the attack, he had lost sight of him some time before that, at which point the evidence indicates that Martin went to his dad's house, turned around, and ambushed Zimmerman when he was returning to his truck.

Be clear, we don't know this, and never will. We do know that the evidence strongly suggests it to be true though.

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by Cory:
I want to take a special moment to examine the ignorance in your statement "There are no eyewitnesses to these events. How do we know that it wasn't Zimmerman who punched first?"
-Holy shit woman, there may not be any eye witnesses, but the fact that you are still ignoring the physical evidence is just upsetting to me - arguing with you is like fighting with a brick wall, no matter how many punches I land, you're not even going to notice.
--I'll just go over it once more, for Frisca of course, so as to not be dismissive - The evidence indicates that Martin was never punched, not one single time, and it clearly shows Zimmerman had the holy shit beaten out of him. Pretty sure Martin threw the first punch.

The evidence also indicates that GZ lied about TM covering his nose and mouth with his hands. There's evidence that indicates that GZ lied about TM seeing the gun or going for the gun. There's evidence that indicates that GZ lied about TM being over him at the moment the shot was fired.

I have to get some work done now but I'll respond to your other points later. Suffice to say at this point, you are taking Zimmerman at his word completely, I am not, and therein lies the basic disagreement. And I'll say it again, if GZ stays in his car and doesn't try to "help the police," as you put it, (and again, you're taking GZ at his word that he was merely trying to find the name of the street), then there's no shooting, a pretty simple truth that you don't want to deal with.

I'm taking the evidence for what it indicates, and I think Zimmerman's account lines up with the physical evidence pretty damned well Judith, and think you have failed to show that it does not. You seem to think the burden of proof is upon the accused, and again, you are wrong. The burden of proof is upon the prosecution in this country.

Finally we're back to your blame the victim bullshit. "If he stayed in his car it wouldn't have happened" - really, Judith... Really... Stop, just stop.

And as a final point, if you're not racist yourself, why do you keep calling the item he purchased "tea"? Are you afraid to call it "Watermelon Juice" for some reason? Go ahead, it's ok. And you can stop calling Trayvon a kid too while you're at it.

Message edited by author 2013-07-15 16:40:34.

Mike

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

07/15/2013 12:32:20 PM · #137

Originally posted by Spork99:

So, which one would you prefer dead? Zimmerman or Martin?

that a stupid argument

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

07/15/2013 12:35:19 PM · #138

Originally posted by Cory:

"If he stayed in his car it wouldn't have happened" - really, Judith... Really... Stop, just stop.

You really think that, if Zimmerman had stayed in his car after calling 911 (as requested), Martin would be dead now?
Stop, just stop (and think).

Originally posted by Cory:

And as a final point, if you're not racist yourself, why do you keep calling the item he purchased "tea"? Are you afraid to call it "Watermelon Juice" for some reason? Go ahead, it's ok. And you can stop calling Trayvon a kid too while you're at it.

It was (as I have heard ) an Arizona Tea brand beverage. At 17 I believe he is legally a minor in all 50 states.

07/15/2013 12:37:03 PM · #139

Originally posted by Mike:

Originally posted by Spork99:

So, which one would you prefer dead? Zimmerman or Martin?

that a stupid argument

As I said, I simply wish ANOTHER Zimmerman had been there to bullrush in, and stop the fight before Zimmerman shot Martin. A man screamed for help for 40 seconds, and no one helped him, finally, as a last desperate resort, he used his firearm to help himself, and in doing so, almost certainly did save his life.

Martin may not have been the 'type' to kill, but he sure was on a good path to doing so that night, perhaps unintentionally, but there is some question as to whether or not he was so bold as to tell Zimmerman that he was about to die.

No, the only way this could ever have ended well, once the attack began, was if another person had actually been brave enough to risk their safety to save those two lives. Instead, everyone called 911, not a bad decision from a logical standpoint, but wanting, and weak IMO, especially in the 'home of the brave'.

07/15/2013 12:38:15 PM · #140

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Cory:
"If he stayed in his car it wouldn't have happened" - really, Judith... Really... Stop, just stop.

You really think that, if Zimmerman had stayed in his car after calling 911 (as requested), Martin would be dead now?
Stop, just stop (and think).

Originally posted by Cory:

And as a final point, if you're not racist yourself, why do you keep calling the item he purchased "tea"? Are you afraid to call it "Watermelon Juice" for some reason? Go ahead, it's ok. And you can stop calling Trayvon a kid too while you're at it.

It was (as I have heard ) an Arizona Tea brand beverage. At 17 I believe he is legally a minor in all 50 states.

Doesn't say Tea anywhere on the can.

Legally a minor, until he kills someone, robs a store, or joins the military anyway, right?

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

07/15/2013 12:42:52 PM · #141

Why don't you answer the important question, not the triviality of what flavor beverage someone prefers, which has absolutely no relevance other than verifying it was non-alcoholic and therefore legally in Martin's posession, unless you now want to suggest that he shoplifted it ...

Your lack of compassion for the the family of someone who was killed though simply going about the ordinary activities of daily life is stupefying ...

Sony Sonnar FE 2.8 35mm ZA

07/15/2013 12:51:55 PM · #142

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Jesus man, I haven't answered the 'important question' have I?

My point wasn't about the beverage flavor. It was about the fact everyone is afraid to seem racist by calling it watermelon juice. The can doesn't have the word Tea on it anywhere, and it's not based on, nor does it contain tea. It was a "Arizona Brand, Watermelon Fruit Juice Cocktail".

This shows just how little most people know about the case, and I was picking it out as a single point of contention to show that basically everyone arguing this has a rather worrisome number of clear facts wrong, and are mistakenly calling Martin a kid, Zimmerman white, calling that crap Tea, using the world 'stalking' (a legal term that had nothing to do with this), citing 'stand your ground' which weren't even at play, and a hundred other freaking things that are driving me nuts here.

Get your facts straight folks, until then you're just going off what you've been told. Of course, I am assuming that the evidence was accurate, and that Zimmerman (mostly) did not lie. I assume that because the evidence (meta-evidence?) indicates that it is more likely true than not. There is a scale in the hand of Lady Justice, it is to weigh the evidence and find the balance. That is how it is done, and it is precisely what I am doing here. I don't know that I'm inclined to give the opposition here credit for having done the same.

As for it not being alcoholic? True. But it seems he may have been looking to make himself some Lean - why else do you go for a mile long walk in the rain at night to get a soda and candy? A really bad sweet-tooth? Come on man. BTW: Before you call that a baseless accusation, do know that Trayvon had texts referencing his regular use of Lean. Which, by the way, is some bad shit.

My lack of compassion for the family? That emotive wheeze? Ordinary actions of daily life? If your ordinary daily life involves felonious assault bordering on attempted murder, then yes, I suppose I can support someone shooting you while you're engaging in your 'Ordinary actions of daily life'..

I DO feel sorry for the family, they are living in a nightmare I am sure. I DO NOT feel sorry for Trayvon, he bought his ticket, and took his ride.

Zimmerman I'm a bit more ambivalent about. He's on a nightmare ride too, but like Martin, he bought the ticket.

Message edited by author 2013-07-15 17:03:53.

jagar

Samsung Galaxy S9/S9+

07/15/2013 01:05:44 PM · #143

Things that hit me when reading this rant:

Just like tennis.
Hard headed opinions.
many truths for the same story.
No neutrality.
Much anger.
No openness.
No solution.
All caused by fear of loss.
Big egos creating incy wincy worlds.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

07/15/2013 01:10:37 PM · #144

Originally posted by Cory:

It was a "Arizona Brand, Watermelon Fruit Juice Cocktail".

Sounds tasty, except for the "cocktail" part which usually means any juice has been substantially augmented with water and high-fructose corn syrup or sugar.

07/15/2013 01:13:57 PM · #145

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by Spork99:
So many "ifs" that would have made this a non-incident, plenty of them resting with the decisions made by Martin as well. If he had simply gone to his dad's house instead of doubling back to confront Zimmerman.

So you've got a stranger following you for no apparent reason, and you're going to lead him right to your home? I wouldn't.

Would you instead attack him? Was that a reasonable action? Was it criminal? Was it the first criminal act?

What would YOU have done Judith?

I might have called the police, but I probably would have called an adult who was closer to the scene -- for example, if there had been an adult home in the house I was going to, I might have called that person for help. By the way, my understanding is that there was no adult home in TM's house, there may have been a younger niece or nephew there at the time if my memory serves, so I can absolutely understand why he wouldn't want this guy following him there. I might have tried to get to my car if it was nearby and I thought I could do so safely. I might have tried to enlist the help of a neighbor. But I'm not sure that what I would have done has any bearing, since I'm a white female and the options open to me aren't necessarily open to a young black male.

Actually, I had an experience on the NYC subway recently where two young guys in sweats approached me and told me to get off the train. I told them hell no, I wasn't getting off the train, asked them who they were. They finally showed me their badge necklaces (plainclothes police). I told them I still didn't trust them, I had done nothing wrong. They threatened to handcuff me. I felt like I was about to be victimized by thieves or rapists. After some more tense back and forth, I asked them to show me their badges again and tell me why they were stopping me. That's when they finally told me they were giving me a $75 ticket for walking between cars when the train was stopped in the station. I didn't know that was against the law, and it's not posted anywhere. So not exactly like Trayvon Martin, but approached by strangers when I was pretty darn sure I hadn't done anything wrong, and you're damn right I was getting combative. I was actually close to hyperventilating. And the thought that was running through my mind during the whole incident was, how can I hurt these guys sufficiently to buy myself some time to get away? I'm glad I decided not to go that route because I would have been in a whole heap of trouble, but fighting them physically was definitely an option if it had to come to that. I think I can understand how Trayvon Martin felt that night. I decided not to try to hurt these guys because I didn't think I could win that fight, but perhaps Trayvon Martin thought standing and fighting was his best option.

07/15/2013 01:14:19 PM · #146

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Cory:
It was a "Arizona Brand, Watermelon Fruit Juice Cocktail".

Sounds tasty, except for the "cocktail" part which usually means any juice has been substantially augmented with water and high-fructose corn syrup or sugar.

Indeed. It actually sounds pretty horrible to me, but that's for the exact reason you mention. Watermelon juice sounds pretty wonderful right about now.. :)

Instead, now that we're talking about this, I think I need to go grab a giant horchata now.

Ya'll hold this argument down for 20 minutes without me ok? ;)

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

07/15/2013 01:17:31 PM · #147

Originally posted by Cory:

Watermelon juice sounds pretty wonderful right about now.. :)

a.k.a. agua fresca out West ... :-)

07/15/2013 01:18:22 PM · #148

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by Spork99:
So many "ifs" that would have made this a non-incident, plenty of them resting with the decisions made by Martin as well. If he had simply gone to his dad's house instead of doubling back to confront Zimmerman.

So you've got a stranger following you for no apparent reason, and you're going to lead him right to your home? I wouldn't.

Would you instead attack him? Was that a reasonable action? Was it criminal? Was it the first criminal act?

What would YOU have done Judith?

I might have called the police, but I probably would have called an adult who was closer to the scene -- for example, if there had been an adult home in the house I was going to, I might have called that person for help. By the way, my understanding is that there was no adult home in TM's house, there may have been a younger niece or nephew there at the time if my memory serves, so I can absolutely understand why he wouldn't want this guy following him there. I might have tried to get to my car if it was nearby and I thought I could do so safely. I might have tried to enlist the help of a neighbor. But I'm not sure that what I would have done has any bearing, since I'm a white female and the options open to me aren't necessarily open to a young black male.

Actually, I had an experience on the NYC subway recently where two young guys in sweats approached me and told me to get off the train. I told them hell no, I wasn't getting off the train, asked them who they were. They finally showed me their badge necklaces (plainclothes police). I told them I still didn't trust them, I had done nothing wrong. They threatened to handcuff me. I felt like I was about to be victimized by thieves or rapists. After some more tense back and forth, I asked them to show me their badges again and tell me why they were stopping me. That's when they finally told me they were giving me a $75 ticket for walking between cars when the train was stopped in the station. I didn't know that was against the law, and it's not posted anywhere. So not exactly like Trayvon Martin, but approached by strangers when I was pretty darn sure I hadn't done anything wrong, and you're damn right I was getting combative. I was actually close to hyperventilating. And the thought that was running through my mind during the whole incident was, how can I hurt these guys sufficiently to buy myself some time to get away? I'm glad I decided not to go that route because I would have been in a whole heap of trouble, but fighting them physically was definitely an option if it had to come to that. I think I can understand how Trayvon Martin felt that night. I decided not to try to hurt these guys because I didn't think I could win that fight, but perhaps Trayvon Martin thought standing and fighting was his best option.

Before I go grab that horchata...

Your situation was scary as all hell, I've been there, and know the feeling all too well.

The problem is, that you've glossed over the fact that Trayvon had effectively escaped, but chose to return and confront. Not at all the same as the scenario and emotions you presented above. He was not running for his life, and he was most certainly not in fear for his life, what person who was afraid for their life would choose to return and confront the threat, unarmed.

(which is another point of curiosity, why Martin didn't use that can of juice as a weapon is a mystery to me, in any case, no matter what the reason, that would have made a fine weapon)

07/15/2013 01:24:02 PM · #149

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by blindjustice:
After all this, no one has answered why Zimmerman was following this kid, and wouldn't let it go, this night.

Without editorializing, why was he following an unarmed kid with skittles and an iced tea?

Originally posted by Cory:
Why does it matter?

It's not illegal.

Why do you continue to bring up this fallacy, it's not relevant to the incident, which really didn't begin until Martin attacked Zimmerman.

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
First, there is no conclusive evidence that Martin attacked Zimmerman. There is another version of the events leading up to the physical altercation presented by the friend who was on the phone with Martin at the time of the first verbal (and apparently physical) exchange. The friend claims that Martin said to Zimmerman, "Why are you following me?" To which Zimmerman replied, "What are you doing around here?" or something to that effect. Then she hears the phone drop and Martin say, "Get off me, get off me." There are no eyewitnesses to these events. How do we know that it wasn't Zimmerman who punched first?

And, by the way, Zimmerman claims he thought Martin might be "on drugs." Doesn't that make this suspicious character even more potentially dangerous? So, what kind of an idiot follows a suspicious character around who might be on drugs? Answer: The idiot with the gun in his pocket.

As to the question about when the incident began, some of us perceive the beginning at the point where Zimmerman decides to pursue Martin, and that's why we keep bringing it up. Whether it's illegal or not doesn't really matter, because absent the pursuit, there would have been no incident. That was a choice Zimmerman made, and it was within his power not to follow. When you consider that Zimmerman was armed with a deadly weapon, that he thought the kid was suspicious, possibly dangerous, possibly on drugs which could potentially make him more dangerous, that Zimmerman was the one with all the police/legal/Neighborhood-Watch training, and that the 911 operator told him not to pursue, he at least bears some moral responsibility for making the crucial decision from which everything else follows. Why is that difficult to understand?

Originally posted by Cory:
Ok. Point by point Judith.

No evidence Zimmerman was attacked by Martin. I don't even like answering you on these points, but for Frisca I will.
-Injuries to Zimmerman - Bloody Nose, bleeding wounds to the back of the head -- VS -- Injuries to Martin - bruised knuckles, gunshot wound
--Conclusion, you're either ignoring what I've said ten times already, along with all the physical evidence, or you somehow insanely think this indicates that Zimmerman was attacking Martin.

You've misunderstood me. My point is how do we know who initiated the physical attack? Obviously, TM managed to land some blows on GZ, but there is no eyewitness to the initiation of these events.

No, no I didn't misunderstand you at all. How do we know what we know? Do our senses deceive us? ... Pfft.

Be clear, we don't know this, and never will. We do know that the evidence strongly suggests it to be true though.
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by Cory:
Rachel Jeantel, your only even close to valid point, is about the most disastrous thing that happened to the prosecution. If you want to blame someone for Zimmerman walking, blame her. She was surly, used racial slurs like they were a non issue, and because of the culture she is a part of, would almost certainly have felt compelled to say whatever she thought would benefit her friend, and screw that 'creepy ass cracker' over for shooting him.
-I completely dismiss her as being anything even close to unbiased or reliable, if anything she served as a great character witness, since I think you will agree that we do tend to act and think in a similar manner to those who we identify as our friends.

You can dismiss her testimony if you want to, but she did report the same events immediately after the shooting as she related on the witness stand. Even if you dismiss her testimony, there are contradictory reports from the eyewitnesses as to who was atop the other during the fistfight, and contradictory reports as to who was yelling for help. Furthermore, there was at least one policeman-investigator who testified that he thought GZ should be charged with manslaughter as he didn't think GZ's injuries warranted a claim of self-defense requiring deadly force. So take the girlfriend out of it and you've still got plenty of witnesses who contradict the claims of GZ.

Ok, and I do. And there's nothing preventing her from lying then or now. Doesn't matter anyway. I'm curious why you didn't defend her blatant racism.

As for who was on top, it's pretty consistent that there was testimony that the 'bigger guy was on top' and most said he was wearing a 'dark' jacket. That could easily have been either one, but from the evidence (Zimmerman's face and Martin's knuckles), it would seem that Zimmerman was on the bottom. The grass stains on his jacket are a further point that seems to indicate this to be true.

Be clear, we don't know this, and never will. We do know that the evidence strongly suggests it to be true though.
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by Cory:
As for Martin being 'on drugs' and the fact that you somehow think this proves Zimmerman wouldn't have followed him, let's remember that HE WASN'T TRYING TO CONFRONT TRAYVON, he was trying to help the police to confront him. Trayvon approached Zimmerman in his vehicle, then took off, and subsequently circled back on him to confront him. Even ignoring the fact that Trayvon's text messages were full of stuff about drugs and fighting, it does seem that the aggressor was not Zimmerman. No one KNOWS anything here for sure, that's why we try to use the evidence to indicate what is likely. It doesn't take a salty sailor to tell which way the wind is blowing here.

You've misunderstood me again. I didn't say that GZ wouldn't have pursued if he believed TM was on drugs. I said he was an idiot to pursue, that it doesn't make sense to pursue under those circumstances, except if you're emboldened to act foolishly because you're carrying a loaded firearm. And again, you're taking Zimmerman at his word about how the events unfolded, but why should we take him at his word? Why shouldn't we look upon his every utterance as potentially self-serving since he is trying to save himself from possibly life in prison, and since there are quite a few instances where his version of events does not comport with the evidence?

No, no I didn't misunderstand you at all. The simple fact is that Zimmerman wasn't 'pursuing' or 'stalking' or even 'following' Martin at the time of the attack, he had lost sight of him some time before that, at which point the evidence indicates that Martin went to his dad's house, turned around, and ambushed Zimmerman when he was returning to his truck.

Be clear, we don't know this, and never will. We do know that the evidence strongly suggests it to be true though.
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by Cory:
I want to take a special moment to examine the ignorance in your statement "There are no eyewitnesses to these events. How do we know that it wasn't Zimmerman who punched first?"
-Holy shit woman, there may not be any eye witnesses, but the fact that you are still ignoring the physical evidence is just upsetting to me - arguing with you is like fighting with a brick wall, no matter how many punches I land, you're not even going to notice.
--I'll just go over it once more, for Frisca of course, so as to not be dismissive - The evidence indicates that Martin was never punched, not one single time, and it clearly shows Zimmerman had the holy shit beaten out of him. Pretty sure Martin threw the first punch.

The evidence also indicates that GZ lied about TM covering his nose and mouth with his hands. There's evidence that indicates that GZ lied about TM seeing the gun or going for the gun. There's evidence that indicates that GZ lied about TM being over him at the moment the shot was fired.

I have to get some work done now but I'll respond to your other points later. Suffice to say at this point, you are taking Zimmerman at his word completely, I am not, and therein lies the basic disagreement. And I'll say it again, if GZ stays in his car and doesn't try to "help the police," as you put it, (and again, you're taking GZ at his word that he was merely trying to find the name of the street), then there's no shooting, a pretty simple truth that you don't want to deal with.

I'm taking the evidence for what it indicates, and I think Zimmerman's account lines up with the physical evidence pretty damned well Judith, and think you have failed to show that it does not. You seem to think the burden of proof is upon the accused, and again, you are wrong. The burden of proof is upon the prosecution in this country.

Finally we're back to your blame the victim bullshit. "If he stayed in his car it wouldn't have happened" - really, Judith... Really... Stop, just stop.

And as a final point, if you're not racist yourself, why do you keep calling the item he purchased "tea"? Are you afraid to call it "Watermelon Juice" for some reason? Go ahead, it's ok. And you can stop calling Trayvon a kid too while you're at it.

He was a kid, a minor. And I never referenced what he was drinking. That is blindjustice, go back and re-read.