Facts, let me see, since both trials ended in acquittals, I guess you're demanding something you know doesn't exist. That's a pretty slick arguing technique.
My opinion, shared by millions by the way, is that both O.J. and Zimmerman got off in spite of their guilt.
We'll see about the civil law suit. Frankly, I'd say that it's even money whether or not the family will even bring one against him. Yeah, the standard of proof is lower, but a civil case will also allow a lot more shenanigans by both sides, and they family may not be interested in such a roll in the mud.
As for your gleeful recounting of how this is going to ruin GZ's life--he was found not guilty, so why should we be happy with a system that ruins the lives of people who are not guilty?
Hell, why should we be happy with a system that wrecks the same ruin upon the lives of people found guilty, even long after they've paid the penalty?
But go on, Javert, I mean Jade--keep reveling in the idea of attaching permanent infamy to anyone who fails to meet your standards.
The kid, Martin, was 6'-2", about 4 or 5 inches taller than Zimmerman. Zimmerman was also overweight and out of shape.
You can have your own opinion about the verdict if you want, but don't skew the facts.
It's a tragedy that the kid got killed and Zimmerman will have to live with that the rest of his life. But he did go to trial, which is what everyone on the left was clamoring for. Too bad the trial didn't turn out the way the left wanted it to because after examining the evidence, the state just didn't have what it took to convict Zimmerman.
You were certain that Zimmerman would lose the criminal case, even when lawyers on MSNBC were saying that they'd bet on the defense since the prosecution had a hugely uphill battle.
Forgive me if I take your predictions about the chances on the civil suit with a big grain of salt.
Was I really certain Zimmerman would lose the criminal case? I don't remember that. I remember saying I predict an acquittal even though he's guilty as sin.
Hey!!!, You can say the same thing about Travon Martin except for the getting a job, or watching out for a 180lb 17yo drug dealing gang member, not a 130lb 15yo that you keep lying about.....
Your side has made it more than clear that the earlier photos of Trayvon were misleading. But that really has nothing to do with it. "Drug dealing gang member?" I don't know about that. It sounds like the usual pro-gun embellishment necessary to successfully push your losing argument.
Mike, I have to ask again, have you ever listened to the entire Zimmerman call to the police? In a response to Jim on a previous thread, you questioned the existence of 90 seconds of tape after the “instructions” not to follow were given. So either you never listened to what could be called the primary piece of evidence, or you listened to it and quickly discarded anything that doesn’t fit the narrative while focusing on anything that does (and you call us “blind supporters”?).
Here is a link to the entire call. Now is your chance to listen to it, and pay close attention to what happens between 2:30 and 4:13. Why is this so important? Well, you’ve noted maybe a hundred times how Zimmerman ignored police “instructions” and followed/confronted/initiated contact with Martin. Well, guess what? We actually have 90+ seconds where we get to listen into exactly what Zimmerman did after receiving his “instructions”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9A-gp8mrdw
I’d also like you to watch this video. I stumbled across it just now while looking for the above link. It’s a reenactment created by a Trayvon supporter. There are many major flaws that don’t agree with the evidence (including even when they show Zimmerman’s side of the story, they still depict it as murder instead of lawful self-defense), but I want to focus on just one part. Like I have been saying, those 90 seconds after “we don’t need you to do that” is highly destructive to the media/liberal/gun control narrative that has been pushed for 18 months. The video has Zimmerman hanging up the phone at 2:30, giving a contemplated pause, and then a “screw it” look on his face as he takes off after Martin. This is not up to interpretation, or a case of “could have happened that way”. That is not what happened. Zimmerman stayed on the phone for another minute and a half. But you see how important it is to ignore that part if you want to pronounce Zimmerman guilty. This reenactment wouldn’t quite work with it in there, would it?
I've listened to the whole thing several times and honestly don't get the significance. Why do you say we have to ignore the 90 seconds in order to make a case against GZ? Doesn't it boil down to what many DGUs boil down to, a guy with a gun killed the guy without a gun. Did the guy with the gun really feel threatened and in danger? This 911 call doesn't help us with that crucial question one way or the other.
You've always used the recorded call to determine that Zimmerman confronted Martin. By listening to the Last 90 seconds, the timeline of events and locations clearly shows that there was no chase. The shooting happened close to Zimmerman's car, but over two minutes after he left his car. All signs point to the confrontation happening because Martin wanted it to happen.
Would you call the video a shameless mis-characterization of events when they depicted Zimmerman hanging up 90 seconds early and sprinting in Martin's direction?
All signs do not point to the confrontation having been initiated by Martin. That's what GZ says. The image you keep pushing of a drug-addled football-player-sized black kid in a murderous rage attacking Zimmerman out of no where is implausible - no it's ridiculous.
At the end of the trial, half the jurors thought George was guilty. They were persuaded by the others. GZ caught a non-guilty verdict by the skin of his teeth.
So, no, it was not as clear cut as you keep pretending.
The only things that indicate how the fight started are Zimmerman's statement to the police that Martin started it, and Jeantel's testimony that she heard Trayvon say "Why are you following me?" and Zimmerman reply something about "Who are you/what are you doing here".
Is it plausible that Zimmerman tried to grab Trayvon and hold him for police? Yes, but unlikely given his behavior with the 911 dispatcher.
Is it plausible that Trayvon decided to attack him, not perhaps with the intent to kill, because he resented this guy following him and resented what he figured Zimmerman was thinking about him? Again: Yes, that's plausible.
TS, we don't know what he was doing. And even more importantly, we don't know what it looked like to Martin. We don't know what happened after the 90 seconds either. What I imagine happened is that GZ started it with his wannabe cop attitude which was enhanced by having a concealed gun. Then when he started getting the worst of it, he pulled the weapon.
Minimum result is manslaughter. The jury got it wrong.
If the way you're imagining it is how it happened, then you're correct about the appropriate finding.
However, that's a big inference from the facts available. We have no witnesses to how it actually happened, and apparently the prosecution failed to convince the jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, that what you assume happened is what happened. If they weren't convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt, that that was the case, then they acted properly in finding him not guilty.
In the end, he could be guilty or he could be innocent, but it's in all of our interest to require that a case be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and run the risk of letting guilty parties go to avoid ruining the lives of innocent people who look kinda guilty but are not. We already convict too many innocent people--we don't need to loosen the standards and convict even more of them.
Oh, you “imagine”, do you? Well it’s a good thing we don’t throw people in prison for 30 years based on your imagination.
MikeB: “TS, we don't know what he was doing.”
Ok, so I want to make it perfectly clear that all those times where you said something along the lines of “Zimmerman pursued Martin after being told by the police not to”, you are now saying that this is an incorrect statement of fact. Because “we don’t know what he was doing” was your answer to my direct question of whether or not he was following him. Agreed? And next time you state it as if it were fact, it is safe to call that a “lie”, yes? Still, I disagree that we don’t know what he was doing. He was talking to the dispatcher. There is audio evidence of those 90 seconds. We don’t also have video evidence, but audio can tell us a whole lot of facts. We know for certainty that he wasn’t running or even walking fast. There is no elevated breathing, there is no stomping reverberations in his voice, there is no wind noise- all of which were present in the 10-15 seconds where is got out of his car and was actually following him. Does that make sense?
MikeB: “What I imagine happened is that GZ started it with his wannabe cop attitude which was enhanced by having a concealed gun.” [my emphasis- because it is fun to emphasize that this is your imagination at work]
This is a bit off topic, but if you say he was acting as a cop, do you think that a police officer who did the same thing would be deserving of getting their head beaten into the sidewalk? You may not get where I am going with this because you guys tend to not see a difference between morality and legality.
Mikeb, unlike you, I don't pretend to be able to read minds. I don't know what Zimmerman's thoughts were. All I know is what the evidence showed and what is consistent with that evidence. But here's the thing: My carry license and gun reminds me to be aware of my surroundings but also to let things go whenever that's possible, rather than escalate them into something that could end in a shooting. I can't say for a certainty what Zimmerman's position on that is, though it is good to see reasonable doubt still means something.
"You may not get where I am going with this because you guys tend to not see a difference between morality and legality."
Oh, we get the difference all right. GZ was morally guilty of manslaughter and because of the SYG provision in the FL law, he was found not guilty by the jury, legally.
That's the difference between morality and legality.
And those punks like Trayvon that want live and act like thugs should really think about that.
ReplyDeleteYes, worry, worry a lot! There are millions before Zimmerman, and millions after.
Hey punks and thugs, don't want to end up like Trayvon? Don't act like him!
He was walking home minding his own business. What the fuck is wrong with you? Zimmerman was as guilty as O.J. in his murder trial.
DeleteCare to back up those accusations against Zimmerman and Simpson with some facts? Not inferrences, facts.
DeleteFacts, let me see, since both trials ended in acquittals, I guess you're demanding something you know doesn't exist. That's a pretty slick arguing technique.
DeleteMy opinion, shared by millions by the way, is that both O.J. and Zimmerman got off in spite of their guilt.
So it's your opinion, not based on any evidence? You can't point to evidence in either case to back up your opinion that they're guilty?
DeleteIf you could, your opinion might be persuasive. As is, your defense that it's "just your opinion" means little.
NO, lon the contrary, there was plenty of evidence in both cases.
DeleteThen point to the evidence that shows that they are both guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
DeleteIf cracking skulls is your thing, you should be worried. You should be very worried.
ReplyDeleteZimmerman's life is over unless he gets an offer from Faux News or the NRA.
ReplyDeleteHe'll wind up on the wrong side of a multimillion dollar civil lawsuit.
He'll never get a real job and he'll always have to be watching out for folks who aren't 15 yo and weigh 100 lbs less than him.
Sooo, Georgie how's being a gunloon working out for you?
We'll see about the civil law suit. Frankly, I'd say that it's even money whether or not the family will even bring one against him. Yeah, the standard of proof is lower, but a civil case will also allow a lot more shenanigans by both sides, and they family may not be interested in such a roll in the mud.
DeleteAs for your gleeful recounting of how this is going to ruin GZ's life--he was found not guilty, so why should we be happy with a system that ruins the lives of people who are not guilty?
Hell, why should we be happy with a system that wrecks the same ruin upon the lives of people found guilty, even long after they've paid the penalty?
But go on, Javert, I mean Jade--keep reveling in the idea of attaching permanent infamy to anyone who fails to meet your standards.
The kid, Martin, was 6'-2", about 4 or 5 inches taller than Zimmerman. Zimmerman was also overweight and out of shape.
DeleteYou can have your own opinion about the verdict if you want, but don't skew the facts.
It's a tragedy that the kid got killed and Zimmerman will have to live with that the rest of his life. But he did go to trial, which is what everyone on the left was clamoring for. Too bad the trial didn't turn out the way the left wanted it to because after examining the evidence, the state just didn't have what it took to convict Zimmerman.
Zimmerman's the new O.J. He'll lose in the civil suit, but too bad for the Martin family, Zimmerman's already a broke nobody.
DeleteYou were certain that Zimmerman would lose the criminal case, even when lawyers on MSNBC were saying that they'd bet on the defense since the prosecution had a hugely uphill battle.
DeleteForgive me if I take your predictions about the chances on the civil suit with a big grain of salt.
Was I really certain Zimmerman would lose the criminal case? I don't remember that. I remember saying I predict an acquittal even though he's guilty as sin.
DeleteHey!!!, You can say the same thing about Travon Martin except for the getting a job, or watching out for a 180lb 17yo drug dealing gang member, not a 130lb 15yo that you keep lying about.....
ReplyDeletesucks to ne on the wrong end of a gun....
Your side has made it more than clear that the earlier photos of Trayvon were misleading. But that really has nothing to do with it. "Drug dealing gang member?" I don't know about that. It sounds like the usual pro-gun embellishment necessary to successfully push your losing argument.
DeleteMike, I have to ask again, have you ever listened to the entire Zimmerman call to the police? In a response to Jim on a previous thread, you questioned the existence of 90 seconds of tape after the “instructions” not to follow were given. So either you never listened to what could be called the primary piece of evidence, or you listened to it and quickly discarded anything that doesn’t fit the narrative while focusing on anything that does (and you call us “blind supporters”?).
ReplyDeleteHere is a link to the entire call. Now is your chance to listen to it, and pay close attention to what happens between 2:30 and 4:13. Why is this so important? Well, you’ve noted maybe a hundred times how Zimmerman ignored police “instructions” and followed/confronted/initiated contact with Martin. Well, guess what? We actually have 90+ seconds where we get to listen into exactly what Zimmerman did after receiving his “instructions”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9A-gp8mrdw
I’d also like you to watch this video. I stumbled across it just now while looking for the above link. It’s a reenactment created by a Trayvon supporter. There are many major flaws that don’t agree with the evidence (including even when they show Zimmerman’s side of the story, they still depict it as murder instead of lawful self-defense), but I want to focus on just one part. Like I have been saying, those 90 seconds after “we don’t need you to do that” is highly destructive to the media/liberal/gun control narrative that has been pushed for 18 months. The video has Zimmerman hanging up the phone at 2:30, giving a contemplated pause, and then a “screw it” look on his face as he takes off after Martin. This is not up to interpretation, or a case of “could have happened that way”. That is not what happened. Zimmerman stayed on the phone for another minute and a half. But you see how important it is to ignore that part if you want to pronounce Zimmerman guilty. This reenactment wouldn’t quite work with it in there, would it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCE1TpvH_-E
I've listened to the whole thing several times and honestly don't get the significance. Why do you say we have to ignore the 90 seconds in order to make a case against GZ? Doesn't it boil down to what many DGUs boil down to, a guy with a gun killed the guy without a gun. Did the guy with the gun really feel threatened and in danger? This 911 call doesn't help us with that crucial question one way or the other.
DeleteYou demand that people leave the area. Isn't that what Zimmerman was trying to do?
DeleteYou've always used the recorded call to determine that Zimmerman confronted Martin. By listening to the Last 90 seconds, the timeline of events and locations clearly shows that there was no chase. The shooting happened close to Zimmerman's car, but over two minutes after he left his car. All signs point to the confrontation happening because Martin wanted it to happen.
DeleteWould you call the video a shameless mis-characterization of events when they depicted Zimmerman hanging up 90 seconds early and sprinting in Martin's direction?
Let me ask you this simple and direct question: was he following Martin during the last 90 seconds of the call?
DeleteAll signs do not point to the confrontation having been initiated by Martin. That's what GZ says. The image you keep pushing of a drug-addled football-player-sized black kid in a murderous rage attacking Zimmerman out of no where is implausible - no it's ridiculous.
DeleteAt the end of the trial, half the jurors thought George was guilty. They were persuaded by the others. GZ caught a non-guilty verdict by the skin of his teeth.
So, no, it was not as clear cut as you keep pretending.
Was he following Martin during the last 90 seconds? Yes or no?
DeleteKeep telling yourself that Mike, you may actually believe it one day.
DeleteThe only things that indicate how the fight started are Zimmerman's statement to the police that Martin started it, and Jeantel's testimony that she heard Trayvon say "Why are you following me?" and Zimmerman reply something about "Who are you/what are you doing here".
DeleteIs it plausible that Zimmerman tried to grab Trayvon and hold him for police? Yes, but unlikely given his behavior with the 911 dispatcher.
Is it plausible that Trayvon decided to attack him, not perhaps with the intent to kill, because he resented this guy following him and resented what he figured Zimmerman was thinking about him?
Again: Yes, that's plausible.
TS, we don't know what he was doing. And even more importantly, we don't know what it looked like to Martin. We don't know what happened after the 90 seconds either. What I imagine happened is that GZ started it with his wannabe cop attitude which was enhanced by having a concealed gun. Then when he started getting the worst of it, he pulled the weapon.
DeleteMinimum result is manslaughter. The jury got it wrong.
If the way you're imagining it is how it happened, then you're correct about the appropriate finding.
DeleteHowever, that's a big inference from the facts available. We have no witnesses to how it actually happened, and apparently the prosecution failed to convince the jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, that what you assume happened is what happened. If they weren't convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt, that that was the case, then they acted properly in finding him not guilty.
In the end, he could be guilty or he could be innocent, but it's in all of our interest to require that a case be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and run the risk of letting guilty parties go to avoid ruining the lives of innocent people who look kinda guilty but are not. We already convict too many innocent people--we don't need to loosen the standards and convict even more of them.
Oh, you “imagine”, do you? Well it’s a good thing we don’t throw people in prison for 30 years based on your imagination.
DeleteMikeB: “TS, we don't know what he was doing.”
Ok, so I want to make it perfectly clear that all those times where you said something along the lines of “Zimmerman pursued Martin after being told by the police not to”, you are now saying that this is an incorrect statement of fact. Because “we don’t know what he was doing” was your answer to my direct question of whether or not he was following him. Agreed? And next time you state it as if it were fact, it is safe to call that a “lie”, yes? Still, I disagree that we don’t know what he was doing. He was talking to the dispatcher. There is audio evidence of those 90 seconds. We don’t also have video evidence, but audio can tell us a whole lot of facts. We know for certainty that he wasn’t running or even walking fast. There is no elevated breathing, there is no stomping reverberations in his voice, there is no wind noise- all of which were present in the 10-15 seconds where is got out of his car and was actually following him. Does that make sense?
MikeB: “What I imagine happened is that GZ started it with his wannabe cop attitude which was enhanced by having a concealed gun.” [my emphasis- because it is fun to emphasize that this is your imagination at work]
This is a bit off topic, but if you say he was acting as a cop, do you think that a police officer who did the same thing would be deserving of getting their head beaten into the sidewalk? You may not get where I am going with this because you guys tend to not see a difference between morality and legality.
Mikeb, unlike you, I don't pretend to be able to read minds. I don't know what Zimmerman's thoughts were. All I know is what the evidence showed and what is consistent with that evidence. But here's the thing: My carry license and gun reminds me to be aware of my surroundings but also to let things go whenever that's possible, rather than escalate them into something that could end in a shooting. I can't say for a certainty what Zimmerman's position on that is, though it is good to see reasonable doubt still means something.
Delete"You may not get where I am going with this because you guys tend to not see a difference between morality and legality."
DeleteOh, we get the difference all right. GZ was morally guilty of manslaughter and because of the SYG provision in the FL law, he was found not guilty by the jury, legally.
That's the difference between morality and legality.