George Zimmerman Trial

[NCRAVEN]

I know the fight occurred 2-3 houses down from the intersection at the top and his car was straight ahead and the fight was perpendicular to that route. That TMs dads GF lived at the opposite end of that row. Ive left out Jeantel's testimony from pretty much every debate on here. I dont think its credible so despite it being strong in supporting that GZ did start it, id rather not use it. Im not sure if she was lying or not about what happened. it could easily be 100% true but the way she said it certainly makes it less credible. As far as him saying "im home". even if we break that out, how many times have you been a block or so away from home and said the same thing? I know ive said it when i was few minutes from home still. I think its relative to the location.

I think it is relative to the location as well. And "I'm home" in the scope of how far he had to go from the begining and how far it was to where the fight started is why the most logical conclusion I can come to is he had to of seen Zimmerman down b the T instersection and walk down from his father's house to confront Zimmerman.

Is it possible Zimmeramn confronted him, yeah, sure. But to me, not based on where the fight started and where his Dad's house is, if he did indeed run there. If he didn't, than I guess I'd have to rethink everything.

I think theres 18 pages of posts that have accounts of how ive came to that conclusion. most of which ive admitted is just my opinion that something else had to have happened and unsupported by evidence (just like GZs account of the initial interaction which ill continue to say is unsupported but as far as the case goes, he didnt have to prove it).

Okay, I am really not trying to argue. Just because I am asking challenging questions doesn't mean I am arguing. I do have to point out though, 18 pages of how you've come to a conclusion if it's just an opinion, isn't really coming to a conclusion.

If you feel it happened the way you do, im not contesting that as not possible. Most plausible, is strictly opinion on which scenario you believe. If you do at least admit that its possible it happened another way, than i dont think were really are arguing over anything. Knowing that there isnt evidence to support either outside bias testimony (GZ or RJ) im not sure how one can conclude definitively one way or the other with such certainty who started it. which is why ive said all along, he should walk and even went as far to say that it would be more wrong if he didnt despite feeling theres more to the story.

I'm not trying to convince you of what I believe. Maybe it's just my nature (and also my profession) to understand everything, so if you don't feel like explaining it anymore just say so. I'm just trying to figure out why it is you believe that something else "had to have hapened" and what that is.

[JAB1985]

I think it is relative to the location as well. And "I'm home" in the scope of how far he had to go from the begining and how far it was to where the fight started is why the most logical conclusion I can come to is he had to of seen Zimmerman down b the T instersection and walk down from his father's house to confront Zimmerman.

Is it possible Zimmeramn confronted him, yeah, sure. But to me, not based on where the fight started and where his Dad's house is, if he did indeed run there. If he didn't, than I guess I'd have to rethink everything.

or is it that his hiding spot was closer to the intersection to begin with and saying "hes home" was simply that he was a block away? Its possible he came back to confront GZ. its also possible both saw each other and mutually confronted each other. I think its more telling that the fight occurred 2-3 houses down from the path to GZ car and not in that direction. To me youre taking Jeantel's testimony that he was home but ignoring the rest of her testimony because it fits what you believe. Im ignoring it completely because i dont think shes credible enough to consider what she said one way or the other. without her testimony theres nothing saying he was ever home. The only other "evidence" of it was being enough time to theoretically be there which doesnt take into account if he hid somewhere which like ive said supports both theories.

Okay, I am really not trying to argue. Just because I am asking challenging questions doesn't mean I am arguing. I do have to point out though, 18 pages of how you've come to a conclusion if it's just an opinion, isn't really coming to a conclusion.

maybe arguing was the wrong word. debating. none the less its the conclusion of the trial and the evidence as well as my own personal experiences and thoughts that have come to that opinion. just as yours have for you. If you use the term conclusion to state your opinion, i dont see how its any different to state it the same for mine. I get that you feel your opinion is the more logical or however you wish to describe it, but its not based on any more facts than mine. stating you use the geography of the fight as reason for your conclusion is no different than me saying the same reason for why i think GZ went off track. i think its kind of patronizing to say youve come to a conclusion and ive merely come to an opinion.

I'm not trying to convince you of what I believe. Maybe it's just my nature (and also my profession) to understand everything, so if you don't feel like explaining it anymore just say so. I'm just trying to figure out why it is you believe that something else "had to have hapened" and what that is.

ive said before, i think the act of running away shows fear and that confronting afterward doesnt make sense unless something further provoked the issue. which ive also said, imo, GZ could have tried to detain him at which point is when TM punched him. That to coincides with the little evidence we have. To me its more logical to think that the cause of TM running away (fear) would continue and GZ following (suspicion/anger/fear) to continue than for both to stop doing what they were doing/feeling and do the opposite suddenly. that doesnt mean it didnt happen that way either.

[NCRAVEN]

or is it that his hiding spot was closer to the intersection to begin with and saying "hes home" was simply that he was a block away? Its possible he came back to confront GZ. its also possible both saw each other and mutually confronted each other. I think its more telling that the fight occurred 2-3 houses down from the path to GZ car and not in that direction. To me youre taking Jeantel's testimony that he was home but ignoring the rest of her testimony because it fits what you believe. Im ignoring it completely because i dont think shes credible enough to consider what she said one way or the other. without her testimony theres nothing saying he was ever home. The only other "evidence" of it was being enough time to theoretically be there which doesnt take into account if he hid somewhere which like ive said supports both theories.

There is no way he was only a "block"away. The whole thing started he was within a block. But I am not just taking that part of her testimony, I am taking her testimony in the totality of the event and seeing how it fits. The only thing she said (that I remember) that really seemed off to me were the "thump" (or push) she heard and "the sound of rolling in wet grass", I could explain why but for the sake of not getting off track, I won't.

I think it's very possible she left things out, and I also think it's possible she was right when she said she heard Trayvon say "why you following me for", which does also point to him confronting Zimmerman.

maybe arguing was the wrong word. debating. none the less its the conclusion of the trial and the evidence as well as my own personal experiences and thoughts that have come to that opinion. just as yours have for you. If you use the term conclusion to state your opinion, i dont see how its any different to state it the same for mine. I get that you feel your opinion is the more logical or however you wish to describe it, but its not based on any more facts than mine. stating you use the geography of the fight as reason for your conclusion is no different than me saying the same reason for why i think GZ went off track. i think its kind of patronizing to say youve come to a conclusion and ive merely come to an opinion.

I didn't say that, you did. And I asked for an explination of what evidence you were basing it off of so I could understand why you believed. Just thorwing out, it could have been this, that or the other could be possible, doesn't make sense, unless you support why you believe it, which is why I asked, so I could understand.

ive said before, i think the act of running away shows fear and that confronting afterward doesnt make sense unless something further provoked the issue. which ive also said, imo, GZ could have tried to detain him at which point is when TM punched him. That to coincides with the little evidence we have. To me its more logical to think that the cause of TM running away (fear) would continue and GZ following (suspicion/anger/fear) to continue than for both to stop doing what they were doing/feeling and do the opposite suddenly. that doesnt mean it didnt happen that way either.

That's possible too. Maybe not exactly as you have it, but something along those lines.

[Haloti92]

well that may be, but a lot also are saying he initiated by profiling and stalking and not taking into account the actual confrontation. either way i think i get what youre getting at.

Yes, and the profiling and stalking arguments are without support as well. People don't seem to realize that the amount of time between Zimmerman's call to the cops and the start of the fight was less than 5 minutes. And several minutes of that interval were when Zimmerman had lost sight of Martin (and Martin decided to wait around...or hide, or whatever). So 'stalking', no. And as for profiling, absolutely zero evidence whatsoever. None. Assuming you are talking about race here.

And as I said, the reason people are making these unsupportable evidence-free assertions, while ignoring the arguments/evidence that Martin assaulted Zimmerman, is because without the assertions their conclusion cannot in any way be valid.

"We don't know" means acquittal. So people who do not want to verbalize that there should have been an acquittal start asserting things as known (against Zimmerman) that are not known, like profiling, stalking, and "initiating."

blatantly partisan, kind of like GZs whole account of the incident? Im not sure where Im not being clear. To take one part of Jeantel's testimony that TM said he was at home as truthful and then avoid the part where she says he was confronted by GZ is cherry picking. so saying shes not credible or a bad witness is fine, but that negates anything she says good or bad.

You were not being clear as to what testimony you were talking about. Now it appears you think I care or are relying on Jeantel's claim TM was at home. Where have I mentioned that? I am still trying to find the testimony from Jeantel that I am relying on in any of my arguments.

As for bias. You missed the point. You claimed that if Jeantel is shown to be lying or distorting in her testimony that favors the prosecution, and then is deemed 'not credible' because of it, then we have to similarly deem her testimony that favors the defense similarly 'not credible.' But this is nonsense for the reason I stated. She is partisan. It does not follow that a partisan person will be as likely to lie and distort their testimony against their cause as for their cause.

you seem to have issue with the reason that he had a few minutes to get to his house. i put forth a plausible scenario where when he ran, he hid from GZ. After thinking it was clear he continued to return to his house. I pointed to it matching both sides because it does. from that point we have no evidence of what took place and just as much as GZs story could be true, he also could have been the first one to initiate contact. If youre just taking GZ at his word, which it appears, then it doesnt seem youre leaving open the possibility that hes not being truthful. your prerogative but i differ.

Again. You need to specify what 'initiate contact' means. Otherwise there is no point discussing it. Zimmerman claims only that a) Martin appeared out of nowhere in a spot that he was shown to be several minutes earlier, and that b) Martin asked him a question, to which Zimmerman responded, and c) Martin attacked him.

Nothing in your narrative disputes that. My mentioning the several minutes of 'waiting/hiding' is to destroy the argument that Martin had no choice but to be confronted (i.e. Zimmerman ran him down), and to slightly counter the argument (along with failing to call the cops) that Martin was running for his life, and to simply state categorically that he had enough time to get home and enter his apartment (which plenty of people seem to be unaware of).

I am not claiming he had a duty to go home. Like many aspects of this case and all cases the jurors/judges/debaters are matching the behavior of the parties in the incident with what their own behavior would be in such a situation and/or assessing probabilities. You wait around the corner for minutes instead of running if a) you are hiding scared, as you say, OR b) if you want to confront someone. It is up to people to judge which is more likely, and again, in terms of the law, your version has to be proven.

then we can agree to disagree.

Fair enough

I get that and agree when the burden of proof is on one side only its going to seem like that, but at the same time theres plenty ignoring the possibility that Zimmerman is lying or not telling the whole truth about the events which he has had some missteps in his story to suggest its possible. It still seems to me that since people only are hearing one side of the story that they weigh that heavier than the plausible scenarios. As far as the case goes, thats why there an acquittal, which i agree with. As far as what actually happen im not still convinced it didnt happen another way. I dont feel this was a case where he was proven to be innocent as much as it was unable to prove anything.

It has much more to do with no evidence at all than who has the burden of proof. For example, people arguing that Aaron Hernandez should get a guilty verdict do not need to tell lies, ignore inconvenient evidence, and make stuff out of whole cloth like people who want a guilty verdict for Zimmerman. And the burden of proof is the same.

Of course Zimmerman might be lying, but you have no evidence of it. The evidence you have, including your hiding theory, supports his story. He also passed a lie detector after the shooting where he was asked if he confronted Martin and answered, "no," and where he was asked if he was "in fear for his life" when he pulled the trigger and answered, "yes." Simply put, you are going way farther away from all the available evidence and common sense to construct a scenario where Zimmerman is a guilty, than are people who are arguing that he is not.

Your example i dont really agree with, because saying "we(I) dont need you to do that" in every day language could easily and most commonly be taken as "stop" which GZ himself has said he "was told to stop" (and claims he did), or you can take it literally and out of context and it comes off as only a "suggestion". considering the scenario and GZ own take, id say its semantics not ignoring the facts.

It isn't a lawful order. You realize the dispatcher testified in the case and said he did not order Zimmerman to stop? And you realize that Zimmerman answers, "ok," and says he stopped and headed back to his truck and there is literally zero evidence to suggest he did not. And you realize that even if he didn't stop, he is breaking no laws and not affecting the legality of the case at all? In short, this is a perfect example of what I was talking about. Bereft of any real evidence of Zimmerman's guilt, those who just "feel like" he should be guilty (due to racial reasons, or gun control reasons, or standard political line drawing) start claiming things occurred that are unsupported by the evidence and claiming it is relevant if it did occur despite the fact it is not.

Like I said, I am commenting on the appearance that people are not starting at unbiased and neutral and then piecing together evidence to tip the scales on their opinion, but rather they are starting with a preconceived assumption/hope and twisting, ignoring, fabricating stuff to justify it. And this isn't being done in the Aaron Hernandez case (despite the burden of proof hurdle) because it isn't required to be done like it is in this case when arguing for guilt.

[NCRAVEN]

And with that response Haloti, I think it's case closed.

/thread

[Raveninwoodlawn]

That's fine. I've asked a couple of questions, which you've not answered, why I don't know. I am asking because I'd like to see a) what you're basing you're opinion off of and b) I'd like to see if there are more plausible conclusions than what I've come to.

Is it fair to say you think Zimmerman confronted Martin? And if so, why do you think that? And if you do think that, do you think he also started the fight and why?

I didn't answer them because I don't feel qualified to say "this is how situation X happened" when I'm going off of one persons statement. I very well may have happened the way you stated, probable even. That still isn't enough for me to say that IMHO that is how it happened.

Really, the reason why I am bowing out is that you aren't getting my original point. I have not and did not state that Zimmerman is guilty or that he broke any laws. I don't know if you just assumed I was making that argument because I have a problem with how this all played out, but it was never the case. It was obvious to me not only looking at this case but other precedents in Florida that Zimmerman had the law on his side...and that the simple fact that it is on the state to prove in every self defense claim that it wasn't self defense tilts many of these disputes in the defendant's favor. That is why I said in a previous post that our law system is theoretically set up to allow many guilty people freedom in order to prevent one single innocent being found guilty.

I spoke of and continue to speak in general terms with a variety of scenarios that yes, include this case as well as others that may be similar or different...but center around the fact that someone following me or anybody should not just be thought of as "well, it's not illegal to follow and that person doesn't assume any culpability whatsoever if there is a confrontation". To me, that is not fair and totally opens the door to stalking and tramples on the emotions of the followed party.

[NCRAVEN]

I didn't answer them because I don't feel qualified to say "this is how situation X happened" when I'm going off of one persons statement. I very well may have happened the way you stated, probable even. That still isn't enough for me to say that IMHO that is how it happened.

Really, the reason why I am bowing out is that you aren't getting my original point. I have not and did not state that Zimmerman is guilty or that he broke any laws. I don't know if you just assumed I was making that argument because I have a problem with how this all played out, but it was never the case. It was obvious to me not only looking at this case but other precedents in Florida that Zimmerman had the law on his side...and that the simple fact that it is on the state to prove in every self defense claim that it wasn't self defense tilts many of these disputes in the defendant's favor. That is why I said in a previous post that our law system is theoretically set up to allow many guilty people freedom in order to prevent one single innocent being found guilty.

I spoke of and continue to speak in general terms with a variety of scenarios that yes, include this case as well as others that may be similar or different...but center around the fact that someone following me or anybody should not just be thought of as "well, it's not illegal to follow and that person doesn't assume any culpability whatsoever if there is a confrontation". To me, that is not fair and totally opens the door to stalking and tramples on the emotions of the followed party.

I think I just misunderstood your point. I thought the things you were saying were what you thought happened in this case. So I asked why you thought that. No big deal.

[wickedsolo]

The barrage of folks in the media turning this into a race war is pretty gross.

[AirFlacco]

Juror speaks out and said the first vote was split. A lot of us here said it might be a hung jury but she said it was Zimmerman's voice screaming for help fearing for his life. The entire jury finally came to that conclusion.

She feels Zs heart was in the right place trying to catch the thieves after a lot of vandalism but used poor judgement in getting out of the car but he was definitely screaming for help to save his life.

That's the one thing the race baitors don't get but fortunately the jury did.


http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/15/justic...html?hpt=hp_t1

[HoustonRaven]

The barrage of folks in the media turning this into a race war is pretty gross.

Agreed

[AirFlacco]

Let the riots begin. See pics of signs saying KILL PIGS and KILL ZIMMERMAN. A white jogger in MIssissippi was beaten by 4 black men and they said it was for Trayvon Martin.

Elsewhere, FBI says there was no bias in the case. Elsewhere, Holder says
DOJ is still investigating case.


http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-con...o-2680392.html

[wickedsolo]

Saw the marches in DC...it wasn't as nearly as big as that article was making it out to be. The stuff in Oakland is bothersome though.