Quote Originally Posted by Haloti92 View Post
No, I actually show where the evidence corroborates. You seem to think there was no relevant evidence in the case. While there was not that much of it, and some of it was fairly questionable, none of it contradicts Zimmerman's main self-defense narrative, and most/all of it corroborates it.
I dont think the evidence is definitive in support of his claim. you do so right there we arent going to agree.

And as for you not wanting a guilty verdict, then I guess I am confused as to what you want or what we are arguing about. Are all the people that are "disappointed" in the verdict simply saying they are "disappointed" that there wasn't any evidence disproving Zimmerman's defense? And if so, why, if what really happened was Zimmerman acted in self-defense? Are you arguing that Zimmerman was guilty of the crime he was accused of but that there was not enough evidence to support a guilty verdict? If so, what "evidence" are you using to justify your feelings? Do you see what I am saying here?
I think theres a difference in saying theres enough to suggest something different than what he says happened and entirely different to say that warrants a conviction. I dont think theres anything concrete but i feel the same about the defense. Again, if the defense had the burden, id be feeling the same way.

No, I am not "doing the same thing as you." I am constraining myself to the limited evidence. It is not a matter of opinion that the dispatcher did not order Zimmerman to stay in his car. It is a fact. A fact verbalized by the dispatcher himself in official testimony; yet here you are saying that whether an order was given is debatable and a matter of opinion.
I feel as though you are. I watched that testimony, did the dispatcher tell him to stop? no, because they do not instruct either way for legal reasons. He said, it was a suggestion for safety. Zimmerman said he took it as he was to stop. Its Zimmermans actions and perception of what was said that matters doesnt it?

No one knows exactly how the incident played out. But we do know some things about how the incident played out, and the few relevant things we know corroborate Zimmerman's story. Like I said, people have to go way, way farther out of their way trying to claim Zimmerman was guilty of the crime he was accused of than the reverse. The question, to me, is why are people doing that? But I guess I don't care enough to keep this up.
the first is true, the second is opinion.

We can agree to be confused by each others' stances. :)
Id like to leave it at that because frankly im tired of trying defend what we fundamentally disagree about, which is how strong the evidence was for either side.