Are we finished comparing the color of my shirt to the air displacement of my car in here?
Whatever. I'm tired of anti-science crap today. Assholes on the news presenting 'the other side' on issues that are not contentious among experts, people fucking around with the burden of proof in order to try and get people to prove a negative, people ignoring or marginalizing or misrepresenting data or, as in this thread, people like @mcdermott & @so it goes insisting that science does not belong in the courtroom, that the truth is not as important as a defendant's rights, that it doesn't matter how deductive logic is used to get real, applicable results - there needs to be special rules in the legal arena.
I guess we may as well just start sewing fucking Voo Doo dolls and consulting Astrological charts to figure things out, since apparently science is just so damn shitty.
I am not anti science
I am realistic about how a jury trial works as part of the American justice system
So, when the facts support your view, we must stick to the facts, and when they don't, let's speculate and make shit up?
-Whether an eyewitness saw something different than what actually happened is an issue for ALL eyewitnesses, not just the ones whose statements you don't want to hear. That doesn't mean their 'credibility is in question', i.e., that they are liars.
-You are *assuming* that a) Martin's phone was locked (why? Because 'most people on this board' lock their phones? Citation, pulledoutofmyass.com), b) it would be illegal for the police to unlock and examine the phone of a potential homicide victim and c) that the police have no f'ing way...such as, oh, a subpoena?....to legally get that information.
-It doesn't require David Caruso to do a fucking breathalyzer or blood test.
-You need to make an angry excuse as to why the police didn't bother to check Martin's criminal background. Sarcasm and assuming anyone who disagrees with you is racist for bonus chcobolicious points.
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
You realize real life isn't TV, and if your higher ups tell you that they aren't pressing charges, you can't go out and Dirty Harry it yourself and try to collect evidence and question people and such, right?
You realize that higher-ups in the police department count as "police" too, right? And you realize that the DA's office does not perform the investigation of the crime - the police do? It's not as though the Sanford police department did an a by-the-book investigation and then got cockblocked by the prosecutor.
I mean for all the harping on the Sanford PD, it's been stated time and again by multiple sources that in the end the State Attorney's Office didn't give them the go ahead.
And, again, it's been stated time and time again by multiple sources that the Sanford PD did not perform any toxicology tests on Zimmerman, did not perform a criminal background check while he was in custody, delayed talking to witnesses and didn't bother to check Martin's cell-phone records for weeks. They refused to release 911 records until there was national attention on the case. Some witnesses stated that they were pressured to change their stories and told that their version of events was wrong.
Seriously? If you want to come across as credible and having points, shrieking like a goose doesn't help. Every time you go on about what a railroad job Zimmerman's getting, I don't think "man, he makes some good points", as I do with some other posts. I think "is he related to this guy or what"?
Thank you for this. I thought I was the only wondering why people seemingly forgot how botched the initial investigation was.
Hoo boy let's go over this then.
Toxicology: no probable cause. No arrest. No in house CSI. No toxicologists on staff to even do a proper collection. Police don't even regularly do toxicology for homicide.
I'm going to stop you right there. No probable cause!? He shot and killed someone well away from his property, someone unarmed on top of that, and didn't even dispute that fact that he did. If that is not probable cause for a full on investigation into unlawful homicide, then we are living in crazyland.
And cops sure are capable of testing for substances that would cause mental impairment, what the hell do you think that they do when they have suspected drunk drivers?
I've been waiting this story out to see what happens in the trial, but to say that the PD did a tip top job investigating sure sounds completely out of whack from what information has come forward so far.
Edit: and before you say it, yes I consider whether Zimmerman was impaired by substances relevant, since quite a bit of what is at stake in his trial goes back to his state of mind and whether his fear of death or great harm was rational and whether he was telling the truth about how the altercation transpired or was just creating a story for himself after the fact.
I just wanted to chime in on the "toxicology tests on suspected drunk drivers." As part of the drivers license agreement you agree to provide a breath, blood or urine sample when properly requested. Because of this the level of probable cause that a police officer needs to request one while pulling someone over is less than what they need when say questioning you while you are walking down the street.
Even in the case of pulling you over police need to have a reason for requesting you to submit to a DUI test. They smelled alcohol on your breath, your speech was slurred, you failed a sobriety test.
I don't know what the SOP is for the police when bringing in suspects and questioning them, but I think it likely that having them submit to a toxicology test is not standard. If the police didn't have some reason to do the test (probable cause) then it would be a violation of search and seizure to do one.
Zimmerman was in police custody and questioned for five hours shortly after the shooting. If he was impaired the police would have likely noticed, and subsequently request a test.
I really don't see where people are trying to go with this. Do you honestly believe that Zimmerman was drunk or high? This impaired his judgement when using deadly force. However when the police questioned him afterwards he was able to make up a story that made sense, and fit with other evidence the police got. He was also able to act 'normal' during his questioning, and fool the police.
Are we finished comparing the color of my shirt to the air displacement of my car in here?
Whatever. I'm tired of anti-science crap today. Assholes on the news presenting 'the other side' on issues that are not contentious among experts, people fucking around with the burden of proof in order to try and get people to prove a negative, people ignoring or marginalizing or misrepresenting data or, as in this thread, people like @mcdermott & @so it goes insisting that science does not belong in the courtroom, that the truth is not as important as a defendant's rights, that it doesn't matter how deductive logic is used to get real, applicable results - there needs to be special rules in the legal arena.
Who's demanding you prove a negative?
People are hoping the truth is figured out.
You, for some reason, are hoping he's guilty and that it is also proved and if not that he is punished anyway because screw rights or something.
I'm hoping he's guilty because if not then Hannity and people like him get to frame the story as another young black thug etc.
Horrible, but true. That's just what a part of me hopes. But once I actually read the law, I realized that under it he probably isn't guilty as it's written.
I think it's entirely believeable and plausible that Zimmerman approached Trayvon and then tried to grab him and hold him in the hopes that he could keep him there until the cops arrived.
I think it's also very believeable that Zimmerman lost sight of him and was then approached by and attacked by an angry Martin.
I go back and forth as to which one I believe is more likely. Generally I tend to think something like the latter is more likely. But I don't know.
And although I agree that dead men tell no tales, I do not believe it is necessarily so easy to just lie and get away with it on something like this. There were recordings, witnesses, a lot of stuff we don't even know yet. If Zimmerman is completely lying about how it happened, I still believe there is some reasonable chance that a prosecutor will be able to show that.
I think it's entirely believeable and plausible that Zimmerman approached Trayvon and then tried to grab him and hold him in the hopes that he could keep him there until the cops arrived.
I think it's also very believeable that Zimmerman lost sight of him and was then approached by and attacked by an angry Martin.
I go back and forth as to which one I believe is more likely. Generally I tend to think something like the latter is more likely. But I don't know.
And although I agree that dead men tell no tales, I do not believe it is necessarily so easy to just lie and get away with it on something like this. There were recordings, witnesses, a lot of stuff we don't even know yet. If Zimmerman is completely lying about how it happened, I still believe there is some reasonable chance that a prosecutor will be able to show that.
why do you think this is more likely? We already know that Zimmerman was following Martin and left his car. We also know that Martin was already walking away from Zimmerman. What do you know or suspect that would have made the roles reverse all of a sudden?
You realize real life isn't TV, and if your higher ups tell you that they aren't pressing charges, you can't go out and Dirty Harry it yourself and try to collect evidence and question people and such, right?
You realize that higher-ups in the police department count as "police" too, right? And you realize that the DA's office does not perform the investigation of the crime - the police do? It's not as though the Sanford police department did an a by-the-book investigation and then got cockblocked by the prosecutor.
I mean for all the harping on the Sanford PD, it's been stated time and again by multiple sources that in the end the State Attorney's Office didn't give them the go ahead.
And, again, it's been stated time and time again by multiple sources that the Sanford PD did not perform any toxicology tests on Zimmerman, did not perform a criminal background check while he was in custody, delayed talking to witnesses and didn't bother to check Martin's cell-phone records for weeks. They refused to release 911 records until there was national attention on the case. Some witnesses stated that they were pressured to change their stories and told that their version of events was wrong.
Seriously? If you want to come across as credible and having points, shrieking like a goose doesn't help. Every time you go on about what a railroad job Zimmerman's getting, I don't think "man, he makes some good points", as I do with some other posts. I think "is he related to this guy or what"?
Thank you for this. I thought I was the only wondering why people seemingly forgot how botched the initial investigation was.
Hoo boy let's go over this then.
Toxicology: no probable cause. No arrest. No in house CSI. No toxicologists on staff to even do a proper collection. Police don't even regularly do toxicology for homicide.
Which leads in to: no arrest. When you claim self-defense you are not immediately arrested if you cooperate and willingly submit to be taken to the station for questioning. This is where, again, probable cause comes into play. Zimmerman was bleeding, wet and cooperated.
They probably ran a check on him from the cruiser initially. Let me point out that I know for a fact that this system won't draw up records that weren't actually properly prosecuted. Hence he can concealed carry. The restraining order would be the only thing that would come up, both sides of it. They would have to actually send in a request from the station for more detailed records. Which wouldn't come in til the next day at the earliest if they weren't local. (which us when they stated they found it about the dropped assault charge.)
Initial police reports never mentioned that Zimmerman had a bloody nose or a wet shirt that showed evidence of a struggle. Attorneys for the dead teen’s family believe the information was added in a second report to justify the lack of an arrest.
Ya, the witness, cutcher. The one that's made a big noise, except she's on record as saying a black man was standing over another man when trayvon was already dead. Her credibility is questionable. Then you have the 13 year old, who supposedly said one thing then his mother denied it later once the case blew up. But they have a recording so we'll know once that evidence comes up. Then Cutchers room mate who only went out to look after the shooting. The rest is pretty much anonymous stories that don't match up with each other.
aaaand the phone. Is yours locked? mine is. I'm sure most people on these boards have a lock on theirs. Those locks don't exactly just open. On top of that, its illegal! You can't even pop the back off to check the esn without this little thing called a subpoena. Which, let me point out, isn't something that just blinks into existence from the ether after a commercial break. They sometimes take days or Weeks. Sucks when police work according to law, huh?
If you want I can link sources for this when I get home, its a bit of a pain from a phone.
**My fundamental problem with this whole thing is that there is a ton of discretion and judgment involved in prosecuting any case (and the whole criminal justice system in general), and it seems to me that discretion always falls on the side of letting white people get away with killing black people (and sending black people to jail and frying them). Given the history of this country and shit that happens every day this initially just seemed like another in a long line of black men being shot and noone being held responsible. Maybe it's not, maybe martin is getting his fair due, or maybe Zimmerman is being railroaded and tried in the court of public opinion, we won't know till the whole thing is over, but my initial suspicions have not been fully allayed.
Zimmerman reported he lost him and was going back to his car as noted by the 911 operator. Your back would be turned.
Then Martin saw a guy following him, ran away, lost him, and then... doubled back, found Zimmerman, and jumped him? How about we try a slightly more plausible option, like Zimmerman is a liar trying to save his own ass.
We know, at least from the recording, that Martin had already tried to approach Zimmerman once. We have on the recording that Zimmerman lsot sight of Martin, and acknowledged dispatch's request to stop following him. We know from other 911 calls that Zimmerman has placed that he has stated that he does not want to approach anyone he suspects, and it seems that on this call he was behaving similarly. And we have his statement later, perhaps less reliable, that he was returning to his car and was confronted. We also have Martin's friend's testimony that Martin did not intend to ignore Zimmerman and return home, and that Martin spoke to Zimmerman first.
Dispatch: Zimmerman, stop following Martin.
Zimmerman: Ok.
Martin's friend: Martin, if you think someone's following you, you need to run back to the house.
Martin: No.
Those two conversations right there are what lead me to suspect that Martin initiated the confrontation. But it certainly isn't 100% or even 75% convincing.
I never really understood the "I don't want to give it out" comment. I guess he just didn't want the cops to simply head to his own address, because that wasn't where Martin was. That's the only way I can make sense of it.
I never really understood the "I don't want to give it out" comment. I guess he just didn't want the cops to simply head to his own address, because that wasn't where Martin was. That's the only way I can make sense of it.
He said 'I don't know where this kid is' implying that he (Zimmerman) thought he was in a location that Martin could hear his address .... which is ludacris if you take Zimmerman at his word that he is in his vehicle.
unless Zimmerman thought Martin was crouched outside his window?
Well if he thought the kid was a burglar, I would avoid giving him my address too.
well, considering Zimmerman already said Martin ran towards the other entrance of the neighborhood, I can't imagine he thought Martin would actually hear him .... of course if he was lying that would change that
Well if he thought the kid was a burglar, I would avoid giving him my address too.
well, considering Zimmerman already said Martin ran towards the other entrance of the neighborhood, I can't imagine he thought Martin would actually hear him .... of course if he was lying that would change that
I don't recall that in the 911 call logs. If it was stated after the fact, in interviews or whatever, that doesn't change how he thought at the moment. Or is that "...ran towards the other entrance..." from another fluff news piece like the ones earlier (both of which were terrible, one going full retard on the racist angle, and the other going full retard on innocent whit guy being shamed angle) ?
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
We know, at least from the recording, that Martin had already tried to approach Zimmerman once. We have on the recording that Zimmerman lsot sight of Martin, and acknowledged dispatch's request to stop following him. We know from other 911 calls that Zimmerman has placed that he has stated that he does not want to approach anyone he suspects, and it seems that on this call he was behaving similarly. And we have his statement later, perhaps less reliable, that he was returning to his car and was confronted. We also have Martin's friend's testimony that Martin did not intend to ignore Zimmerman and return home, and that Martin spoke to Zimmerman first.
Dispatch: Zimmerman, stop following Martin.
Zimmerman: Ok.
Martin's friend: Martin, if you think someone's following you, you need to run back to the house.
Martin: No.
Those two conversations right there are what lead me to suspect that Martin initiated the confrontation. But it certainly isn't 100% or even 75% convincing.
"He said this man was watching him, so he put his hoodie on. He said he lost the man," Martin's friend said. "I asked Trayvon to run, and he said he was going to walk fast. I told him to run, but he said he was not going to run."
Eventually, he would run, said the girl, thinking that he'd managed to escape. But suddenly the strange man was back, cornering Martin.
"Trayvon said, 'What are you following me for,' and the man said, 'What are you doing here.' Next thing I hear is somebody pushing, and somebody pushed Trayvon because the head set just fell. I called him again, and he didn't answer the phone."
Well if he thought the kid was a burglar, I would avoid giving him my address too.
well, considering Zimmerman already said Martin ran towards the other entrance of the neighborhood, I can't imagine he thought Martin would actually hear him .... of course if he was lying that would change that
I don't recall that in the 911 call logs. If it was stated after the fact, in interviews or whatever, that doesn't change how he thought at the moment. Or is that "...ran towards the other entrance..." from another fluff news piece like the ones earlier (both of which were terrible, one going full retard on the racist angle, and the other going full retard on innocent whit guy being shamed angle) ?
Not running and instead walking quickly (which is what the girlfriend actually fucking said) does not indicate an intent to turn around and go confront a dude.
JESUS.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Looks like the website Zimmerman put up raised 204k dolla. The Prosc quickly asked to deny bond and increase it because bail amounts are so damn fair anyway. They are supposed to be set from family wealth which it was. But I guess getting donations to help pay for legal fees that could go into the millions is just a horrible injustice.
Looks like the website Zimmerman put up raised 204k dolla. The Prosc quickly asked to deny bond and increase it because bail amounts are so damn fair anyway. They are supposed to be set from family wealth which it was. But I guess getting donations to help pay for legal fees that could go into the millions is just a horrible injustice.
Arguably it nullifies the point of bail as an incentive to not flee.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Zimmerman's testimony is interesting. The mere fact that it ended with a dead teenager leads me to not trust it.
Welp that sucks for innocent before guilty.
just wanted to make the point that one should not assume anything on either side. that's why i used mostly his words with a few adjustments.
if i'm wrong to assume zimmerman's guilt, then why are others right to assume martin's? bowen, you keep on saying that one should not make assumptions but i've seen you make plenty throughout the thread, usually against martin.
Zimmerman's testimony is interesting. The mere fact that it ended with a dead teenager leads me to not trust it.
Welp that sucks for innocent before guilty.
just wanted to make the point that one should not assume anything on either side. that's why i used mostly his words with a few adjustments.
if i'm wrong to assume zimmerman's guilt, then why are others right to assume martin's? bowen, you keep on saying that one should not make assumptions but i've seen you make plenty throughout the thread, usually against martin.
Martin isn't on trial. I make assumption based on evidence presented, not evidence because of a witch hunt.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Looks like the website Zimmerman put up raised 204k dolla. The Prosc quickly asked to deny bond and increase it because bail amounts are so damn fair anyway. They are supposed to be set from family wealth which it was. But I guess getting donations to help pay for legal fees that could go into the millions is just a horrible injustice.
Is it still set from family wealth after said wealth has gone up by $200k?
Zimmerman's testimony is interesting. The mere fact that it ended with a dead teenager leads me to not trust it.
Welp that sucks for innocent before guilty.
just wanted to make the point that one should not assume anything on either side. that's why i used mostly his words with a few adjustments.
if i'm wrong to assume zimmerman's guilt, then why are others right to assume martin's? bowen, you keep on saying that one should not make assumptions but i've seen you make plenty throughout the thread, usually against martin.
Martin isn't on trial. I make assumption based on evidence presented, not evidence because of a witch hunt.
the most damning piece of evidence thus far is the picture of the back of zimmerman's banged up head. however, drawing from that picture, one can only be conclusive about the fact that there was a struggle, a fight. still, there is no evidence on who started the scuffle, which i think is what the case really hinges on.
besides that, there hasn't really been a great collection of evidence that could restructure the whole confrontation scenario due to the department screwing up the whole initial investigation. right now we just have bits and pieces and some sketchy witness testimonies.
really, i don't see how you can draw a conclusion either way.
Because innocent until proven guilty, not enough evidence means he was not proved guilty. Hence, my stance, and hence why I don't jump into mob violence because that's how you pull some innocent dude out of a truck and bash his head in with a fucking brick.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Because innocent until proven guilty, not enough evidence means he was not proved guilty. Hence, my stance, and hence why I don't jump into mob violence because that's how you pull some innocent dude out of a truck and bash his head in with a fucking brick.
Asserting that it is more likely than not that Zimmerman committed a crime is now equal to forming a lynch mob?
The girlfriends testemony is interesting. The mere fact that the ending is filled with conjecture leads me to not trust it.
Should be somewhat verifiable, depending on where/whether the police noted where Martin's earpiece was. There's a lot of little questions like this that I hope the trial is able to clear up, especially given how much the media has mucked up the facts of the case.
No, asserting that we should ignore law because you think he's a guilty fuck is pretty close, though.
... what? Ignore the law? I think he's guilty, I don't think he doesn't deserve a fair trial. I'm also open to changing my mind about the "guilty" part depending on the outcome of said trial (please note that "convincing evidence of innocence" is more likely to produce that outcome than "insufficient evidence to convict".)
Posts
I am not anti science
I am realistic about how a jury trial works as part of the American justice system
So, when the facts support your view, we must stick to the facts, and when they don't, let's speculate and make shit up?
-Whether an eyewitness saw something different than what actually happened is an issue for ALL eyewitnesses, not just the ones whose statements you don't want to hear. That doesn't mean their 'credibility is in question', i.e., that they are liars.
-You are *assuming* that a) Martin's phone was locked (why? Because 'most people on this board' lock their phones? Citation, pulledoutofmyass.com), b) it would be illegal for the police to unlock and examine the phone of a potential homicide victim and c) that the police have no f'ing way...such as, oh, a subpoena?....to legally get that information.
-It doesn't require David Caruso to do a fucking breathalyzer or blood test.
-You need to make an angry excuse as to why the police didn't bother to check Martin's criminal background. Sarcasm and assuming anyone who disagrees with you is racist for bonus chcobolicious points.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
I just wanted to chime in on the "toxicology tests on suspected drunk drivers." As part of the drivers license agreement you agree to provide a breath, blood or urine sample when properly requested. Because of this the level of probable cause that a police officer needs to request one while pulling someone over is less than what they need when say questioning you while you are walking down the street.
Even in the case of pulling you over police need to have a reason for requesting you to submit to a DUI test. They smelled alcohol on your breath, your speech was slurred, you failed a sobriety test.
I don't know what the SOP is for the police when bringing in suspects and questioning them, but I think it likely that having them submit to a toxicology test is not standard. If the police didn't have some reason to do the test (probable cause) then it would be a violation of search and seizure to do one.
Zimmerman was in police custody and questioned for five hours shortly after the shooting. If he was impaired the police would have likely noticed, and subsequently request a test.
I really don't see where people are trying to go with this. Do you honestly believe that Zimmerman was drunk or high? This impaired his judgement when using deadly force. However when the police questioned him afterwards he was able to make up a story that made sense, and fit with other evidence the police got. He was also able to act 'normal' during his questioning, and fool the police.
Who's demanding you prove a negative?
People are hoping the truth is figured out.
You, for some reason, are hoping he's guilty and that it is also proved and if not that he is punished anyway because screw rights or something.
Horrible, but true. That's just what a part of me hopes. But once I actually read the law, I realized that under it he probably isn't guilty as it's written.
But that doesn't mean I suspend my reasonable doubt or invalidate logic because I want to go on a witch hunt.
I think it's also very believeable that Zimmerman lost sight of him and was then approached by and attacked by an angry Martin.
I go back and forth as to which one I believe is more likely. Generally I tend to think something like the latter is more likely. But I don't know.
And although I agree that dead men tell no tales, I do not believe it is necessarily so easy to just lie and get away with it on something like this. There were recordings, witnesses, a lot of stuff we don't even know yet. If Zimmerman is completely lying about how it happened, I still believe there is some reasonable chance that a prosecutor will be able to show that.
why do you think this is more likely? We already know that Zimmerman was following Martin and left his car. We also know that Martin was already walking away from Zimmerman. What do you know or suspect that would have made the roles reverse all of a sudden?
I was under the impression that tox for homicide suspects was standard. Thanks ABC! http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin-family-seeks-fbi-investigation-killing/story?id=15949879
I can't find anything independent that supports that so I will defer to your expertise here.
Chris Serino wanted to arrest Zimmerman but Norm Wolfinger overruled him. Serino didn't believe Zimmerman's story, and neither do I. http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin-investigator-wanted-charge-george-zimmerman-manslaughter/story?id=16011674#.T3JXqHmRh8E
one reason I don't believe the Zimmerman camp is they've lied before. George Zimmerman's father indicates George never followed Trayvon. We know from 911 logs that that is untrue. http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/florida/os-trayvon-martin-shooting-zimmerman-letter-20120315,0,3946717.story
Serino's account is weird because Wolfinger's people indicate the cops don't need to come to him for confirmation, so which is it? http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/02/us-usa-florida-shooting-prosecutor-idUSBRE83116420120402 (keeping in mind that the first link is from ABC news...
Why did Wolfinger intervene (if thats what he did)? He says there was not enough evidence available but is there some potential bias there? http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1992-06-01/news/9206010269_1_wolfinger-death-penalty-sought-death
Was Wolfinger in Sanford as Martin lawyers claim? If so is that normal on a sunday night? http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/04/03/v-print/143950/details-denials-continue-to-surface.html
Duly noted.
Any idea why police reports would be amended? Some are claiming the police reports were changed. Is this SOP? http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/21/2706876_p2/sanford-commission-votes-no-confidence.html#storylink=cpy
What about Zimmerman's story not matching Martin's girlfriend's account? http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin-arrest-now-abc-reveals-crucial-phone/story?id=15959017
Or witnesses supposedly being told to change their accounts? http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/21/2706876_p2/sanford-commission-votes-no-confidence.html#storylink=cpy
Mine is not locked, but their defense makes sense.
Yeah nothing new but a nice walkthrough.
there's a lot more out there, some solid, a lot not: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/03/what-happened-trayvon-martin-explained#documenttrove
**My fundamental problem with this whole thing is that there is a ton of discretion and judgment involved in prosecuting any case (and the whole criminal justice system in general), and it seems to me that discretion always falls on the side of letting white people get away with killing black people (and sending black people to jail and frying them). Given the history of this country and shit that happens every day this initially just seemed like another in a long line of black men being shot and noone being held responsible. Maybe it's not, maybe martin is getting his fair due, or maybe Zimmerman is being railroaded and tried in the court of public opinion, we won't know till the whole thing is over, but my initial suspicions have not been fully allayed.
Then Martin saw a guy following him, ran away, lost him, and then... doubled back, found Zimmerman, and jumped him? How about we try a slightly more plausible option, like Zimmerman is a liar trying to save his own ass.
Dispatch: Zimmerman, stop following Martin.
Zimmerman: Ok.
Martin's friend: Martin, if you think someone's following you, you need to run back to the house.
Martin: No.
Those two conversations right there are what lead me to suspect that Martin initiated the confrontation. But it certainly isn't 100% or even 75% convincing.
[citation needed]
Acknowledged, or complied?
[citation needed]
Go back about 50 or so pages.
He said 'I don't know where this kid is' implying that he (Zimmerman) thought he was in a location that Martin could hear his address .... which is ludacris if you take Zimmerman at his word that he is in his vehicle.
unless Zimmerman thought Martin was crouched outside his window?
well, considering Zimmerman already said Martin ran towards the other entrance of the neighborhood, I can't imagine he thought Martin would actually hear him .... of course if he was lying that would change that
Pages 48-50 do not appear to have any information corroborating any of the following assertions:
1) Martin approached Zimmerman
2) Martin did not intend to ignore Zimmerman
3) Martin did not intend to return home
Can you be a bit more specific on "50 or so"?
I don't recall that in the 911 call logs. If it was stated after the fact, in interviews or whatever, that doesn't change how he thought at the moment. Or is that "...ran towards the other entrance..." from another fluff news piece like the ones earlier (both of which were terrible, one going full retard on the racist angle, and the other going full retard on innocent whit guy being shamed angle) ?
It's not at all convincing to me. Martin's girlfriend's testimony indicates the complete opposite to me:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin-arrest-now-abc-reveals-crucial-phone/story?id=15959017
where did you get that transcript?
that is directly from the transcript
JESUS.
Welp that sucks for innocent before guilty.
Arguably it nullifies the point of bail as an incentive to not flee.
just wanted to make the point that one should not assume anything on either side. that's why i used mostly his words with a few adjustments.
if i'm wrong to assume zimmerman's guilt, then why are others right to assume martin's? bowen, you keep on saying that one should not make assumptions but i've seen you make plenty throughout the thread, usually against martin.
Martin isn't on trial. I make assumption based on evidence presented, not evidence because of a witch hunt.
Is it still set from family wealth after said wealth has gone up by $200k?
the most damning piece of evidence thus far is the picture of the back of zimmerman's banged up head. however, drawing from that picture, one can only be conclusive about the fact that there was a struggle, a fight. still, there is no evidence on who started the scuffle, which i think is what the case really hinges on.
besides that, there hasn't really been a great collection of evidence that could restructure the whole confrontation scenario due to the department screwing up the whole initial investigation. right now we just have bits and pieces and some sketchy witness testimonies.
really, i don't see how you can draw a conclusion either way.
Asserting that it is more likely than not that Zimmerman committed a crime is now equal to forming a lynch mob?
Should be somewhat verifiable, depending on where/whether the police noted where Martin's earpiece was. There's a lot of little questions like this that I hope the trial is able to clear up, especially given how much the media has mucked up the facts of the case.
... what? Ignore the law? I think he's guilty, I don't think he doesn't deserve a fair trial. I'm also open to changing my mind about the "guilty" part depending on the outcome of said trial (please note that "convincing evidence of innocence" is more likely to produce that outcome than "insufficient evidence to convict".)