How much are you presuming to know about what Martin knew in all this? First that Martin knew Zimmerman had a gun - this is crucial for what you just said. It’s probably the most important thing in your post. Second, that Zimmerman was walking within hearing distance of Martin. Thirdly, that Zimmerman was making denigrating remarks on the phone. We have the transcripts. If Martin could hear it all, he would have heard Zimmerman being on the phone with the police, and that he suspected Martin of being a thief. Fourth, that Martin was defending himself when, after he punched Zimmerman in the nose and Zimmerman fell, he jumped on top of him and then slammed his head on the ground. Fifth, implied in what you said is that Zimmerman confronted Martin. We don’t have reason to believe ANY of those assumptions hold, certainly no evidence to prove beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt that they hold.
You want Zimmerman to have been convicted on conjecture and a narrative you’ve imagined and feel is intuitively plausible.
But this is all nonsense. The details of this particular case don’t matter, even though it’s obvious from a legal stand point - albeit counter-intuitive - that there is no ground on which to have found Zimmerman guilty, and I don’t think it’s the disagreement over the details that explains what is at the root of the fervor about this case. The media played a large part in polarizing and rousing he public, but there’s something else. I think what’s at bottom is the message you all seem to think sends to the public. This is about appearance and the precedent it sets in the collective subconscious.
White guy (not really) kills black kid and he’s found not guilty! That seems to be the driving intuition of the #nojustice camp, and the message they dread this case sends.
Does xzc have me on ignore? What’s the use of talking over each other making the same arguments? I like to think I try to refer to others’ recent remarks when they are relevant to an argument I’m making.
Dude the Jurors posited that Martin was the aggressor because of scratches on Zimmerman’s head, and the fact that someone said they thought they saw his on top. No one knows who was screaming on the tape.
I think that they could have taken into account the fact that Zimmerman was armed and that he was in pursuit of Martin as evidence that he was the aggressor. At one point, they said Martin was running. Why not postulate that he was probably running because he was afraid? I see a scared kid being chased by an armed man. I don’t think I’m skewing things any more than the jury.
When you don’t know what happened in the dark, you have to look at what happened before hand to get an idea of what likely happened.
The opposite story completely ignores the evidence that Zimmerman was the aggressor. Then they ignore the fact that Martin should be able to defend himself if he’s faced with an aggressor.
Then they turn off the lights and say, “ok now we’re going to start lookin at the case”. Then they’re like, “oh we can’t see what happened, so this guy is probably innocent”.
I’ve said it before, I’m not here to talk about whether there’s a legal technicality which allows Zimmerman to stalk and kill neighborhood kids. I’m saying that if there is one, he used it. He stalked and killed a kid. Now you guys wanna use a single interpretation as though it’s representative of certainty about what happened. Why not take another equally valid interpretation? Why not look at the kid on the ground, look at the guy with the smoking gun, listen to him on the 911 tapes as he denigrates the innocent kid walking down the street, and recognize that all that leads to him having aggressively pursued a kid, picked a fight, and killed the kid.
That’s not irrelevant. You called me out on my knowledge of this case and then proceeded to get something completely wrong. In pointing it out I showed I’ve followed the case and that you’re full of shit. Now, onto this next part.
So, if we don’t take into account the part that exculpates Zimmerman, i.e., the part that makes his killing not unlawful, then he’s guilty. No argument here man.
No. While the trail was going on, the prosecution was said to have had a touch job, because the facts were “hard,” that is to say, they didn’t have a case and had to drama it up to make up for the lack of a solid case that would show that Zimmerman was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
[tab]Sorry if I neglected to respond to something else you’ve addressed to me. I’ve done most of the posting on my iphone.[/tab]
Honestly Smears, if you will simply admit to being wrong about Martin hearing Zimmerman’s denigrating remarks and admit to being your ‘confusion’ about the call being 911, not to mention any other indisputably obvious factual errors you made, I will address each argument you made in this thread specifically, otherwise, for my health I must state that I will not address you again in this thread or any on this subject again.
And if I made any factual errors then please let me know.
Dude, you think the sentence I quoted above can be used in a court of law? I understand this makes intuitive sense to you. Clearly you’ve had hood experience and that informs your intuitions, so that [you think] you can guess what Martin was thinking [and probably sympathize with him] but do you think the prosecution could have possibly said, “we can demonstrate that Martin assumed that Zimmerman was armed. You see, if you’re from the hood, then you always assume that if someone follows you, they are armed. Therefore Martin assumed so.”
What kind of a question is this? I can see no other point to it than to suggest that I’m a racist. Of course if the roles were reversed I’d want Martin being free as well. The “hard facts” as the prosecution called them are not sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman is guilty.
This statement confused me - Who are you saying was being overpowered? Perhaps you wrote Zimmerman’s name when you meant Martin?
Right, Zimmerman is getting injured by Martin (albeit superficially) so he draws the gun, and as soon as he points it, Martin yells for help
Again, my understanding was that it was Martin who was winning the fight so i don’t quite understand the objection - perhaps i’m not reading you correctly. . .
You haven’t pointed anything out. Youve wrongly stated several times that we don’t know enough to find Zimmerman guilty. That’s not true, and you have no evidence or argument showing it is aside from a not guilty verdict in a poorly prosecuted case.
Right, and anybody who thinks the laws in Florida are part of the problem is guilty of unwarranted opinions about Zimmerman’s guilt. Who’s full of shit?
You’ve changed the topic now. I thought we were arguing about whether given Florida’s shitty laws, Zimmerman was guilty or not; not about whether Florida’s laws are shitty. If your argument boils down to: Zimmerman would have been guilty if the laws of Florida were different, then I don’t really care.
My argument is that Zimmerman is guilty of killing the kid, whatever the law says. If you can’t convict that guy, then you have no business interpreting laws.
I think maybe I burnt out in the last couple hours, I can’t argue that couldn’t have conceivably been what happened. Or maybe if they were struggling over the gun Martin could have yelled for help then. Intuitively I just don’t think it was likely that it was Martin yelling, but if I can’t make an argument for it then I shouldn’t discount the possibility. But, nonetheless there is at least an equally valid argument for saying that it was Zimmerman who yelled for help.
No i don’t think guilt in the eyes of the law is the same thing as actual guilt, and i would argue for Zimmerman ACTUALLY being guilty of at least manslaughter. Of course, it is self-evidently true that the law has found him not guilty, but that has little bearing on anything i’ve said. In any case, i have stated more than once in this thread that i think the applicable laws in this case are faulty. i realize you probably have not read all the posts i’ve made in the thread, but in my defense i have tried to keep my position clear.
What’s actual guilt? What’s actual manslaughter? Does that mean that the law as it stands and understood as some kind of formula was right in yielding ‘not guilty’ as a verdict, but it’s a broken formula, so it gave the wrong overall answer. The right overall answer being the property you give to your judgment on this case. I’ve heard of moral facts as some kind of moral universal properties that exist in the realm of the forms or somewhere such, but not legal facts in this same context. Laws are arbitrary. They usually use some ground, some moral basis, but those are also arbitrary. Not to say they’re consequently insignificant, but you know, saying that someone is actually guilty sounds odd to me, and made me ramble like I just did.
Okay, my bad. I did only just read the first two pages, the chimed it with my sweet new iphone. Just to be clear though, you’re saying that the faulty laws as they stand yielded a consistent answer, so that if we were to judge the case with the law as it stands, we’d have to say that Zimmerman was not guilty. However, you’re also saying that if the law was just, then it would have yielded a different judgment on Zimmerman. The law as you conceive to be just would have looked at the evidence in this case, and found them sufficient to convict Zimmerman of first or second degree murder?
Did I interpret your position correctly? Are we at least understanding eachother? It’s not that big of a problem if we keep disagreeing so long as we’re disagreeing about the same thing.
Actual guilt would be the guilt associated with actually having commited an offense, as opposed to simply having been judged to have commited the offense, that’s all. The judgments may or may not be accurate, but they do not determine the facts of the matter. Like you say, laws are arbitrary. But things happened a certain way. The guy is responsible for the death of the other guy wether or not the law as it is currently and arbitrarily structured in this or that state will convict him for it.The law doesn’t decide guilt or innocence, it either recognizes them or it doesn’t.
Not being an expert in Florida law, i can’t say for sure that the verdict given was correct in accordance with all the details of the law, but that is the impression i’ve gotten. If that impression is correct, then i feel that is a fault in the laws.
Likely so, yes. But i am also allowing for the possibility that, even under existing laws, had the prosecution better executed the case, he would have been found guilty in some capacity.
i think you more or less get my position, though i’m not entirely sure i get yours . . .