Zimmerman Trial

[uglypeoplefucking]

It seems the outrage and certainty of the race-conscious camp is over the fact that the court didn't take into account what they feel are the most important facts of the case. Namely those blank parts of the story for which we have no facts to reasonably fill in, yet they believe they can easily fill in and justify, because they have a good hunch about it, or maybe they just have a good sense for these things. Look, about the question of whether Zimmerman chased, confronted and tried to detain Martin, or whether Martin confronted and assaulted Zimmerman we have no way to justifiably say, but come on, man...you know?

No. The outrage is over the fact the court believed that those uncertainties you allude to exonerate Zimmerman of his responsibility for Martin's death. The certainty of what you are calling the "race conscious camp" (as if anyone who doesn't think Zimmerman is guilty is somehow beyond such petty concerns) is that even if Martin did confront and assault Zimmerman, that Zimmerman is nonetheless responsible for unnecessarily killing him - not a totally unreasonable or unfair veiwpoint, given that he did profile him, follow him, and then pull the trigger.

[xzc]

The parts of the story that are supported by facts, rather than say intuitions or hunches, do exonerate Zimmerman. If you pay attention to the reasons presented by each side you easily see that the #nojustice camp focuses on the part of the story before Zimmerman gets his shit stomped, I.e., the part of the story for which there are no justifying reasons, and the racist pro-Zimmerman camp focuses on the part where he's getting beat up by Martin, for which we do have evidence and witnesses to justify a certain narrative. The facts and justified portion of the picture exonorate Zimmerman. The blank portions of the story you and others seem to want to say make him guilty - and that's fine. You have the right to unwarranted opinions. The problem is you want to send some guy to jail because of them, and throw a host fit when he's not.

[uglypeoplefucking]

The facts and justified portion of the picture exonorate Zimmerman.

i disagree, and i find your certainty in this regard puzzling, given your criticisms of the other side. Different people have different conceptions of justice and ethical responsibility. Those conceptions, far from being "unwarranted opinions", are often quite reasoned and sensible. The pro-verdict side feel vindicated in their opinions because six random people agreed with them in the context of a poorly prosecuted criminal trial, but that does not make their opinions anymore *warranted* than those of the many, many people who disagree.

[xzc]

The facts of the case, and the justified portion of the picture is what's substantiated by the eye witnesses and cops. That part has Zimmerman getting his ass stomped, crying for help, with Martin on top of him. You can have different conceptions of justice, but the one that exists says it was self-defense. If you have a different conception of justice, one that would have found him guilty, then it seems to me you need to point this out and preface what you say with, "if I was king and wrote the law, then according to them..." because I was under the impression the disagreement was over whether the law as it is ought to have found him guilty based on the part of the picture that's substantiated by someone other than the defendant.

[uglypeoplefucking]

The facts of the case, and the justified portion of the picture is what's substantiated by the eye witnesses and cops. That part has Zimmerman getting his ass stomped, crying for help, with Martin on top of him. You can have different conceptions of justice, but the one that exists says it was self-defense. If you have a different conception of justice, one that would have found him guilty, then it seems to me you need to point this out and preface what you say with, "if I was king and wrote the law, then according to them..." because I was under the impression the disagreement was over whether the law as it is ought to have found him guilty based on the part of the picture that's substantiated by someone other than the defendant.

Zimmerman's mother having heard the recording testified that it was Martin who was crying for help. i'm not sure what constitutes the "justified portion of the picture substantiated by eye witnesses and cops", but i am sure that he-said-she-said doesn't qualify. The eye-witness supposedly saw Martin winning the fight, that alone does not (or should not) exonerate Zimmerman, who instigated the fight by following Martin. But you don't seem very interested in the specific facts of the case, or the law, more just reiterating your opinion that it was an act of self-defense, which, if true, would by extension render it legally acceptable for one person to kill another anytime a fight breaks out.

[xzc]

Both moms testified it was their own sons. And as I said, your camp seems to focus on what happened before Z got his shit ruined because you want to imply it justifies Martins actions. However, as I've said twice and won't say again after this, we have no reason to believe any definitive story of what happened after the call and right before Z started bleeding. You can infer from the call that Z would have done this and that, but you can't prove any story with anything other than your gut, and that's evidently enough for you to believe in the guilt of Z, but it is not good enough for a court of law. The uncertainty on this point favors Z who doesn't need to prove he's innocent; merely that the available facts are not enough to construct a story in which he's guilty.

A fractured nose while laying on your back will make the blood go down your throat, and suffocate you, and having your head slammed will make you dizzy and disoriented. Martin had no rising on him except his knuckles. This was not a fight; it was a beat down.

In any case, I'm more interested in the reasons for this radical polarization and what that reveals; the psychology, background assumptions, lifeworlds each of the polarities live in and with that digest this one event in these two radically different ways is cultural physicians dream. Genuine philosopher may need to pay attention.

[Stuart]

What's with these camps for whom the vast majority of the members take a 'pro' stance to someone they never had even met? And with all the time it takes to set up tents, make camp fires and hike the nearby trails, when do they get a chance to make the ephemeral arguments favoring the respective person they never knew?

xzc, I'm not one to regularly venture deep into the treacherous waters of the 'rest of the internet', so do you have a link to anyone who has a relatively large amount of knowledge of the case who makes a good argument as to why the verdict was wrong?

As for the issue of the scream; there was some ambiguity on that issue, but if nothing else I believe it was basically several friends and family of each respective person making opposing claims. Such ambiguity favoring Zimmerman. But, from my limited legal knowledge I would claim that if it was verified that it was Martin, then the verdict was wrong.

Let's say it was Martin who yelled for help, and try to figure out what the cause would have been. Not to concern ourselves at the moment with who was on top and what times, it seems there are two options. Firstly, it could have been because he knew Zimmerman was overpowering him despite not having had seriously hurt him at the time and was concerned that Zimmerman would soon start to. Secondly, perhaps if Zimmerman wasn't overpowering him, it could have been because Martin knew Zimmerman had the gun out or he knew that Zimmerman was considering taking it out. Keep in mind that either before the shout for help or after Martin would have had to have given Zimmerman the injuries he had, unless one wants to argue that Zimmerman did that to himself.

All that seems like it could possibly be what happened. Though I put much significance on the witness who testified to seeing one person on top of the other punching towards the ground. I'll discount that he could have been sure of who was on top for the sake of argument. Whoever was on top was trying to punch the other. I can understand the possibility that Zimmerman may have had much advantage in the struggle because of his age, size and mma training. But, if it was Zimmerman who managed to get the upper hand in the fight and was on top, I find it difficult to make the argument that he could not make significant contact with any of his punches.

Can anyone describe a realistic situation in which it could have been Martin who yelled for help?

[uglypeoplefucking]

Can anyone describe a realistic situation in which it could have been Martin who yelled for help?

Zimmerman, losing the fight, draws a gun. Martin yells for help.

[Mr Reasonable]

xcz, if I attack an armed man who's been following behind me in the dark and who I can hear making denigrating remarks about me to someone on the phone, after he gets out and pursues me through my own neighborhood, then I think I'm defending myself.

[Stuart]

UPF, I noted that and made two objections to it, do you not find them to be worthwhile objections?

Firstly, it could have been because he knew Zimmerman was overpowering him despite not having had seriously hurt him at the time and was concerned that Zimmerman would soon start to. [Whether he was concerned about the gun or being hurt through physical force.]

1.

Keep in mind that either before the shout for help or after Martin would have had to have given Zimmerman the injuries he had, unless one wants to argue that Zimmerman did that to himself.

2.

Whoever was on top was trying to punch the other. I can understand the possibility that Zimmerman may have had much advantage in the struggle because of his age, size and mma training. But, if it was Zimmerman who managed to get the upper hand in the fight and was on top, I find it difficult to make the argument that he could not make significant contact with any of his punches.

[Mr Reasonable]

Who's on top only matters as to who's winning a fight when you're in a wrestling ring.

Apparently, an armed man can kill a 17 year old, even if that 17 year old is "on top".

I fell off a bicycle when I was 9 and had worse injuries than Zimmerman's. I actually had to get stitches in my eyebrow and on the side of my head. It bled like you wouldn't believe, but even as a 9 year old I know that I wasn't in any danger of losing my life.

You guys are ignoring the most obvious truth there is, and playing little word games to try and obfuscate things such that you can defend a man who followed a 17 year old boy through the neighborhood, got out of his car, engaged him somehow and killed him, while the kid was walking to his own home doing nothing wrong.

That's what you're advocating. You wanna talk about how it's this interpretation or that interpretation.

The whole self defense line applies more so to Martin than Zimmerman.

The idea that Zimmerman can be innocent, entails that Martin has no right to defend himself, and that Martin has no right to stand his ground. It also ignores the bizarre notion that one can go from pursuing someone, to being attacked by them. Pursuit is a precursor of an attack. Every single thing that happened that caused this was a result of ZImmerman's poor judgement.

Have any of you guys ever been in a fight?????

[Mr Reasonable]

I mean do you guys just like to argue so much that you'll literally sit here and play dumb about what happened there? Or are you seriously all so sheltered that you have no idea what it's like being harassed by weird guys in your neighborhood? Have any of you ever been profiled? Unlawfully detained by a shop owner? Any of you ever been arrested, charged, and dragged into court for shit you didn't do? Anyone here ever been a victim of a crime? Ever been a victim of a crime committed by the D.A.?

I'm starting to think that a great number of you have led incredibly sheltered lives and that's why you cannot conceive the common sense, plain as day, as obvious as it gets, fact of the matter that a man who is chasing someone, cannot claim self defense. And that a man who is being chased, has a right to defend himself.

Dance around that all you want. But if a man with a gun, and without a badge, follows you through your neighborhood, you should be allowed to kick his ass. I think you are. I think it's self defense to stop a person who is threatening you. If Zimmerman wasn't threatening Martin, then I don't know if anyone's ever threatened anyone.

[Stuart]

xcz, if I attack an armed man who's been following behind me in the dark and who I can hear making denigrating remarks about me to someone on the phone, after he gets out and pursues me through my own neighborhood, then I think I'm defending myself.

The prosecution spent much time stressing that Zimmerman said those denigrating remarks under his breath as if to imply that he was thinking out loud (why that matters I don't know). I may be wrong (see I can admit to being wrong, it's easy just put the words "wrong" and "I" in the same sentence), but I think he was also in his car when he said that.

The joke is up. Smears officially skewed the facts so far that the contrarian stance in which he's arguing couldn't be more clear if he said, 'I am a contrarian, don't take me seriously,' every other word. And if that is his real stance that he's taking, then it is a fanatical one, but I'll give him more credit than that.

Have any of you guys ever been in a fight?????

I'll take that question to be unrelated to the OP, but to answer it nonetheless; I've been in a few. I've also been beaten down many times and many other injuries including bicycles injuries.

[Stuart]

I mean do you guys just like to argue so much that you'll literally sit here and play dumb about what happened there? Or are you seriously all so sheltered that you have no idea what it's like being harassed by weird guys in your neighborhood? Have any of you ever been profiled? Unlawfully detained by a shop owner? Any of you ever been arrested, charged, and dragged into court for shit you didn't do? Anyone here ever been a victim of a crime? Ever been a victim of a crime committed by the D.A.?

I'm starting to think that a great number of you have led incredibly sheltered lives and that's why you cannot conceive the common sense, plain as day, as obvious as it gets, fact of the matter that a man who is chasing someone, cannot claim self defense. And that a man who is being chased, has a right to defend himself.

Dance around that all you want. But if a man with a gun, and without a badge, follows you through your neighborhood, you should be allowed to kick his ass. I think you are. I think it's self defense to stop a person who is threatening you. If Zimmerman wasn't threatening Martin, then I don't know if anyone's ever threatened anyone.

That's fine, but what does that have to do with the legality of the case. Why don't you make a thread titled, "Criticisms of the law and the legal system."

[uglypeoplefucking]

Both moms testified it was their own sons. And as I said, your camp seems to focus on what happened before Z got his shit ruined because you want to imply it justifies Martins actions. However, as I've said twice and won't say again after this, we have no reason to believe any definitive story of what happened after the call and right before Z started bleeding.

That's irrelevant. We know that Zimmerman wrongly judged Martin to be a criminal. We know that he then proceded to follow Martin with a gun, and we know he ended up shooting Martin through the chest. Regardless of what else happened, that makes Zimmerman guilty of negligently, if not intentionally, setting off a chain of events that lead directly and in short time to him killing Martin. That the prosecution was unable to make that case convincingly to the jury is not in dispute, but it does not mean there can't be reasonable disagreement about whether or not Zimmerman was actually guilty, even based solely on the evidence.

You can infer from the call that Z would have done this and that, but you can't prove any story with anything other than your gut, and that's evidently enough for you to believe in the guilt of Z, but it is not good enough for a court of law. The uncertainty on this point favors Z who doesn't need to prove he's innocent; merely that the available facts are not enough to construct a story in which he's guilty.

Yeah according to the six people on the jury at least. Doesn't say much, though. Juries have occasionally been known to get it wrong in the past.

A fractured nose while laying on your back will make the blood go down your throat, and suffocate you, and having your head slammed will make you dizzy and disoriented. Martin had no rising on him except his knuckles. This was not a fight; it was a beat down.

i've lost fights before, i know how it feels to get one's head slammed, yet i fail to see the difference between someone winning a fight and someone getting beaten down.

[xzc]

xcz, if I attack an armed man who's been following behind me in the dark and who I can hear making denigrating remarks about me to someone on the phone, after he gets out and pursues me through my own neighborhood, then I think I'm defending myself.

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.

[Stuart]

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.

[Mr Reasonable]

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.

How is it not clear?

[xzc]

That's irrelevant.

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.

We know that Zimmerman wrongly judged Martin to be a criminal. We know that he then proceded to follow Martin with a gun, and we know he ended up shooting Martin through the chest. Regardless of what else happened, that makes Zimmerman guilty of negligently, if not intentionally, setting off a chain of events that lead directly and in short time to him killing Martin.

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.

[Mr Reasonable]

xcz, most people who live in the hood assume that when someone if fearlessly pursuing them, that the person is armed.

If Martin had shot Zimmerman in the dark, and then just said that Zimmerman hit him first, I guess you'd want Martin to be free as well?

[xzc]

xzc, I'm not one to regularly venture deep into the treacherous waters of the 'rest of the internet', so do you have a link to anyone who has a relatively large amount of knowledge of the case who makes a good argument as to why the verdict was wrong?

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.

untab

Sorry if I neglected to respond to something else you've addressed to me. I've done most of the posting on my iphone.

[Stuart]

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.

[xzc]

xcz, most people who live in the hood assume that when someone if fearlessly pursuing them, that the person is armed.

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."

If Martin had shot Zimmerman in the dark, and then just said that Zimmerman hit him first, I guess you'd want Martin to be free as well?

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.

[uglypeoplefucking]

Firstly, it could have been because he knew Zimmerman was overpowering him despite not having had seriously hurt him at the time and was concerned that Zimmerman would soon start to. [Whether he was concerned about the gun or being hurt through physical force.]

This statement confused me - Who are you saying was being overpowered? Perhaps you wrote Zimmerman's name when you meant Martin?

Keep in mind that either before the shout for help or after Martin would have had to have given Zimmerman the injuries he had, unless one wants to argue that Zimmerman did that to himself.

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

Whoever was on top was trying to punch the other. I can understand the possibility that Zimmerman may have had much advantage in the struggle because of his age, size and mma training. But, if it was Zimmerman who managed to get the upper hand in the fight and was on top, I find it difficult to make the argument that he could not make significant contact with any of his punches.

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. . .

[Stuart]

xzc, I must try harder to remember that many people here may be using cell phones.