Unarmed teen shooting: the debate rages on...

[Coito ergo sum]

What are talking about private property? I'm not talking about walking into someone's garden. I'm talking about walking through a residential area. Who has the right to question my reasons for walking through an area?
No one.

Anyone has the right to ask you a question.

You have the right to ignore them, or tell them to fuck off.

If you get pissed off that someone dared question you, and you start a fight, then you're in the wrong.

[FBM]

And the glaring fact that none of us knows what really happened continues to be ignored in favor of political spinning and rumor-mongering speculation.

We do know some things. Like, that those who say that Zimmerman ignored police instructions and left his vehicle when they told him not to. Those people who are basing their views on something like that are not concerned with the truth, since even the most cursory review of the known facts is very clear. Nobody instructed Zimmerman to remain in his vehicle.

True. And I should've said "none of us knows anything conclusive."

[Coito ergo sum]

It's probably a cultural difference but that sounds mad to me.
So if I'm at the mall and the shortest way for me home is through a private residential area I either walk around it or expect questions from John Nobody on my reasons for walking through the area?
As I said, I don't even let cops talk to me in such manner. John Nobody will be shown a hand and asked to converse with it.

Then you're committing assault and battery and John Nobody gets to defend himself.

People are allowed to talk to each other in public. It doesn't even matter that it's a gated community. if someone walks through Times Square on Saturday afternoon and asks you what you're doing in Times Square, that is neither against the law, nor just cause for you hitting him.

[Coito ergo sum]

And the glaring fact that none of us knows what really happened continues to be ignored in favor of political spinning and rumor-mongering speculation.

We do know some things. Like, that those who say that Zimmerman ignored police instructions and left his vehicle when they told him not to. Those people who are basing their views on something like that are not concerned with the truth, since even the most cursory review of the known facts is very clear. Nobody instructed Zimmerman to remain in his vehicle.

True. And I should've said "none of us knows anything conclusive."

The key point is what happened after the 911 tape ends. Did Zimmerman chase Martin down and try to detain him? Did Martin not proceed on about his business, but rather did he jump Zimmerman? Both are possible.

Why do I doubt that Zimmerman chased Martin down and shot him?

1. Such a course of action is inconsistent with Zimmerman's behavior up until the end of the 911 tape. Zimmerman was calm and compliant with police instructions. He did not chase Zimmerman when the dispatcher said "we do not need you to do that." They said that. He abided.

2. Zimmerman is the one who called the police in the first place. If he was going to "kill me a nigger" then why would he get the police involved? He had one in his sights with no witnesses around. One shot. He's outta there. Dead black man on the ground -- no 911 call - no nothing. Wouldn't that have been better?

3. If one looks at the google overview of the neighborhood, Martin did not have far to go to get out of the neighborhood. We are told Martin had his skittles and was headed to his father's fiance's house, which only "a few dozen" yards away. Let's call it 100 meters -- which is 8 to 9 dozen yards away, give or take. We have a high school football player, admittedly very lean. There would be no reason he couldn't walk it in about 30 to 45 seconds. We know from the 911 tape, that from the time the dispatcher says "we don't need you to do that" and Zimmerman starts coordinating with the police as to where to meet him, to the end of the 911 call, there is about 1 minute and 40 seconds. Call it a minute and a half. In a minute and a half, Martin could have walked, not run, but walked, the length of 3 football fields, roughly. If he jogged (and Zimmerman notes that Martin "ran" away) -- if Martin jogged he could have done 1/4 mile -- 400 meters - in the time spent by Zimmerman standing around talking to the dispatcher.

So, the question in my mind becomes -- if it was only a "a few DOZEN" yards for Martin to get out of the community, and if Martin was -- as we are told -- intending to do just that -- then why did Martin not do that? Why did he stay in the community, when he had plenty of time to be gone. If he didn't leave, he must have stayed. Right? Isn't that consistent with Zimmerman's story?

4. We need the forensics here -- If the wound on Martin is consistent with Martin being on top of Zimmerman, and Zimmerman being on his back and firing at point blank range, then that too backs up Zimmerman. If the wound is not consistent with that, then Zimmerman has a big problem.

Can anyone who is so sure Zimmerman is guilty explain to me why, if Martin was heading out of the community with his skittles, why he was still well within the confines of the community at least 1 and a half minutes after he "ran off"? (I don't recall the time of the shooting as compared with the time the dispatcher said "we don't need you to do that", but the 911 tape gives us an absolute minimum -- 1 minute and 40 seconds - call it 1 1/2 minutes - minimum -- probably much more -- where Martin has "run away."

[Animavore]

It's probably a cultural difference but that sounds mad to me.
So if I'm at the mall and the shortest way for me home is through a private residential area I either walk around it or expect questions from John Nobody on my reasons for walking through the area?
As I said, I don't even let cops talk to me in such manner. John Nobody will be shown a hand and asked to converse with it.

Then you're committing assault and battery and John Nobody gets to defend himself.

People are allowed to talk to each other in public. It doesn't even matter that it's a gated community. if someone walks through Times Square on Saturday afternoon and asks you what you're doing in Times Square, that is neither against the law, nor just cause for you hitting him.

You misunderstand. I was implying that they may talk to the hand coz the face ain't listening. Not slapping them. I only react in self defence. I've never struck a person in my life on the offensive.

[Coito ergo sum]

It's probably a cultural difference but that sounds mad to me.
So if I'm at the mall and the shortest way for me home is through a private residential area I either walk around it or expect questions from John Nobody on my reasons for walking through the area?
As I said, I don't even let cops talk to me in such manner. John Nobody will be shown a hand and asked to converse with it.

Then you're committing assault and battery and John Nobody gets to defend himself.

People are allowed to talk to each other in public. It doesn't even matter that it's a gated community. if someone walks through Times Square on Saturday afternoon and asks you what you're doing in Times Square, that is neither against the law, nor just cause for you hitting him.

You misunderstand. I was implying that they may talk to the hand coz the face ain't listening. Not slapping them. I only react in self defence. I've never struck a person in my life on the offensive.

Oh, well, absolutely. People have a right to talk, and the rest of us have the right to not listen and to tell them what we think of their stupid questions. Agreed.

[FBM]

The key point is what happened after the 911 tape ends. Did Zimmerman chase Martin down and try to detain him? Did Martin not proceed on about his business, but rather did he jump Zimmerman? Both are possible.

Why do I doubt that Zimmerman chased Martin down and shot him?
...
Can anyone who is so sure Zimmerman is guilty explain to me why, if Martin was heading out of the community with his skittles, why he was still well within the confines of the community at least 1 and a half minutes after he "ran off"? (I don't recall the time of the shooting as compared with the time the dispatcher said "we don't need you to do that", but the 911 tape gives us an absolute minimum -- 1 minute and 40 seconds - call it 1 1/2 minutes - minimum -- probably much more -- where Martin has "run away."

That's a very interesting observation, CES.

[Animavore]

It's probably a cultural difference but that sounds mad to me.
So if I'm at the mall and the shortest way for me home is through a private residential area I either walk around it or expect questions from John Nobody on my reasons for walking through the area?
As I said, I don't even let cops talk to me in such manner. John Nobody will be shown a hand and asked to converse with it.

Then you're committing assault and battery and John Nobody gets to defend himself.

People are allowed to talk to each other in public. It doesn't even matter that it's a gated community. if someone walks through Times Square on Saturday afternoon and asks you what you're doing in Times Square, that is neither against the law, nor just cause for you hitting him.

You misunderstand. I was implying that they may talk to the hand coz the face ain't listening. Not slapping them. I only react in self defence. I've never struck a person in my life on the offensive.

Oh, well, absolutely. People have a right to talk, and the rest of us have the right to not listen and to tell them what we think of their stupid questions. Agreed.

Not that I don't feel like slapping some of these arseholes that accost me on the street

[mistermack]

The point is that Zimmerman has killed the only other witness to the initial contact.

There is no presumption that he is telling the truth about how it happened. Zimmerman is entitled to claim self-defence, but his version of events does not HAVE to be accepted by a jury.

Say Martin had only been paralysed, and was claiming that Zimmerman grabbed him ( highly likely ), there would be no presumption that Zimmerman was telling the truth, just because he's the one that's been charged. If Martin was alive, he wouldn't have to PROVE his version, he could just give it, and the jury makes up their mind who to believe.

The presumption of innocence doesn't stretch as far as having to believe the version of events offered by the defendant, just because they killed the victim.

The prosecution can offer their own interpretation of the facts, suggest that the accused is lying, and invite the jury to conclude that he's guilty. It happens all the time.

[FBM]

Who's presuming that Zimm is innocent?

[maiforpeace]

It's probably a cultural difference but that sounds mad to me.
So if I'm at the mall and the shortest way for me home is through a private residential area I either walk around it or expect questions from John Nobody on my reasons for walking through the area?
As I said, I don't even let cops talk to me in such manner. John Nobody will be shown a hand and asked to converse with it.

Then you're committing assault and battery and John Nobody gets to defend himself.

People are allowed to talk to each other in public. It doesn't even matter that it's a gated community. if someone walks through Times Square on Saturday afternoon and asks you what you're doing in Times Square, that is neither against the law, nor just cause for you hitting him.

You misunderstand. I was implying that they may talk to the hand coz the face ain't listening. Not slapping them. I only react in self defence. I've never struck a person in my life on the offensive.

Oh, well, absolutely. People have a right to talk, and the rest of us have the right to not listen and to tell them what we think of their stupid questions. Agreed.

Not that I don't feel like slapping some of these arseholes that accost me on the street

One of your fantasies, darling?

[Animavore]

[Coito ergo sum]

The point is that Zimmerman has killed the only other witness to the initial contact.

We know that nothing illegal happened at the initial contact, because that contact occurred while Zimmerman was on the phone with 911.

That is certainly "a" point, but if you mean by "a" point that you've identified "the only" point, or the decisive point, then I have to disagree. In any killing in self-defense, there is a dead person. Self-defense is still a defense.

There is no presumption that he is telling the truth about how it happened. Zimmerman is entitled to claim self-defence, but his version of events does not HAVE to be accepted by a jury.

Of course not, but the jury has to presume him innocent, and the burden of proof is always on the prosecution. All that Zimmerman has to show in court is that his claim of self defense is supported enough such that it creates reasonable doubt as to his guilt of the crime accused.

But, we're not in court right now.

Say Martin had only been paralysed, and was claiming that Zimmerman grabbed him ( highly likely ),

Why do you claim that it is highly likely that Zimmerman grabbed Martin? Why is it not likely that Martin grabbed Zimmerman? Why is one more likely to you than the other?

there would be no presumption that Zimmerman was telling the truth, just because he's the one that's been charged. If Martin was alive, he wouldn't have to PROVE his version, he could just give it, and the jury makes up their mind who to believe.

Zimmerman probably won't tell his story at all, not from his own mouth. They'll use all the other evidence, and present a plausible case with all the witnesses and evidence OTHER THAN Zimmerman. Zimmerman will not take the stand, most likely. So, the jury will not, most likely, hear anything that Zimmerman is "telling."

The presumption of innocence doesn't stretch as far as having to believe the version of events offered by the defendant, just because they killed the victim.

Nobody is suggesting that it does.

As for me, I'm suggesting that there is a problem with the story being presented on Martin's behalf, and that folks are claiming the evidence, like the 911 tape, shows stuff that it doesn't. Take the recent suggestion that Zimmerman ignored police instructions that he remain in his car. He never did that. Why do people insist on making up facts that nobody is even alleging and which are proven wrong by the 911 tape itself.

Don't you, also, think it is strange that the map of the vicinity shows that Martin only had "a few dozen" yards to go to get out of the neighborhood and over to his father's fiance's house, and we are told that that is where Martin was going with his skittles. Yet, after he "ran away" (see 911 tape) there is a good minute and a half of time, more actually, where Zimmerman is milling around discussing where to meet the cops. It is only then, later, that the altercation occurs, still in the community -- a short distance away from where they first saw each other. Why did Martin return? Or, why did he hang around?

That fact - that he must have hung around when he could have left -- if it turns out the ballistics and wound analysis shows that the gun was fired by Zimmerman while Zimmerman was on his back, and Martin on top of him --- wouldn't that point to Zimmerman's story being true?

The prosecution can offer their own interpretation of the facts, suggest that the accused is lying, and invite the jury to conclude that he's guilty. It happens all the time.

Sure, but the prosecution has an ethical obligation to have evidence that supports ever assertion they make. They can't just accuse people of things without evidence.

They can offer a different interpretation of the facts, for sure, and I am very interested in how they explain these two things: (a) All Martin wanted to do was get his skittles back home to his father's fiance's house, a few dozen yards away, and (b) he did not proceed on to his father's fiance's house, but instead hung around for at least a minute and a half (plus whatever additional time was between the end of the 911 tape and the time of the altercation). That's an important explanation.

[kiki5711]

Why do you claim that it is highly likely that Zimmerman grabbed Martin? Why is it not likely that Martin grabbed Zimmerman? Why is one more likely to you than the other?

yes coito, why, why is it that your version seems to be more credible than anyone elses?

[kiki5711]

[/quote]