Unarmed teen shooting: the debate rages on...

[Coito ergo sum]

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?

I didn't give a version. I don't know who grabbed whom first.

Pointing out where someone is pulling something out of their ass, or saying something that is contrary to the clear evidence, is not just another "version." What I don't do is invent things. If I don't know who grabbed whom, I say so. I don't just take my prejudices and assign the blame to the character I don't like. That's what people like you do.

[maiforpeace]

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?

[mistermack]

Who's presuming that Zimm is innocent?

It's already happened.
If there had not been a public outcry, Zimmerman would never have been charged.
The police chief and prosecutor presumed that he's innocent, because they never even treated the event as a normal possible murder. That's perfectly clear from the lack of initial evidence gathering at the scene, and lack of effort to follow up the phone call that Martin was making at the time.

Now the police and prosecutors have a very real motive to not try too hard. An acquittal would be the only thing that would vindicate their initial presumption of innocence.

[mistermack]

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?

Considering that Zimmerman himself told the 911 operator that the "asshole" was running away, and we have HEARD Zimmerman running after him, and you've heard his own voice say "these assholes always get away", I would think it's perfectly obvious that Zimmerman was going to grab him if he got the chance.

Otherwise, what's the point of chasing him? How is he proposing to prevent this "asshole" from getting away? And why is Martin running away, if he wants to grab Zimmerman?

By all means this doesn't prove it 100%, but how the fuck can anyone say that both are equally likely?
Only if your name's Coito.

[Coito ergo sum]

Who's presuming that Zimm is innocent?

It's already happened.
If there had not been a public outcry, Zimmerman would never have been charged.
The police chief and prosecutor presumed that he's innocent, because they never even treated the event as a normal possible murder. That's perfectly clear from the lack of initial evidence gathering at the scene, and lack of effort to follow up the phone call that Martin was making at the time.

Now the police and prosecutors have a very real motive to not try too hard. An acquittal would be the only thing that would vindicate their initial presumption of innocence.

This is all unsubstantiated bull.

One, public outcry motivating prosecutions to arrest people is not a good thing.

Two, there isn't any indication that the police and the prosecutor didn't do proper work initially, or that there was a "lack of evidence gathering at the scene."

Three, there is now a special prosecutor on the case who has every motive to "try hard." This idea of yours that prosecutors don't want to win cases is really weird.

[Coito ergo sum]

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?

Considering that Zimmerman himself told the 911 operator that the "asshole" was running away, and we have HEARD Zimmerman running after him, and you've heard his own voice say "these assholes always get away", I would think it's perfectly obvious that Zimmerman was going to grab him if he got the chance.

Maybe. Of course, it's at that point that the dispatcher says "we don't need you to do that..." [i.e. follow him] and Zimmerman says "o.k." and the sounds you hear on the tape indicating he is running/moving stop. Then Zimmerman indicates that Martin ran away. Then there is plenty of time for Martin to move the few dozen yards and get out of there. But, he stays around and that would seem to be at least as much of an indication that Martin was going to grab Zimmerman...

So, again, why is one possibility more likely than the other? Just feeling? Is there reasonable doubt as to EITHER possibility?

Otherwise, what's the point of chasing him? How is he proposing to prevent this "asshole" from getting away? And why is Martin running away, if he wants to grab Zimmerman?

By all means this doesn't prove it 100%, but how the fuck can anyone say that both are equally likely?
Only if your name's Coito.

Not "only" if your name is Coito. FBM appears to not jump to unsubstantiated conclusions in the manner you advocate.

What's the point of "chasing" (or, "following") Martin initially? To keep an eye on him would be one good reason, and to be able to point him out to police when the police get there.

Speaking of what's the point. What's the point of Zimmerman calling the police if he just wanted to kill him a nigger?

And, apparently, Martin did not actually "run away." He went out of sight, but hung around and waited when he had plenty of time to leave the vicinity (and leaving the vicinity is what you and others have claimed that Martin was intending to do with his skittles all along...). Why would Martin be doing that?

[FBM]

Who's presuming that Zimm is innocent?

It's already happened.
If there had not been a public outcry, Zimmerman would never have been charged.
The police chief and prosecutor presumed that he's innocent, because they never even treated the event as a normal possible murder. That's perfectly clear from the lack of initial evidence gathering at the scene, and lack of effort to follow up the phone call that Martin was making at the time.

Now the police and prosecutors have a very real motive to not try too hard. An acquittal would be the only thing that would vindicate their initial presumption of innocence.

I meant here at Ratz.

[kiki5711]

well coito, you certainly have the "events" all in order as if "you were there" so it MUST BE TRUE.

[FBM]

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?

Considering that Zimmerman himself told the 911 operator that the "asshole" was running away, and we have HEARD Zimmerman running after him, and you've heard his own voice say "these assholes always get away", I would think it's perfectly obvious that Zimmerman was going to grab him if he got the chance.

Otherwise, what's the point of chasing him? How is he proposing to prevent this "asshole" from getting away? And why is Martin running away, if he wants to grab Zimmerman?

By all means this doesn't prove it 100%, but how the fuck can anyone say that both are equally likely?
Only if your name's Coito.

Driving between here and the university I call at least 15 people 'asshole' or something roughly equivalent every day. I have yet to kill anyone of them nor to experience the desire to do so. It's only "perfectly obvious" to someone with a prejudice, not to someone who is thinking analytically.

[Seth]

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?

Yes. In fact, if it's a private residential area and is either "fenced to exclude" (like, for example, a walled and gated community) OR posted with "no trespassing" signs at intervals of not more than every 440 yards around the perimeter, (in Colorado) you can also expect to be arrested for 3rd degree criminal trespass by any owner or agent of the owner of the property.

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.

And John Nobody may lawfully choose to place you under arrest for criminal trespass rather than talk to your hand, and he will be authorized to use reasonable and appropriate physical force to effect the arrest, just exactly as a police officer would, the degree of force authorized being dictated by your actions in response to his lawful arrest, but he would be restricted from using deadly physical force unless he reasonably believed that his life, or the life of another, was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm and he reasonably believed that a lesser degree of force would be inadequate.

Just because you think you have a right to walk through someone else's property doesn't mean that you do, at least here in the US. I understand things are different in the UK, which is mad.

[Coito ergo sum]

well coito, you certainly have the "events" all in order as if "you were there" so it MUST BE TRUE.

Not at all. I am following the events as indicated by the 911 tape. Other than that, I haven't stated what "must be true." You have, though.

[Seth]

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.

Yes, but the burden of proof the prosecution must meet is not a "suggestion" it's "beyond a reasonable doubt." If all the prosecution does is suggest that the defendant is lying, then the jury must acquit him because that burden of proof has not been met. And if a jury responds to a mere "suggestion" that the defendant is lying and convicts him, that verdict can be set aside by the trial judge or it may be overturned on appeal.

Court procedure is nothing like what you're suggesting and the fact is that when the only other witness to the events is dead, the prosecution has a very steep hill to climb in proving motive, method and opportunity as well as, in the case of a claim of self-defense, that the defendant did NOT act as a reasonable person would have acted under the same circumstances and that the events did NOT occur as the defendant claims they did, and do so beyond any reasonable doubt.

[Seth]

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?

Because he's viewing the evidence he has dispassionately and with a legal eye, not with blinders and racist presumptions.

[kiki5711]

well coito, you certainly have the "events" all in order as if "you were there" so it MUST BE TRUE.

Not at all. I am following the events as indicated by the 911 tape. Other than that, I haven't stated what "must be true." You have, though.

You have your own version of the 911 call and what followed after. you have not claimed that anything else could be possible other than what you intepreted from that call. You're a freakn genious.

[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?

Because he's viewing the evidence he has dispassionately and with a legal eye, not with blinders and racist presumptions.

And no body ELSE is viewing it dispassionatelly with a "LEGAL" eye? Wow! that's just incredible. Superman x-ray vision.