Unarmed teen shooting: the debate rages on...

[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.

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.

My own "version" of the 911 call? The 911 call depicts certain events. If you try to claim that Zimmerman refused to obey the dispatcher's command on the 911 tape, then you wouldn't just be espousing a different "version." Rather, you would be espousing something that the 911 tape directly contradicts.

I haven't given a version of "what followed after." You have. I haven't. I have merely asked why you think the version you have, and others have, that Zimmerman must have or most likely grabbed Martin. I asked why people think that. I specifically said that I did not know who grabbed whom.

I don't know why you get so upset about this. Maybe it's that you so badly need to have picked the right villain here, that anything that exposes your view to the reality that you're making a lot of stuff up out of whole cloth tends to bother you. Maybe that is why instead of answering my inquiry as to why you think X, Y or Z, you make sarcastic comments about how you think I've claimed that my "version" has to be true, and that I'm a "genious."

[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?

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.

And if he had, he would likely have been legally justified in doing so, since running away from someone questioning your presence in a private gated community is an indication of mal intent and guilt. It would not be unreasonable for Zimmerman to conclude that he'd found a trespasser up to no good and to try to take him into custody and hold him for the police, something that he's legally entitled to do if he witnesses a crime being committed.

Trespassing is a crime.

I've arrested dozens of people on my private property for criminal trespass and held them for the Sheriff, and not once has anyone suggested I don't have authority to do so.

Now, if it turned out that Martin was an authorized guest of a resident of the community, and ran because he was afraid, I would have expected him to use his cell phone to call the police to complain he was being chased by someone. He did not do so did he? I would have expected, as CES points out, that he would have gone directly to the residence where he was authorized to be to contact a resident about being approached by the Neighborhood Watch so that the legal resident could go outside and clear up any misunderstanding. That did not occur either.

What did occur is that Martin escaped Zimmerman's attempt to chase him, and while Zimmerman was talking on the phone with the police arranging to meet them, Martin approached Zimmerman. That doesn't sound to me like a scared teenager running away, it sounds like an enraged teenager out to teach a disrespectful white cracker not to mess with him.

Otherwise, what's the point of chasing him? How is he proposing to prevent this "asshole" from getting away?

By taking him into custody and holding him for the police when they arrive, something he's legally entitled to do if he's witnessed a crime occurring. Trespassing is a crime.

And why is Martin running away, if he wants to grab Zimmerman?

Why then does Martin not CONTINUE to run away and go to the nearby residence that he's authorized to be at? Instead, he RETURNS to where Zimmerman is. That's indication of intent on Martin's part to confront 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.

They aren't both equally likely, based on the evidence before us. CES is merely withholding judgment and is presenting an alternative explanation. But his (and my) analysis of the evidence indicates that Zimmerman's recounting of the events is more likely to be truthful and accurate than, for example, your or Kiki's recounting of the events. At least Zimmerman was there, and the independent corroborative evidence points towards Martin's attacking Zimmerman after the initial confrontation and flight.

[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.

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

You certainly aren't.

[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?

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.

Others are. FBM is, for one. You're not. You're not even willing to say "I don't know who most likely grabbed whom first," right? Wait, maybe you are. Do you think you know who most likely grabbed whom first, and is that based on evidence? Or, is it based on supposition?

[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.

Others are. FBM is, for one. You're not. You're not even willing to say "I don't know who most likely grabbed whom first," right? Wait, maybe you are. Do you think you know who most likely grabbed whom first, and is that based on evidence? Or, is it based on supposition?

FBM is for one! Yeeeeeehaaaw! We have ONE.

In addition, I have mulitple times gone over many scenario of possibility, you have it stuck in YOUR OWN HEAD that, I'm not capable of deciphering this case any other way but with bias. AND let me repeat, it's only IN YOUR HEAD.

[maiforpeace]

Since we can't really prove anything yet, I'm wondering why we aren't having more useful tangential discussions over all of this. Like the concept of gated communities, for example.

Otherwise, do go on until you're blue in the face.

[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?

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.

I'm not from the UK.

[kiki5711]

Since we can't really prove anything yet, I'm wondering why we aren't having more useful tangential discussions over all of this. Like the concept of gated communities, for example.

Otherwise, do go on until you're blue in the face.

I lived in (well it wasn't gated) but it was one of those that had associaton fees and these people are sometimes "brutal", "unreasonable" and just plain nasty, even to their own neighbors.

I remember a case (not in my neighborhood, but for a lawyer I worked for) where a newly home owner was re-cementing his driveway. Well, according to the association HE was taking too long and it was making their neighborhood look "unpleasant"! Meantime, they didn't consider that it was a rainy season and that is what kept the home owner to delay a few times to finish the job.
So, to bugger him further, they sent him another "warning" letter that his MAIL BOX is not up to standard for this community.
He was a lawyer himself so he took it upon himself to do a little buggering to the association. He bought a mail box that looks like a giant fish. Had contractors for his driveway disclose when they can finish, AND THE ASSOCIATION STILL FINED HIM SOME FEW THOUSAND DOLLARS for wasting their time and not obeying the rules.

How unreasonable and snobby and so damn stiff can people be?

[Coito ergo sum]

In addition, I have mulitple times gone over many scenario of possibility, you have it stuck in YOUR OWN HEAD that, I'm not capable of deciphering this case any other way but with bias. AND let me repeat, it's only IN YOUR HEAD.

Alright then, perhaps you'd like to discuss the matter. If you'd scroll up to where you took issue with "my version" and point out what it is that I've set forth that you disagree with. Then we can see what each of us uses to support our "version." That would be one way to make some progress. Either that, or you can continue on with shrill bleating.

[Coito ergo sum]

Since we can't really prove anything yet, I'm wondering why we aren't having more useful tangential discussions over all of this. Like the concept of gated communities, for example.

Otherwise, do go on until you're blue in the face.

We can prove some things. Some evidence is pretty clear.

Like -- did he have a head injury. Yes. He had one. We have clear evidence of that. Earlier, that was a bone of contention, but later evidence showed him to have a head injury. There is room for discussion as to degree, of course.

The events set forth on the 911 call can be largely proven as well.

Such facts are known.

As for gated communities, I have no issue with them. They let people live in a well-maintained, neighborhood that somewhat restricts through traffic. I fail to see what is wrong with that. Naturally, there ought not be invidiously discriminatory rules set up, but such rules are illegal anyway. And, if someone wants to claim that there is some inherent racism to them, then they will have to present some evidence for that. In my anecdotal experience, they aren't racist, as minorities freely and commonly live in them too.

My wife likes the idea of gated communities. It gives her a small sense of security. It doesn't really keep people out, as anyone can just drive in behind another car, or walk in. But, it does keep traffic to a minimum. All the residents pay to keep up the roads, sidewalks and landscaping in such communities, so they have an interest in making sure it doesn't become a high traffic area. Another good thing is they have anti-solicitation rules, which keeps the door-to-door salesperson and Jehovah's Witnesses down to a minimum.

[maiforpeace]

Since we can't really prove anything yet, I'm wondering why we aren't having more useful tangential discussions over all of this. Like the concept of gated communities, for example.

Otherwise, do go on until you're blue in the face.

I lived in (well it wasn't gated) but it was one of those that had associaton fees and these people are sometimes "brutal", "unreasonable" and just plain nasty, even to their own neighbors.

I remember a case (not in my neighborhood, but for a lawyer I worked for) where a newly home owner was re-cementing his driveway. Well, according to the association HE was taking too long and it was making their neighborhood look "unpleasant"! Meantime, they didn't consider that it was a rainy season and that is what kept the home owner to delay a few times to finish the job.
So, to bugger him further, they sent him another "warning" letter that his MAIL BOX is not up to standard for this community.
He was a lawyer himself so he took it upon himself to do a little buggering to the association. He bought a mail box that looks like a giant fish. Had contractors for his driveway disclose when they can finish, AND THE ASSOCIATION STILL FINED HIM SOME FEW THOUSAND DOLLARS for wasting their time and not obeying the rules.

How unreasonable and snobby and so damn stiff can people be?

Yup, I get that.

I live in community that is a part of an association...same kind of stupid rules, but at least they are quite fair. It's a Christian community, and when someone complained about my quote from Douglas Adams posted in my yard (I posted it as a response to all the bible quotes posted on street signs) they ruled in my favor.

On the other hand, being a part of an association has great perks as well. When the big storm hit last November, it was our association, not Caltrans that got all the trees that fell into the street removed immediately...and in the end it was the tree service that our association paid for, not PGE, that removed the tree that was hanging on the live electrical wire that is connected directly to my home.

[Coito ergo sum]

Since we can't really prove anything yet, I'm wondering why we aren't having more useful tangential discussions over all of this. Like the concept of gated communities, for example.

Otherwise, do go on until you're blue in the face.

I lived in (well it wasn't gated) but it was one of those that had associaton fees and these people are sometimes "brutal", "unreasonable" and just plain nasty, even to their own neighbors.

I remember a case (not in my neighborhood, but for a lawyer I worked for) where a newly home owner was re-cementing his driveway. Well, according to the association HE was taking too long and it was making their neighborhood look "unpleasant"! Meantime, they didn't consider that it was a rainy season and that is what kept the home owner to delay a few times to finish the job.
So, to bugger him further, they sent him another "warning" letter that his MAIL BOX is not up to standard for this community.
He was a lawyer himself so he took it upon himself to do a little buggering to the association. He bought a mail box that looks like a giant fish. Had contractors for his driveway disclose when they can finish, AND THE ASSOCIATION STILL FINED HIM SOME FEW THOUSAND DOLLARS for wasting their time and not obeying the rules.

How unreasonable and snobby and so damn stiff can people be?

Such things do happen. But, most associations don't start sending notices until a project like a driveway is really old. If the driveway wasn't finished, and sat there for one month due to heavy rains, then normally an association will not be jackasses about it. But, if by "delay" it took many months, then they'd probably be justified in prompting the guy to finish. Your standard gated subdivision driveway is what? 20 feet long? 30? It's not a huge job. In short, the associations can be dicks, but so too could the driveway guy. Both scenarios happen, and we don't know that the association was being unreasonable without more details about the length of the delay.

Also, an association doesn't necessarily know the reason for a delay in that kind of case without inquiring. They do that by letter, and a first notice is usually pretty tame. They'll send a note stating what the association guidelines/covenants require, and indicate that there will be consequences if it is not fixed. The could certainly explain the difficulty and work it out with the association.

Usually, an association is just looking out to make sure they don't have a house that is in disrepair that is going to harm the neighborhood's property values. The whole reason for a subdivision with covenants and association bylaws is because people are buying a house in a COMMUNITY, and they aren't just living out somewhere that doesn't effect others. If they agree to abide by the rules when they buy the house, then they've agreed to the rules. These things aren't secrets. Many people do choose to ignore the covenants and bylaws, of course.

[kiki5711]

Here he goes again! Mr. Answer Man!

[Coito ergo sum]

Your opinion seemed as thin and juvenile as most of your others. I thought I'd clear up some things. Things aren't always black-and-white, good-guy-bad-guy stuff, as much as it might frighten you.

[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.

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.

You seem to think that you're the only one that can think analytically. But you just don't.

Point 1, the question being discussed was who was MOST LIKELY to have initiated the conflict.
My points were perfectly relevant to that question.

Nobody is suggesting calling someone an asshole IN ISOLATION means anything. It's part of series of actions by Zimmerman which I listed.

And anyway, it's hardly analytical to compare your calling people assholes, while driving your car, with a man talking to a 911 operator, reporting a suspicious person.
There's a name for that fallacy. I'm sure that you know it. But I call it comparing chalk with cheese.

Why do that, why use a completely false comparison, to make your point? That's not great "analysis" in my book.