Unarmed teen shooting: the debate rages on...

[kiki5711]

By your "logic" if someone misperceives someone else as suspicious and goes out and asks what they are doing in the neighborhood, then if a fight ensues, there can be no self-defense because of the original misperception. If you think that makes logical sense, then, well, you're just flat wrong. That's not a question of "perception." It's you not thinking logically.

see this is what I mean.......how in god's mollasses did you come to this conclusion from what I said.?? It's not what I meant at all.

[Coito ergo sum]

By your "logic" if someone misperceives someone else as suspicious and goes out and asks what they are doing in the neighborhood, then if a fight ensues, there can be no self-defense because of the original misperception. If you think that makes logical sense, then, well, you're just flat wrong. That's not a question of "perception." It's you not thinking logically.

see this is what I mean.......how in god's mollasses did you come to this conclusion from what I said.?? It's not what I meant at all.

If it's not what you meant, then say what you mean.

Of what import is Zimmerman's misperception of Martin when he first calls 911? If it doesn't mean that Zimmerman couldn't kill Martin in self defense, then what does it mean?

Does it mean that it doesn't MATTER whether Zimmerman killed Martin in self defense, because his original behavior set everything in motion that resulted in his need to use self- defense?

Help me understand you: why is whether Zimmerman misperceived Martin important to whether Zimmerman is guilty?

[kiki5711]

Of what import is Zimmerman's misperception of Martin when he first calls 911? If it doesn't mean that Zimmerman couldn't kill Martin in self defense, then what does it mean?

ok, just in this one paragraph, there's two issues.

zimms misperception, or rather a "suspicious/malicious intent perception" which led him to call 911 and events that followed ended badly for both.

now as far as zimm killing martin in self defense, it would not even have come up as an issue, because if zimmerman didn't spark or ignite the conforntation by profiling martin as "someone who's up to no good" "I think he's on something", if zimmermann chose another way, nobody would be dead, and nobody would be on trial for murder.

[Hermit]

now as far as zimm killing martin in self defense, it would not even have come up as an issue, because if zimmerman didn't spark or ignite the conforntation by profiling martin as "someone who's up to no good" "I think he's on something", if zimmermann chose another way, nobody would be dead, and nobody would be on trial for murder.

There are two separate issues here. One is Zimmerman's perception of Martin. He may well have been wrong about it, but that is not what he will be on trial for. The other is the question whether Zimmerman shot Martin dead in self defence. Saying that it could not have been self defence because Zimmerman made a wrong judgement in regard to the victim and went after him, is conflating those two issues, and that is what you are doing.

I speculate that Zimmerman will be found not guilty because he does not need to prove that he acted the way he did on grounds of fearing for his life. The prosecution will have to prove that he didn't act the way he did on grounds of fearing for his life.

[Coito ergo sum]

Of what import is Zimmerman's misperception of Martin when he first calls 911? If it doesn't mean that Zimmerman couldn't kill Martin in self defense, then what does it mean?

ok, just in this one paragraph, there's two issues.

zimms misperception, or rather a "suspicious/malicious intent perception" which led him to call 911 and events that followed ended badly for both.

Nobody disputes that it ended badly. However, what you can't know is whether Zimmerman's perception was a misperception.

now as far as zimm killing martin in self defense, it would not even have come up as an issue, because if zimmerman didn't spark or ignite the conforntation by profiling martin as "someone who's up to no good" "I think he's on something", if zimmermann chose another way, nobody would be dead, and nobody would be on trial for murder.

So what? Does the misperception mean that Zimmerman could not have killed Martin in self defense?

Take it as read and proved that Zimmerman misperceived Martin as a suspicious character when Martin was just walking innocently down the sidewalk. He got out of his car, and the rest is the same as it is under the facts we've been discussing. Assume and take it as proved that Martin jumped Zimmerman and Zimmerman reasonably feared for his life. Would that, or would it not, be self- defense on the part of Zimmerman?

[kiki5711]

now as far as zimm killing martin in self defense, it would not even have come up as an issue, because if zimmerman didn't spark or ignite the conforntation by profiling martin as "someone who's up to no good" "I think he's on something", if zimmermann chose another way, nobody would be dead, and nobody would be on trial for murder.

There are two separate issues here. One is Zimmerman's perception of Martin. He may well have been wrong about it, but that is not what he will be on trial for. The other is the question whether Zimmerman shot Martin dead in self defence. Saying that it could not have been self defence because Zimmerman made a wrong judgement in regard to the victim and went after him, is conflating those two issues, and that is what you are doing.

I speculate that Zimmerman will be found not guilty because he does not need to prove that he acted the way he did on grounds of fearing for his life. The prosecution will have to prove that he didn't act the way he did on grounds of fearing for his life.

I'm not good at law, but wouldn't zimmerman's state of mind be presented by the prosecution saying that his predisposition with regards of him profiling martin as a thug/up to no good etc...led to the confrontation and the shooting? In order words, he may have been fearing for his life, but he is responsible for getting to that point through his actions which could have been avoided.

[Hermit]

I'm not good at law, but wouldn't zimmerman's state of mind be presented by the prosecution saying that his predisposition with regards of him profiling martin as a thug/up to no good etc...led to the confrontation and the shooting? In order words, he may have been fearing for his life, but he is responsible for getting to that point through his actions which could have been avoided.

Maybe Zimmerman's parents could be charged. If they had practised safe sex, this killing could have been avoided too. But that is not how the law works. If the prosecution knows what it is doing, it will not even attempt to bring up the subject of Zimmerman's predisposition because it ought to know in advance that such an attempt will be instantly laughed out of court.

[Coito ergo sum]

now as far as zimm killing martin in self defense, it would not even have come up as an issue, because if zimmerman didn't spark or ignite the conforntation by profiling martin as "someone who's up to no good" "I think he's on something", if zimmermann chose another way, nobody would be dead, and nobody would be on trial for murder.

There are two separate issues here. One is Zimmerman's perception of Martin. He may well have been wrong about it, but that is not what he will be on trial for. The other is the question whether Zimmerman shot Martin dead in self defence. Saying that it could not have been self defence because Zimmerman made a wrong judgement in regard to the victim and went after him, is conflating those two issues, and that is what you are doing.

I speculate that Zimmerman will be found not guilty because he does not need to prove that he acted the way he did on grounds of fearing for his life. The prosecution will have to prove that he didn't act the way he did on grounds of fearing for his life.

I'm not good at law, but wouldn't zimmerman's state of mind be presented by the prosecution saying that his predisposition with regards of him profiling martin as a thug/up to no good etc...led to the confrontation and the shooting? In order words, he may have been fearing for his life, but he is responsible for getting to that point through his actions which could have been avoided.

Probably not, since that predisposition has nothing to do with whether he acted in self defense.

However, as a threshold issue, you'd have to actually HAVE some evidence that Zimmerman was predisposed against black people and/or had profiled Martin as a thug/up to no good. You and others keep SAYING that he did that, but there is nothing other than your own predisposition to show that he did that. Well, maybe there is and you haven't shared it. On what basis do you claim he profiled Martin? Because Martin was black?

And, look, let's use an extreme example to make a point. Let's say I'm walking in a neighborhood getting some exercise, just walking on the sidewalk lawfully, and slowly. A young, angry black male approaches me, and starts harshly telling me that he doesn't like my kind around there, and I need to leave, and that I have no business here in the neighborhood. He says he's dialing 911, so I better move, or the cops will come, and he knows white crackers like me are always up to no good thuggery, and he just knows I'm one of them. I start walking away ,but this guy won't let up, he keeps walking along behind me, asking me what I think I'm doing in his neighborhood to begin with. I get scared and I run, and he initially starts to chase me, but then slows down and stops. I move along and get out of his sight for a bit, and I'm getting mad. I start walking back to the sidewalk, and am continuing on my way to my house about 150 yards away. Suddenly, we encounter each other again, and I say "Man, why are you chasing me????" He says, "what are you doing in this neighborhood?" And, I lose it and take a poke at him. I nail him and he's flat to the ground on his back. I jump on top of him and start wailing on him. I pound his head into the pavement, and he's bleeding. I break his nose and keep punching at him. He struggles, and finally I hear a pop. I fall over and gasp. My life fades. I'm gone.

In that scenario, did the black guy act in self defense, assuming everything I wrote was true. Don't argue with the facts. Was it or was it not self- defense? If you can't decide, what is it that your decision depends on?

[maiforpeace]

Shit...most people are starting to think it was self-defense? http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... was_murder

I wonder if there is a racial divide like in the OJ trial...

OMG CES, thanks for the laugh. You really crack me up sometimes.

[kiki5711]

However, as a threshold issue, you'd have to actually HAVE some evidence that Zimmerman was predisposed against black people and/

or had profiled Martin as a thug/up to no good. You and others keep SAYING that he did that, but there is nothing other than your own predisposition to show that he did that

. Well, maybe there is and you haven't shared it. On what basis do you claim he profiled Martin? Because Martin was black?

I did NOT say he was predisposed against black people.

he didn't use the word thug, but come on, when he was talking to the dispatcher, it was clear he visualized martin as "somenoe up to no good" (zimms own words), not mine. DEscribing martin was "profiling" in itself. Not necessarily because he looked black, in fact zimm said "I think he's black", and for some reason he focused in on him as a threat. now, whatever ran through his mind we don't know. One thing I wonder though, why didn't he keep his cell active so the dispatcher can hear everything.

and he knows white crackers like me are always up to no good thuggery, and he just knows I'm one of them.

if zimmerman was in fact thinking that, then it is profiling.

Don't argue with the facts

How can I comment if I can't argue with the facts?

[Coito ergo sum]

Shit...most people are starting to think it was self-defense? http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... was_murder

I wonder if there is a racial divide like in the OJ trial...

OMG CES, thanks for the laugh. You really crack me up sometimes.

I don't understand. Why was that funny?

The poll surprised me, because I was under the impression through the news reports that most people were thinking it was some sort of race murder incident and hate crime.

And, there was a racial divide like the OJ trial, where most blacks said they thought he was not guilty and most whites said they thought he was guilty. I was wondering whether that same divide applied here, now, given the new poll. Clearly, I would think most blacks were of the mind that Zimmerman ought to fry, but with the new poll, I wonder if it's pretty much just whites who changed their view of it.

I think it's a fair question. Don't you?

[maiforpeace]

Shit...most people are starting to think it was self-defense? http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... was_murder

I wonder if there is a racial divide like in the OJ trial...

OMG CES, thanks for the laugh. You really crack me up sometimes.

I don't understand. Why was that funny?

The poll surprised me, because I was under the impression through the news reports that most people were thinking it was some sort of race murder incident and hate crime.

And, there was a racial divide like the OJ trial, where most blacks said they thought he was not guilty and most whites said they thought he was guilty. I was wondering whether that same divide applied here, now, given the new poll. Clearly, I would think most blacks were of the mind that Zimmerman ought to fry, but with the new poll, I wonder if it's pretty much just whites who changed their view of it.

I think it's a fair question. Don't you?

I'm not laughing at the results of the poll. I'm laughing at your choice of poll - Rasmussen is notoriously conservative leaning.

Here you go, from the other guys.

If what you have insisted all along is true (that there is no evidence that someone is guilty or not guilty) then when this poll was taken (back in April) results should still be true...so, I'm wondering why public sentiment would have changed so dramatically since then.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/153776/Black ... -Case.aspx

[Coito ergo sum]

Shit...most people are starting to think it was self-defense? http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... was_murder

I wonder if there is a racial divide like in the OJ trial...

OMG CES, thanks for the laugh. You really crack me up sometimes.

I don't understand. Why was that funny?

The poll surprised me, because I was under the impression through the news reports that most people were thinking it was some sort of race murder incident and hate crime.

And, there was a racial divide like the OJ trial, where most blacks said they thought he was not guilty and most whites said they thought he was guilty. I was wondering whether that same divide applied here, now, given the new poll. Clearly, I would think most blacks were of the mind that Zimmerman ought to fry, but with the new poll, I wonder if it's pretty much just whites who changed their view of it.

I think it's a fair question. Don't you?

I'm not laughing at the results of the poll. I'm laughing at your choice of poll - Rasmussen is notoriously conservative leaning.

So, you think that Rasmussen wants to make it look like the Hispanic guy shot the black guy justifiably?

Here you go, from the other guys.

If what you have insisted all along is true (that there is no evidence that someone is guilty or not guilty) then when this poll was taken (back in April) results should still be true...so, I'm wondering why public sentiment would have changed so dramatically since then.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/153776/Black ... -Case.aspx

I never said there was no evidence. Jeepers. Is it really that difficult to grasp? I said that there is reasonable doubt, at the moment, based on the evidence we have. It's folks like kiki who are saying they know the guy's guilty.

I think public sentiment would have changed because huge amounts of information released by the prosecution have come out in the last month and a half, much of it exculpatory. That would be my guess. Following the case, it seemed article after article revealed either a debunking of originally supposedly damning evidence or additional evidence showing facts consistent with Zimmerman's story.

The whole point is that the Rasmussen poll is new, and a poll from a month and a half ago is old. Of interest to my follow up question was that the gallup poll does show a racial divide.

[maiforpeace]

Shit...most people are starting to think it was self-defense? http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... was_murder

I wonder if there is a racial divide like in the OJ trial...

OMG CES, thanks for the laugh. You really crack me up sometimes.

I don't understand. Why was that funny?

The poll surprised me, because I was under the impression through the news reports that most people were thinking it was some sort of race murder incident and hate crime.

And, there was a racial divide like the OJ trial, where most blacks said they thought he was not guilty and most whites said they thought he was guilty. I was wondering whether that same divide applied here, now, given the new poll. Clearly, I would think most blacks were of the mind that Zimmerman ought to fry, but with the new poll, I wonder if it's pretty much just whites who changed their view of it.

I think it's a fair question. Don't you?

I'm not laughing at the results of the poll. I'm laughing at your choice of poll - Rasmussen is notoriously conservative leaning.

So, you think that Rasmussen wants to make it look like the Hispanic guy shot the black guy justifiably?

Here you go, from the other guys.

If what you have insisted all along is true (that there is no evidence that someone is guilty or not guilty) then when this poll was taken (back in April) results should still be true...so, I'm wondering why public sentiment would have changed so dramatically since then.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/153776/Black ... -Case.aspx

I never said there was no evidence. Jeepers. Is it really that difficult to grasp? I said that there is reasonable doubt, at the moment, based on the evidence we have. It's folks like kiki who are saying they know the guy's guilty.

I think public sentiment would have changed because huge amounts of information released by the prosecution have come out in the last month and a half, much of it exculpatory. That would be my guess. Following the case, it seemed article after article revealed either a debunking of originally supposedly damning evidence or additional evidence showing facts consistent with Zimmerman's story.

The whole point is that the Rasmussen poll is new, and a poll from a month and a half ago is old. Of interest to my follow up question was that the gallup poll does show a racial divide.

Yes, how did that work, anyway? Isn't all that evidence supposed to be immediately available per Florida law?

[Coito ergo sum]

However, as a threshold issue, you'd have to actually HAVE some evidence that Zimmerman was predisposed against black people and/

or had profiled Martin as a thug/up to no good. You and others keep SAYING that he did that, but there is nothing other than your own predisposition to show that he did that

. Well, maybe there is and you haven't shared it. On what basis do you claim he profiled Martin? Because Martin was black?

I did NOT say he was predisposed against black people.

Errr...then where does your "profiling" allegation come from? What are you alleging Zimmerman profiled? Weight? Height?

he didn't use the word thug, but come on, when he was talking to the dispatcher, it was clear he visualized martin as "somenoe up to no good" (zimms own words), not mine.

Well, he said the guy was up to no good, or words to that effect, ostensibly because the person he saw looked like he was up to no good. Now, if the guy was up to no good, then Zimmerman was right. If the guy wasn't, then Zimmerman is lying. You have said, just above, that you don't think Zimmerman was predisposed against black people - or at least that you're not SAYING he was predisposed against black people - so, if not that, then what?

DEscribing martin was "profiling" in itself. Not necessarily because he looked black, in fact zimm said "I think he's black", and for some reason he focused in on him as a threat. now, whatever ran through his mind we don't know. One thing I wonder though, why didn't he keep his cell active so the dispatcher can hear everything.

You're scattered. Where are you going with this.

"Describing martin was profiling? Are you mad? The dispatcher ASKED him to describe Martin. And, Zimmerman did not mention race until he was asked specifically. Describing a person is not "profiling." That's just plain ridiculous to say that. Profiling is when you stop a person because of a racial or ethnic characteristic, rather than because of a specific description of a particular suspect, or because of their behavior.

and he knows white crackers like me are always up to no good thuggery, and he just knows I'm one of them.

if zimmerman was in fact thinking that, then it is profiling.

Can you just answer my hypothetical there? I was giving you an extreme example to make a point.

Don't argue with the facts

How can I comment if I can't argue with the facts?

It's a hypothetical. I am asking "If X, Y and Z are the case, then is it self-defense or not?" Do you not get that? Really?