Zimmerman TrialFollow

Uh oh. Georgie is back on the wrong side of the law.

This must mean he's a thug a crook an a murderer. If he'd been jailed when he should have been this vehicular speeding would never have happened.

He's still packing...

Since when are points necessary?

I like the quote. The article makes it sound as if the officer were a bit skittish about George and his Gun.

It sounds like he was kind of nervous too, a nervous guy you just pulled over who's got a gun in his hand would be a good reason to be extra careful.

Mmmm... stuffing.

This is why one should never forum on an empty stomach.

Â

I'm not going to get into a semantic argument (cause it's pointless), but you are misusing the term. Whatever.



Disagree. #1 only shows that there is no proof that Martin was about to commit a crime. There are "facts" and "evidence" that Martin *might* have been about to commit, or planning to commit a crime. The facts being that it was raining and he wasn't walking in a manner expected of someone simply traveling home while it was raining, but going out of his way (in the rain) to check out people's yards and houses along the way. This is behavior that a reasonable person might see as indicative of possible criminal intent. Which is why Zimmerman called the police.



Disagree. We don't know why Martin ran. We only know that he did. You keep insisting that it's because he was "suspicious of Zimmerman", I think that's too vague, and suggests some wrongdoing on Zimmerman's part. I would prefer, if we are to speculate that we speculate about exactly what Zimmerman was doing that caused Martin to run. I believe he ran because he believed that Zimmerman was calling the cops on him.

Why do you think Martin ran? And "he thought Zimmerman was suspicious" isn't a good answer. And if you can't get past that particular fixation on the word "suspicious", then tell me what was suspicious about Zimmerman that caused Martin to run.



Nope. Not even close. You keep conflating "proof" with "evidence", and can't seem to get past the vague term "suspicious".

I also find it interesting that you insist on only assessing things that make Zimmerman look to be at fault. How about this list:

1. Martin was behaving in a strange manner given the time and weather conditions.

2. Zimmerman believed that this was indicative of possible criminal behavior or intent.

3. Zimmerman called the police to report this behavior.

4. When Martin became aware of Zimmerman and saw he was sitting in his car watching him and talking on his cell phone, he ran from him.


Can we agree on that set of events? Because I think those are a far more relevant set of events than what you keep blathering on about.

What are you, some sort of antisemant???

I'm fine with the first 3.

This tells us two things:

1. Martin was black.
2. Zimmerman wasn't.

Not only have you been arguing semantics this entire time, but you continue to do so in the very same post. Obviously, you can't provide a contradictory definition and you are too stubborn to admit being wrong.



What facts and/or evidence are there that suggests that Martin was "checking out people's yards and houses along the way" as opposed to simply talking on the cellphone with no sense of urgency?.



You agreed.

Zimmerman was suspicious of Martin and Martin was suspicious of Zimmerman. That doesn't make one look more at fault than another. Stop with the distractions.


Edited, Aug 2nd 2013 12:25am by Almalieque

I reject number 4 because it's blatant assumption. You start off your defense assuming it's true.

No, that's not circular reasoning at all.

But I'll play: We can't assume that's true because we don't know what Zimmerman or Martin were doing. Zimmerman's testimony says one thing. The testimony of Martin's girlfriend says another (that may or may not be compatible with what Zimmerman said). The call to the police says nothing about what Zimmerman was doing before calling. Was he just sitting in his truck and Martin walked by, or was he following Martin down the street and then stopped to call the cops?

Finally, the testimony of the person with the most to lose is always the testimony you must treat with the most suspicion.

Sure, if you are inclined to believe Zimmerman. See, some people are not inclined to believe Zimmerman because he likes to kill kids. Makes him look a little untrustworthy.