Zimmerman TrialFollow

No. It's a reasonable conclusion based on the facts we have available.



No. I start off with the fact that the best information we have about what happened when Zimmerman first saw Martin and Martin first saw Zimmerman is that contained within the audio recording of the police non-emergency call he placed. It's objective in the sense that what he said is what he said. To dismiss what is said in that call requires that we speculate that Zimmerman knew that people like us would pour over a transcript of his call and try to figure out what was going on, and so he completely fabricated everything he claimed to see that night. Which seems absurd. If that was the case, why leave in the expletives? Why not lie about following Martin?

We kinda have to assume that at least with regards to basic things like "he's walking towards me", and "he's seen me", and "he's running" that they are true. Otherwise we have to reject the entire thing as fabricated and are left with nothing at all.



It's not.



It does tell us what Zimmerman actually said that night at the time. It's the only "testimony" that we can say can't be tainted by knowledge of what would happen later. His testimony can be. The girlfriends can be. The witnesses can be. The audio recording? Can't be. Because it's a recording. I mean, if we had a video of the fight, you'd accept that over an eye witness report, right? Because it is what was seen. This is the same. It's what Zimmerman said at the time.

From that call, we can actually glean quite a bit of information. One of those things is that Zimmerman was not chasing Martin through the complex in his truck as has often been claimed. Another is that when Zimmerman reports that Martin sees him is almost certainly the very first time that Martin was aware of Zimmerman's existence that night. We can also say that Martin ran from Zimmerman, while Zimmerman was parked in his car, and not *because* Zimmerman was chasing/following him (which I've been trying to get people to accept for some time now).



The former. It's right in the audio recording. If he was following Martin down the street, why was Martin walking towards him when he calls? I suppose it's possible he spotted Martin and then circled around and parked on that street to watch for him, but it's clear that Martin was completely unaware that he was being watched until he got relatively close to Zimmerman's parked vehicle. So the idea that he was already afraid and fleeing Zimmerman at that point cannot be true. And we know that any pursuing that happened after that point occurred on foot (and we know where that ended).



Except I'm not talking about Zimmerman's testimony. I'm reading the transcript of his phone call to police. He didn't know he might have the most to lose when he made that call. Thus, it can be assumed to be relatively accurate.

What's the alternative? We take the girlfriends testimony at face value? We have no recording of that phone call. To claim the information in the police recording is false would require us to assume that Zimmerman planned the whole thing and staged the police call ahead of time to help exonerate him. Isn't it more likely that the girlfriend just adjusted the details of the call to make Martin look more innocent and Zimmerman more guilty? And let's not forget that nothing in her testimony actually contradicts the information in the police recording. She never claimed that Zimmerman chased Martin in his car. This was pure fabrication via wild speculation and rumors about the case in the early days, yet it persists despite there not being a shred of evidence to support it. She doesn't mention at all when Martin first spotted Zimmerman, or why he was running (except for the whole "creepy *** cracker" comment. Just that he was.

That part isn't really in question. What is in question is why Martin initially chose to run way from Zimmerman. Because everyone seems to want to hinge their opinions about the later events based on the why and how of the chase itself. I'm saying that I believe that the evidence best supports the theory that Martin realized that Zimmerman was calling the cops on him and ran to avoid the cops.


Do you have a better reason? I keep asking people to answer this, and all I get back is either vague statements from Alma "he was suspicious!", or folks running back to emotional rhetoric and ignoring the question. Zimmerman did not follow Martin until after Martin ran. Martin ran *after* he walked close enough to Zimmerman's parked vehicle to see him clearly. So the question is: "Why did he run"? Assuming we all agree that it's not normal to flee from someone sitting in a parked car talking on a cell phone, then why did he run?

Can you answer that question?

You didn't answer the question. 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 know, given the fact that he was on the phone and all and Zimmerman never noticed, or at least mentioned, that Martin was on the phone.

So, you agree. You gave a condition, the condition was met, so you agree.

So, you agree that the "intentionally broad term" applies to both.

I have, several times, but you conveniently like to ignore parts of posts, so I'm "walking the dog", doing one point at a time. Addressing to other points outside the question will only give you the opportunity to ignore the points that matter. I assure you that if you cooperate, we will arrive to your questions.

That's literally what he's saying, totally overlooking the fact that Zimmerman didn't know that Martin was on the phone with a bag of skittles. That alone questions his perception of reality.

Um... The fact that this is what Zimmerman reported to police is evidence that this is what Martin was doing. WTF?

That's the answer to your question.



The two are not mutually exclusive. One can both be talking on the phone *and* checking out peoples yards and houses. It's not shocking that Zimmerman would not have reported that Martin was talking on the phone, because Martin was using a headset and wearing a hoodie. Thus, it's unlikely he could have seen either the phone or the headset. He could easily see where he was walking though.

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. We have a recorded phone conversation between Zimmerman and the police. I suspect you have a very confused idea of what "facts" and "evidence" are.



You have not once answered this question. Why specifically do you think Martin ran from Zimmerman? I don't want a vague answer like "He looked suspicious". I want specifics. What about what Zimmerman was doing was suspicious? Why would that cause Martin to flee?

We know what about Martin's behavior was suspicious to Zimmerman. It's right there in the recording. And we know precisely how Zimmerman reacted to it (he called the police). We have a second suspicious thing that Martin did (running from Zimmernan), also on the recording, and we know how Zimmerman reacted to that (he got out his car and followed Martin).

What I want from you, is the same kind of detail with regards to Martin's actions. It's just funny as hell that you keep insisting on more more more detail with regards to Zimmerman, but are completely vague about Martin. But the actions and reactions of both men contributed to the ultimate outcome that night. Let's look at what both of them did.

This should be a simple thing for you to do. You certainly seem positive that Martin's decision to flee from Zimmerman was perfectly reasonable, so why can't you tell me *why* it was?

If I thought I was being watched while walking through an area, and approached the vehicle to see if someone was in there watching me, realized they were watching me, I might get out of there too. I have no idea why someone may be watching me as I walk through an area at night. But if I leave the area they wouldn't be watching me any more. Except in this case after he tried to leave the area, the person watching him gets out of the vehicle to follow him.

When I realize a person is sitting in a vehicle watching me, and I get out of their field of view, and now they are on foot following me? Something's up... That's not normal (or common!)

Would you run though? You're walking up a street. You see a vehicle parked on the side of the road. You think there might be someone inside. As you walk up closer, you realize that there is someone in the car, and he's looking at you and talking on his phone. What is your response to this?

I think most people would just continue walking in the direction they were walking and not give it much thought. Yes, I might become concerned if the person then got out of the car and followed me, but Zimmerman got out of the car *because* Martin ran. We have no idea what he would have done if Martin had just continued walking down the street at a normal pace.



Exactly. One doesn't normally leap to "he's a deranged serial killer/rapist, so I'd better run for my life!". I'd normally assume that this person is sitting in his car talking on his phone for some reason. Maybe he just parked there, and because it's raining decided to finish his phone call before getting out of his car. Maybe he's having an affair on his wife and this is a safe place he can call his girlfriend. Who knows? Why is he looking at me? Probably because he's as curious about me walking down the street in the rain as I am about him sitting in his parked car in the rain.




You're downplaying the method of "leaving the area" though. Martin didn't just continue to walk down the street. He ran away from Zimmerman. So when he saw someone sitting in a parked car, looking at him, and talking on his phone, his response was to run.

I think that's strange. At the very least a significant overreaction. Don't you?



Which would be a perfectly valid reaction if Martin had continued walking by, then Zimmerman got out of his car and followed him, and *then* Martin started running. But that's not what happened. Martin walked towards the car. When he got close to the car and he realized Zimmerman was inside and watching him, he almost immediately ran. He didn't wait for Zimmerman to take the kind of action one might consider justification for running. Unless we assume that Martin is so skittish that he flees from every person he sees in a parked car who looks at him while talking on the phone, that is. In which case, I *still* think that's pretty strange behavior.



This is why I've speculated that Martin didn't run from Zimmerman because he thought he was a criminal, but because he thought Zimmerman was calling the cops. It's the only explanation that makes complete sense. If he knew that what he'd been doing looked suspicious, and believed Zimmerman either was a cop, or was calling the cops, his decision to run from Zimmerman right at that moment makes sense. Zimmerman isn't a threat to him unless he's concerned about who he's calling. Zimmerman can't be a threat to him until/unless Zimmerman gets out of his car and starts following him. But that only happened *after* Martin ran.

So, I'll ask again: Why did Martin run? Thinking someone sitting in a car might be a bad guy planning to do something bad to you is a good reason to keep an eye on that person, and then take off *if* that person does something to confirm that suspicion. But as you've said yourself, that would require the person either following you in the car or getting out and following you on foot. Neither of which happened until after Martin made the decision to run. So we're left with that same question I've been asking all along: Why did he run?


It's a gross overreaction to anything he could have suspected of Zimmerman *unless* what he suspected was that he was calling the cops. Then it makes complete sense.

Edited, Aug 2nd 2013 5:24pm by gbaji

Zimmerman calling the police does not address the difference between simply talking on the phone with no urgency as opposed to "checking out people's yards and houses along the way". Zimmerman DID NOT mention that Martin was on the phone with his "girlfriend" with a bag of skittles. So at least one of the two must be true:

1. Zimmerman intentionally left out those facts.
2. Zimmerman did NOT notice that Martin was on the phone with his "girlfriend" with a bag of skittles.



Which is why I'm asking you to provide facts that support that he was "checking out people's yards and houses along the way" as opposed to simply talking on the phone with no urgency? If you can't provide facts that differentiate one from another, then how can you claim one or both? At that point, you just have facts of him walking where he could be doing one and/or both. Those are not facts that specifically support "checking out people's yards and houses along the way".



Not only have I answered it several times, you even contradicted yourself to say exactly what I said, which is what I'm going to point out. If I repeat myself as I did before, you will only conveniently leave out points and focus on distractions.

You can say it all you want, until you can offer any kind of reliable evidence it's the case, it doesn't matter.

The recording of Zimmerman's call is the "best evidence" we have of the sequence of events at that portion of their encounter. You're free to conclude that this isn't "reliable evidence", if you want. But then I've got to ask what better evidence you have to argue that this isn't what happened? Other than you wanting things to have happened differently because it fits a narrative you've been told, that is.

I'm guessing you didn't watch the video posted a few pages back with Zimmerman going through the step-by-step of the event. You keep repeating that Martin ran as soon as he saw Zimmerman on the phone and that Zimmerman never followed him in his car but that's not what happened according to Zimmerman himself.

He first saw Martin and followed him in his car till he got to the club house where he parked his car and called the police. At that point he lost sight of Martin so he went looking for him still in his car and found him again on a different street. It's at that point that Martin ran and Zimmerman got out of his car.

Which only supports the fact that Zimmerman didn't really know what was going on and made an assumption. That isn't inherently "bad" on his part, but on your part. You're confusing the legitimacy of Zimmerman's suspicion of Martin with the legitimacy of your speculation of Martin.

You cannot logically allude to Martin potentially committing a crime without more facts and/or evidence to support it, knowing that Martin was on the phone with his girlfriend with a bag of skittles. Zimmerman didn't know any better, but you do, so the onus is on you to substantiate your remarks. Unless, you're just spreading gossip.

Of course facts do not have to constitute proof of any conclusion. That's why I'm not asking you simply to provide random facts. I'm specifically asking what are the 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? Zimmerman calling the police doesn't suggest one over the other when HE DID NOT EVEN KNOW THAT MARTIN WAS ON THE PHONE OR WHAT WAS IN HIS HANDS. Again, don't conflate Zimmerman's suspicion with your speculation.

I didn't simply ask for random facts or evidence. That's what you are providing, hence why I keep asking the question. I'm asking what are the 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?

If you are unable to differentiate the two, in a general sense, then you cannot claim he was doing one and not the other or both. It's really that simple. If you can't tell the difference between someone being asleep vs unconscious, then you cannot logically label one over the other.
Don't conflate Zimmerman's suspicion with your speculation. You are making claims KNOWING that Martin was on the phone with his girlfriend with a bag of skittles. Zimmerman did not know that, hence why he thought Martin was crazy and/or on drugs.

Not only have I answered it, I outlined it in bold and you ignored it. You later then agreed with me in contradiction.

Edited, Aug 3rd 2013 3:35am by Almalieque

Edited, Aug 3rd 2013 6:40am by Almalieque

He also contradicted his own claim on why Martin ran (agreeing with the majority of the thread) and now is claiming that I never said anything on the issue. As if the conversation isn't still there.

That's what happens when you get caught up in trolling. You forget which side you're on.

Not only that, if you think that you're being stalked, you wouldn't just run directly home leading the person to your home either.