The Zimmerman / Martin Case

First topic message reminder :

(Reuters) - The Florida man who shot and killed black teenager Trayvon Martin - triggering nationwide civil rights protests - planned to sell the gun he used in an auction on Thursday and to spend some of the proceeds to challenge gun control policies, the auction website said.

The one-day auction was to begin at 11 a.m. EST (1500 GMT), with bids to start at $5,000. But the listing disappeared from the site soon after its scheduled start.

Representatives for the website offering the handgun for sale, Gunbroker.com, did not immediately respond to questions about why the listing came down and whether the gun had been sold.

The shooter, George Zimmerman, had described the gun as "a piece of American history," according to the website.

U.S. Department of Justice recently returned to Zimmerman the Kel Tec 9mm pistol that he had used to kill the unarmed Martin on Feb. 26, 2012.

Daryl Parks, a lawyer for Martin's family, called the potential gun sale offensive in a phone interview but said the family remain focused on their work advocating against gun violence.

"It's a distraction, and it shouldn't be a distraction to what we're doing," said Parks, who also serves as chairman of the Trayvon Martin Foundation.

Zimmerman was acquitted of second-degree murder and manslaughter charges in the incident, which sparked civil rights rallies and brought scrutiny of Florida's controversial "stand your ground" law.

The law allows a potential crime victim who is "in fear of great bodily injury" to use deadly force in public places.

Zimmerman, who was a neighborhood watch volunteer at the time, has maintained that the shooting was in self-defense. Martin's family said the teenager was simply passing through the residential area on his way home from a convenience store.

President Barack Obama said after Zimmerman's acquittal that Martin "could have been me, 35 years ago" and urged Americans to understand the pain African Americans felt over the case.

'SOCIOPATH'

"George Zimmerman" quickly became the top trending term on Twitter in the United States on Thursday, with many users on the social media site expressing shock and revulsion.

"The only people worse than George Zimmerman are the people who bid on that gun," tweeted journalist and columnist Lyz Lenz.

National Review columnist Charles C. W. Cooke said Zimmerman "may have acted legally, but the man is a sociopath."

On the auction website, Zimmerman had said he planned to use part of the proceeds to fight Black Lives Matter, a movement that grew out of the incident, as well as to counter "violence against law enforcement officers."

Proceeds would also go towards fighting Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton's "anti-firearm rhetoric," he said.

"I am honored and humbled to announce the sale of an American firearm icon. The firearm for sale is the firearm that was used to defend my life and end the brutal attack from Trayvon Martin," he said on the site.

The number from the Martin case is written on the pistol in silver permanent marker. The auction listing included a photo of the gun being held up in court by a law enforcement officer during Zimmerman's murder trial.

Zimmerman said in the description that "many have expressed interest in owning and displaying the firearm, including The Smithsonian Museum in Washington D.C."

The Smithsonian replied on Twitter that it had never expressed interest in the gun, and had "no plans to ever collect or display it in any museums."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/man-killed-black-teenager-florida-auction-off-gun-103622143.html?nhp=1

And you were correct; I did have the total number of jurors wrong, I keep calling YOU Juror #13 and there were only 6 of which 1 was the only minority. 

After sixteen hours of deliberations over the course of two days, on July 13, 2013, the six-person jury rendered a not guilty verdict on all counts

Seriously >>> LOL stop pulling my leg.

 I'm not swayed by that - I'm a free thinker, unlike you and Quill.

RIGHT ~~~not being swayed by your limited perspective about the American Legal System from the TV screen; now that must make for some stimulating discussions --- Wait...Hmmm
Enjoy...I've tried and failed to show how your thought process is stilted/skewed and gone afunk but it's your happy place and yours to enjoy!

Raggamuffin wrote:No Quill, it's you who's falling in the trap created by the race baiters. You believe that Martin was murdered, and that's because you will automatically side with a black person - it's part of your white guilt.

I'm just accepting the obvious. It's you believing Zimmerman that is extraordinary.

4EVER2 wrote:And you were correct; I did have the total number of jurors wrong, I keep calling YOU Juror #13 and there were only 6 of which 1 was the only minority. 

After sixteen hours of deliberations over the course of two days, on July 13, 2013, the six-person jury rendered a not guilty verdict on all counts

Seriously >>> LOL stop pulling my leg.

 I'm not swayed by that - I'm a free thinker, unlike you and Quill.

RIGHT ~~~not being swayed by your limited perspective about the American Legal System from the TV screen; now that must make for some stimulating discussions --- Wait...Hmmm
Enjoy...I've tried and failed to show how your thought process is stilted/skewed and gone afunk but it's your happy place and yours to enjoy!

Why do you keep talking about the legal system? They had a trial, and there were some options re verdicts. It's not rocket science. What do you think I'm not understanding about it? Please try to be lucid when you reply, and be specific.

Perhaps you could explain why the prosecution were calling defence witnesses. That was most interesting.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:No Quill, it's you who's falling in the trap created by the race baiters. You believe that Martin was murdered, and that's because you will automatically side with a black person - it's part of your white guilt.

I'm just accepting the obvious.  It's you believing Zimmerman that is extraordinary.

Why? I studied the evidence, I studied the map of the area, I studied the wounds on Zimmerman's head and nose, I studied the witness statements. You did none of that. You don't even know what the main witness said.

I'm totally lurking this thread
This case is so interesting and so is the debate - thanks guys

eddie wrote:I'm totally lurking this thread
This case is so interesting and so is the debate - thanks guys

You're very welcome eddie.

It was an extremely interesting case, despite it's tragic nature. That's why I followed the evidence carefully.

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:I'm totally lurking this thread
This case is so interesting and so is the debate - thanks guys

You're very welcome eddie.

It was an extremely interesting case, despite it's tragic nature. That's why I followed the evidence carefully.

I can see you did. That's sort of why I shut up - but I still say Zimmerman followed him so.......?
Still, you and quill make really good cases. You should've worked in law Rags.

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You're very welcome eddie.

It was an extremely interesting case, despite it's tragic nature. That's why I followed the evidence carefully.

I can see you did. That's sort of why I shut up - but I still say Zimmerman followed him so.......?
Still, you and quill make really good cases. You should've worked in law Rags.

I enjoy talking about legal issues, along with medical issues - they're my favourite subjects.

I've also discussed on another forum the case of Jeremy Bamber at great length.

Raggamuffin wrote:

4EVER2 wrote:And you were correct; I did have the total number of jurors wrong, I keep calling YOU Juror #13 and there were only 6 of which 1 was the only minority. 

Seriously >>> LOL stop pulling my leg.

RIGHT ~~~not being swayed by your limited perspective about the American Legal System from the TV screen; now that must make for some stimulating discussions --- Wait...Hmmm
Enjoy...I've tried and failed to show how your thought process is stilted/skewed and gone afunk but it's your happy place and yours to enjoy!

Why do you keep talking about the legal system? They had a trial, and there were some options re verdicts. It's not rocket science. What do you think I'm not understanding about it? Please try to be lucid when you reply, and be specific.

Perhaps you could explain why the prosecution were calling defence witnesses. That was most interesting.

I'm trying to explain the LEGAL SYSTEM for you to help you understand what you aren't able to comprehend {and you kept trying to connect the dots with what Scotland's legal definitions were and Quill walked you through that error - hopefully} and now you've just asked another LEGAL SYSTEM question???

Have you read anything about: witnesses/cross examination/re-direct etc.,

Defense attorney's call their witnesses = testimony then there's the prosecution time as cross examination questions...now that witness may or may not be called back for further re-cross at a later date
The prosecution presents it's witnesses = testimony then there's the defense attorney question time and there may or may not be re-cross questions from the defense table if something needed clarification.

I can't imagine the gut wrenching fear that nearly disemboweled the prosecution team when the young lady Jeantel had to be called back to the stand to 'clarify' some of her testimony from the previous day > > >  

A witness in the George Zimmerman murder trial was forced to admit yesterday that she couldn’t read a letter she supposedly wrote to Trayvon Martin’s mom about his death.
Rachel Jeantel, Martin’s girlfriend, spent more than six hours on the stand, much of it in testy exchanges with defense lawyer Don West.
West asked her to read aloud a March 2012 letter — handwritten in script — that she supposedly wrote and signed with the printed nickname Diamond Eugene.
The letter, in which Jeantel described how she spoke on the phone with Martin, 17, moments before he was shot dead by Zimmerman, was sent to Martin’s mother, Sybrina Fulton.
“Are you able to read that at all?” West asked.
“Some, but not all. I don’t read cursive,” Jeantel said in a whisper, her head bowed.
The disclosure stunned the courtroom in Sanford, Fla.
In a sharper exchange, West suggested that Martin had attacked Zimmerman, a neighborhood-watch member.
“That’s real retarded, sir!” she said. “You don’t know the person.”
http://nypost.com/2013/06/28/trayvon-martins-girlfriend-admits-she-cant-read-the-letter-she-supposedly-wrote-to-his-mother-about-his-death/

And as often is the case --- trying to build a case as fragile as this
one was to prove reason for MURDER CHARGES - the states witness
charged with LYING under oath and her testimony was all over the place
and she was barely able to be understood.

Zimmerman killed Treyvon but the charges of MURDER according Florida law
wasn't proven.

4EVER2 wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Why do you keep talking about the legal system? They had a trial, and there were some options re verdicts. It's not rocket science. What do you think I'm not understanding about it? Please try to be lucid when you reply, and be specific.

Perhaps you could explain why the prosecution were calling defence witnesses. That was most interesting.

I'm trying to explain the LEGAL SYSTEM for you to help you understand what you aren't able to comprehend {and you kept trying to connect the dots with what Scotland's legal definitions were and Quill walked you through that error - hopefully} and now you've just asked another LEGAL SYSTEM question???

Have you read anything about: witnesses/cross examination/re-direct etc.,

Defense attorney's call their witnesses = testimony then there's the prosecution time as cross examination questions...now that witness may or may not be called back for further re-cross at a later date
The prosecution presents it's witnesses = testimony then there's the defense attorney question time and there may or may not be re-cross questions from the defense table if something needed clarification.

I can't imagine the gut wrenching fear that nearly disemboweled the prosecution team when the young lady Jeantel had to be called back to the stand to 'clarify' some of her testimony from the previous day > > >  

A witness in the George Zimmerman murder trial was forced to admit yesterday that she couldn’t read a letter she supposedly wrote to Trayvon Martin’s mom about his death.
Rachel Jeantel, Martin’s girlfriend, spent more than six hours on the stand, much of it in testy exchanges with defense lawyer Don West.
West asked her to read aloud a March 2012 letter — handwritten in script — that she supposedly wrote and signed with the printed nickname Diamond Eugene.
The letter, in which Jeantel described how she spoke on the phone with Martin, 17, moments before he was shot dead by Zimmerman, was sent to Martin’s mother, Sybrina Fulton.
“Are you able to read that at all?” West asked.
“Some, but not all. I don’t read cursive,” Jeantel said in a whisper, her head bowed.
The disclosure stunned the courtroom in Sanford, Fla.
In a sharper exchange, West suggested that Martin had attacked Zimmerman, a neighborhood-watch member.
“That’s real retarded, sir!” she said. “You don’t know the person.”
http://nypost.com/2013/06/28/trayvon-martins-girlfriend-admits-she-cant-read-the-letter-she-supposedly-wrote-to-his-mother-about-his-death/

And as often is the case --- trying to build a case as fragile as this
one was to prove reason for MURDER CHARGES - the states witness
charged with LYING under oath and her testimony was all over the place
and she was barely able to be understood.

Zimmerman killed Treyvon but the charges of MURDER according Florida law
wasn't proven.

The conversation about "not proven" versus "not guilty" was a separate issue, and nothing to do with the US legal system. In England we don't have the "not proven" option either. I didn't make an error and Quill didn't have a clue what he was talking about - he kept saying they're the same thing when they're clearly not. Anyway, it wasn't relevant to the Zimmerman trial.

My question was - why did the prosecution call defence witnesses? That is - they called Jonathan Good in particular as their witness. I find that odd because he was clearly on the side of the defence, and the prosecution couldn't cross examine him or contradict him because he was their own witness. It perhaps didn't make much difference because his testimony was very clear anyway, but I found it bizarre.

George Zimmerman is a post-pubescent person with an XY chromosome configuration who desperately wants to be a true man, but can never feel like he really is until he takes another person's life with his mighty dick substitute pistol -- in a totally justified way, of course.

Now that society has introduced enough doubt as to whether he was really justified in stalking and killing an unarmed teenager who attended high school, was too young to purchase alcohol, and lived with his parents, I'm betting he'll kill again at least once in order to feel truly manly and not at all like the puffy, nasty man-child that he is now.

You don't follow someone when you're angry, unless you want a confrontation of some sort.
You don't confront someone whilst holding a gun unless you have a (subconscious) thought to use it.

eddie wrote:You don't follow someone when you're  angry, unless you want a confrontation of some sort.
You don't confront someone whilst holding a gun unless you have a (subconscious) thought to use it.

Oh FFS. Whatever.

I can't be bothered to explain any more to idiots who have closed minds.

That's exactly why i don't discuss the McCann case anymore.
All the evidence and inconsistencies are there online, to read.

I gave up years ago.

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:You don't follow someone when you're  angry, unless you want a confrontation of some sort.
You don't confront someone whilst holding a gun unless you have a (subconscious) thought to use it.

Oh FFS. Whatever.

I can't be bothered to explain any more to idiots who have closed minds.

Which is exactly 'why' Quill must have the patience of JOB when it comes to his continual explanations to you and your TV version of AMERICAN LAW and what you've created within you own head as justified reasoning and you've no firm foundation for any of that.
PRIME EXAMPLE > You saw the entire Defense Witness List???  WOW, however do you acquire your paper work proof for such knowledge?

My question was - why did the prosecution call defence witnesses? That is - they called Jonathan Good in particular as their witness. I find that odd because he was clearly on the side of the defence, and the prosecution couldn't cross examine him or contradict him because he was their own witness. It perhaps didn't make much difference because his testimony was very clear anyway, but I found it bizarre.

Just because you deem yourself worthy to judge the way the trial 'should have run the course' and you 'decided' what list of witnesses was from which side --- 

It doesn't mean that both prosecution and the defense didn't have the SAME NAMES ON BOTH OF THEIR NEED TO EXAM THESE PEOPLE - LISTS --- THERE WERE ZERO - ZERO EYE WITTNESSES TO WHAT WENT DOWN.  Your limited understanding {provided by your ample TV time viewing = much confusion}
Everyone one had a small section of the event from that night but NONE of them was standing directly there watching the event unfold. 
Black young boy = DEAD, Latino - gun pack'n wanna be cop dude = killed him
You obviously are all 'PRO-ZIMMERMAN'... congratulations...remain confused and bizarre in your thoughts about this case.  Your limited perspective is obvious!

Stuff it. I'm off to the pub. I might reply later or I might not.

Raggamuffin wrote:Stuff it. I'm off to the pub. I might reply later or I might not.

NP...you're the one that manages to get entirely far too hysterical about these issues; and with your inability to comprehend our legal system, it fully understood

If I started drinking this early I'd be asleep before the sun went down

4ever2,,,i don't think any one can understand our legal system, we get people given 7 years for murder [out in 3] child killers the same,
other criminals given [community service] when a good flogging would be more sensible.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I'm just accepting the obvious.  It's you believing Zimmerman that is extraordinary.

Why? I studied the evidence, I studied the map of the area, I studied the wounds on Zimmerman's head and nose, I studied the witness statements. You did none of that. You don't even know what the main witness said.

Pfft...'wounds on Zimmerman's head'.    That's part of the flimflam they've put over on us.  He got his cat to scratch his scalp.  He didn't even have the fortitude to self-inflict a proper wound.

But it is indicative of precisely where your analysis goes wrong.  It's not the facts, nor the law, it's the interpretation that you put on the events.  You contort every fact--exaggerating the small, and ignoring the large--as you try to fit square pegs into round holes.

But that's all right.  I want the rest, as observers, to see: that's what one does when one is motivated, not by justice, but by some ulterior motive.  This is how it works.  Raggs, you just reflexively take the conservative stance.  The southerner, however, reflexively takes the racist stance.  This is how racism plays out...in the voting booth, on civic councils as well as police forces, and in the jury box.  It's instructive for neutrals to see how, even within a highly controlled system, prejudice and bigotry wins out.

nicko wrote:4ever2,,,i don't think any one can understand our legal system,   we get people given 7 years for murder [out in 3]    child killers the same,
other criminals given  [community service]   when a good flogging would be  more sensible.

And that dear Nicko is exactly why...I don't armchair quarterback what other foreign countries do when they adjudicate a trial

Over here it's all ruled by that specific states laws - the charges that are filed - what happened - what age the perpetrator was - how good the defense team/the prosecution team - how lucid the witnesses are - how truthful those witnesses can stay - how believable the technology is - what specifics the crime was committed under - just far too many variables for someone not knowing!  

And there are just far too many things that get EDITED out of a 'as seen on court TV' from the viewing audience for anyone to CLAIM that 'I WATCHED THE ENTIRE EVENT - DID YOU!'

Utter BS and false sense of self...but it just keeps making some members sooo unhappy that even with all of the legal questions that {even Quill} has responded too; not knowing what you don't know --- isn't helping WHAT YOU JUST KEEP GETTING SCREWED UP...and then the member gets pissed off and all agitated and that emotion won't change - Treyvon Martin is still DEAD. 

Stone Cold DEAD and Zimmerman is still allowed to be a lying - gun toting cretin that needs to get a real job!

Raggamuffin wrote:The conversation about "not proven" versus "not guilty" was a separate issue, and nothing to do with the US legal system. In England we don't have the "not proven" option either. I didn't make an error and Quill didn't have a clue what he was talking about - he kept saying they're the same thing when they're clearly not. Anyway, it wasn't relevant to the Zimmerman trial.

You are still completely in the dark, aren’t you?  It’s not the entire UK that has the third verdict option, but only Scotland, which follows the Roman system.  But there is another error in your understanding, and that is compounding your confusion.

Here’s your error: for defense verdicts in a criminal case, say I give you a red block, a blue block, and a green block (‘not guilty’, ‘not proven’  and ‘factually innocent’), bur for simplicity think of them only as blocks.

I agree there can be three options…but in other jurisdictions you only have two options because in fact the red block and the blue block are indistinguishable (as I say, the same).  Now, you keep saying the red block and the green block are the same, and that is incorrect.  The green block is 'innocence in fact' (or reality) and that is something entirely different.

The two, 'not proven' and 'not guilty', are the ones that are the same thing.  The verdict of 'factually innocence' requires additional evidence, showing objectively that it is not possible for the defendant to be guilty.  

Now further, Zimmerman could not possibly be found factually innocent because the evidence is not 'objective'--ie, it is all, only his own testimony, and that's not independent evidence.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Why? I studied the evidence, I studied the map of the area, I studied the wounds on Zimmerman's head and nose, I studied the witness statements. You did none of that. You don't even know what the main witness said.

Pfft...'wounds on Zimmerman's head'.    That's part of the flimflam they've put over on us.  He got his cat to scratch his scalp.  He didn't even have the fortitude to self-inflict a proper wound.

But it is indicative of precisely where your analysis goes wrong.  It's not the facts, nor the law, it's the interpretation that you put on the events.  You contort every fact--exaggerating the small, and ignoring the large--as you try to fit square pegs into round holes.

But that's all right.  I want the rest, as observers, to see: that's what one does when one is motivated, not by justice, but by some ulterior motive.  This is how it works.  Raggs, you just reflexively take the conservative stance.  The southerner, however, reflexively takes the racist stance.  This is how racism plays out...in the voting booth, on civic councils as well as police forces, and in the jury box.  It's instructive for neutrals to see how, even within a highly controlled system, prejudice and bigotry wins out.

Got his cat to scratch his scalp? The photos were taken at the scene, so when did he have a chance to inflict anything on himself? Do you think he also bashed his own nose in? Remember that as soon as he shot Trayvon there were people around and the police arrived very quickly, so he had no chance to do anything to himself. Are

My analysis is right because I'm looking at the facts, whereas you are simply reacting in an emotional way. You see that a non-black person has shot a black person, and you immediately find a way to ignore the facts so that you can claim it must have been a racially-motivated murder. You have fixed ideas about that kind of thing, and that's why your arguments are completely illogical. I'm not taking any kind of stance, I'm looking at the facts of the case and the logical conclusions which can be drawn. It doesn't matter what you feel, you simply cannot get round the evidence, and that's what the jury couldn't do either.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:The conversation about "not proven" versus "not guilty" was a separate issue, and nothing to do with the US legal system. In England we don't have the "not proven" option either. I didn't make an error and Quill didn't have a clue what he was talking about - he kept saying they're the same thing when they're clearly not. Anyway, it wasn't relevant to the Zimmerman trial.

You are still completely in the dark, aren’t you?  It’s not the entire UK that has the third verdict option, but only Scotland, which follows the Roman system.  But there is another error in your understanding, and that is compounding your confusion.

Here’s your error: for defense verdicts in a criminal case, say I give you a red block, a blue block, and a green block (‘not guilty’, ‘not proven’  and ‘factually innocent’), bur for simplicity think of them only as blocks.

I agree there can be three options…but in other jurisdictions you only have two options because in fact the red block and the blue block are indistinguishable (as I say, the same).  Now, you keep saying the red block and the green block are the same, and that is incorrect.  The green block is 'innocence in fact' (or reality) and that is something entirely different.

The two, 'not proven' and 'not guilty', are the ones that are the same thing.  The verdict of 'factually innocence' requires additional evidence, showing objectively that it is not possible for the defendant to be guilty.  

Now further, Zimmerman could not possibly be found factually innocent because the evidence is not 'objective'--ie, it is all, only his own testimony, and that's not independent evidence.

I'm not in the dark. We were discussing the difference between "not proven" and "not guilty", but you seemed to think there was no difference when there clearly is. That's what you can't seem to grasp. I've never claimed it applies to the whole of the UK - I specifically said it applies in Scotland.

There was no option to find Zimmerman "factually innocent", and no option to give a verdict of "not proven" either, so it doesn't really matter what interpretation you give on the "not guilty" verdict. He's not guilty in law and that should be enough for you.

The reason it's not enough for you is that you were biased from the start because of the colour of his skin and the colour of the skin of the person who got shot. You were swayed by the press reports which portrayed Zimmerman as a large man and Trayvon as a young boy who couldn't possibly have overpowered Zimmerman. You were swayed by the race baiters who clearly have an axe to grind. As a lawyer, you should really not allow yourself to be manipulated in that manner.

eddie wrote:If I started drinking this early I'd be asleep before the sun went down

I was still there at 10pm, so I can't have been drunk.

Hahaha a good day then rags

@Quill: He got a cat to scratch his head????

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You are still completely in the dark, aren’t you?  It’s not the entire UK that has the third verdict option, but only Scotland, which follows the Roman system.  But there is another error in your understanding, and that is compounding your confusion.

Here’s your error: for defense verdicts in a criminal case, say I give you a red block, a blue block, and a green block (‘not guilty’, ‘not proven’  and ‘factually innocent’), bur for simplicity think of them only as blocks.

I agree there can be three options…but in other jurisdictions you only have two options because in fact the red block and the blue block are indistinguishable (as I say, the same).  Now, you keep saying the red block and the green block are the same, and that is incorrect.  The green block is 'innocence in fact' (or reality) and that is something entirely different.

The two, 'not proven' and 'not guilty', are the ones that are the same thing.  The verdict of 'factually innocence' requires additional evidence, showing objectively that it is not possible for the defendant to be guilty.  

Now further, Zimmerman could not possibly be found factually innocent because the evidence is not 'objective'--ie, it is all, only his own testimony, and that's not independent evidence.

I'm not in the dark. We were discussing the difference between "not proven" and "not guilty", but you seemed to think there was no difference when there clearly is. That's what you can't seem to grasp. I've never claimed it applies to the whole of the UK - I specifically said it applies in Scotland.

I'm waiting for you to tell me what is the difference.  Let's walk through it, veeeerrrry slowly:

'Not proven guilty' = 'not proven guilty'.  Now, if we split up the sentence into two parts--'not proven' and 'not guilty'--what have we changed?  Nothing.  Guilt requires proof; proof yields guilt.  Proof and guilt are merely two sides of the same coin.  When you prove a person guilty, he is guilty.  They are the same expression: one states how you arrived at it, the other states what you established.

"Factual innocence" is the other verdict form.  It is not the same as 'not guilty' or 'not proven'.  It is, in fact, a different question altogether.  Whereas the first question asks, can we prove X did it?, this question asks can we prove X did not do it?  The second question asks not just the sufficiency of the evidence, but asks for further and final evidence foreclosing the possibility that X did it.

Raggamuffin wrote:There was no option to find Zimmerman "factually innocent", and no option to give a verdict of "not proven" either, so it doesn't really matter what interpretation you give on the "not guilty" verdict. He's not guilty in law and that should be enough for you.

This is precisely where your reasoning goes off.  You are confusing 'factual innocence' with 'not guilty'.  Florida v. Zimmerman was a 'confess and avoid' case: ie, the accused (1) admits (confesses) he did it, but (2) interposes a defense (self-defense) that he claims justifies doing it (avoids).  Zimmerman could have been, and indeed was proven to be the killer; to that, he confesses.

The whole case rests on the second issue. Can he avoid?  Now, Zimmerman admits he instigated matters by stalking TM; that he was hostile to TM; that he was told by police not to stalk TM; but did so contrary to orders; that he was carrying a loaded firearm; that at some point he confronted TM; and, we all know that TM ended up dead as a result of a bullet from Zimmerman's gun.  Zimmerman can only 'avoid' conviction if he legally excuses is actions by arguing self-defense.

Has Zimmerman proven the excuse?  Has he proven his justification?  The dark spot in the picture is what actually happened during the killing.  There are no eyewitnesses.  Without knowing what happened within the dark spot independently, we can't be sure if his defense rises to the level of justification. We don't have any vision into the dark spot, except what Zimmerman tells us.  

Now self-serving testimony is not independent testimony, and we need independent evidence to determine 'factual innocence'.   We all know that any and all defendants will lie, and typically do lie to avoid conviction.  That's why, mostly, we don't believe them.  Now you can believe Zimmerman...it's permissible.  In this case, if you are a southern racist on the jury, you will turn and believe the defendant because he is white and the victim is black.  So we can come to a verdict of 'not guilty'.  

Ahah, but we cannot come to a verdict of 'factually innocent'.  We don't have the independent evidence.

Raggamuffin wrote:The reason it's not enough for you is that you were biased from the start because of the colour of his skin and the colour of the skin of the person who got shot. You were swayed by the press reports which portrayed Zimmerman as a large man and Trayvon as a young boy who couldn't possibly have overpowered Zimmerman. You were swayed by the race baiters who clearly have an axe to grind. As a lawyer, you should really not allow yourself to be manipulated in that manner.

Not necessarily.  I am very sympathetic to blacks generally, I agree.  But that's generally; each individual case must be views on its own facts.  

What is persuasive in this case is the kind of evidence, and the type of interpretation you can put on the facts.  Once we've straightened out your misunderstanding of the difference between 'not guilty' and 'factually innocent', we can see that, while the jury is free to judge the defendant, we can come along and judge the jury.  Despite all the priorities of the law, this jury took extraordinary steps to find the white man not guilty.  Had it not been a white man on trial for killing a black child, things would most assuredly gone the other way.

I'm pleased with this discussion because it gives others some insight into the pattern of racist thinking.  While you are responding reflexively to your conservative (rather than racist) instincts, you are nevertheless compelled to walk through the same steps that the southern, racist jury would have gone through to favor the story of the white person, over all the traditional presumptions of jurisprudence.  That's really what we are doing.

Now we may speak about black/white.  After watching the reenactment, the real question we are left with is, why did this happen, when it ordinarily would have gone the other way?  Imagine that trial was a film we have just watched, and we are now walking out of the theater.  Isn't that the discussion everyone is having?

By Crimesider Staff CBS News May 18, 2016, 3:45 PM
Zimmerman denounces Trayvon Martin's family; gun auction ends
"He attacked a complete stranger and attempted to kill him," said Zimmerman, who has been attempting to auction off the weapon he used to shoot Martin. Zimmerman also accused Martin's parents of capitalizing on their son's death in the interview, and said the teen's father "couldn't have cared less about their son."
"He treated him like a dog without a leash," Zimmerman said.
Kat Tynes, a spokesperson for the Trayvon Martin Foundation, questioned the timing of Zimmerman's auction and interview, just days before the foundation -- and Martin's mother, Sybrina Fulton -- hosts an annual conference. The gathering, called Circle of Mothers, is focused on "women who have experienced the loss of a child, especially due to gun violence."
"In terms of Sybrina's feedback, of course she didn't have anything to say about it. It gets to the point where you have to pick and choose what you're trying to respond to," Tynes told Crimesider.
The online auction for Zimmerman's gun came to a close Wednesday, and a statement released by the website where it was posted indicated the Zimmerman is vetting potential buyers. The starting bid for the gun was $100,000 and the auction site indicated several offers were made, but Tynes also questioned the legitimacy of that claim.
"I don't believe that. It may very well be that amount is trumped up, if you will," Tynes said.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/zimmerman-denounces-trayvon-martins-family-gun-auction-ends/

So not only does this murder get off with his in the dark of night - secluded stealth murder in the rain, no less; he's gotta trash the grieving family as his method of proving what an utter MORON he is and closes down his on line auction!

Sad really, that this worthless humanoid is getting so much oxygen and the life of the young man and his history - his list of good deeds - his life journal stopped with this cowardly wanna be cop and a hand gun!

He'll get his...just like OJ. One day he'll be convicted of a lesser crime, and the judge will unload a heap of life sentences on him.

Watch. The guy's a loose cannon on the deck, and it's only a matter of time, anyway.

Original Quill wrote:

I'm waiting for you to tell me what is the difference.  Let's walk through it, veeeerrrry slowly:

'Not proven guilty' = 'not proven guilty'.  Now, if we split up the sentence into two parts--'not proven' and 'not guilty'--what have we changed?  Nothing.  Guilt requires proof; proof yields guilt.  Proof and guilt are merely two sides of the same coin.  When you prove a person guilty, he is guilty.  They are the same expression: one states how you arrived at it, the other states what you established.

"Factual innocence" is the other verdict form.  It is not the same as 'not guilty' or 'not proven'.  It is, in fact, a different question altogether.  Whereas the first question asks, can we prove X did it?, this question asks can we prove X did not do it?  The second question asks not just the sufficiency of the evidence, but asks for further and final evidence foreclosing the possibility that X did it.

Look, we're talking about an option in Scottish law where juries have the option to choose "not guilty" or "not proven" if they don't want to give a guilty verdict. The legal result of either of those options is the same - the defendant is acquitted and goes free. Can you not see though that the effect of a "not proven" verdict will be different to a "not guilty" verdict when it comes to psychology or a defendant's social standing? A jury which thinks the defendant is probably guilty but there's not enough evidence to convict will give a "not proven" verdict. If they give a "not guilty" verdict, that means that they do not think the defendant is guilty. This could affect the defendant in the future if they get a verdict of "not proven" because people will think they got away with the crime, and they will feel stigmatised. If they get a "not guilty" verdict, people will be more inclined to think that they're actually innocent of the crime.

There have been moves to abolish the "not proven" option in Scottish courts, but such moves have failed.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:There was no option to find Zimmerman "factually innocent", and no option to give a verdict of "not proven" either, so it doesn't really matter what interpretation you give on the "not guilty" verdict. He's not guilty in law and that should be enough for you.

This is precisely where your reasoning goes off.  You are confusing 'factual innocence' with 'not guilty'.  Florida v. Zimmerman was a 'confess and avoid' case: ie, the accused (1) admits (confesses) he did it, but (2) interposes a defense (self-defense) that he claims justifies doing it (avoids).  Zimmerman could have been, and indeed was proven to be the killer; to that, he confesses.

The whole case rests on the second issue.  Can he avoid?  Now, Zimmerman admits he instigated matters by stalking TM; that he was hostile to TM; that he was told by police not to stalk TM; but did so contrary to orders; that he was carrying a loaded firearm; that at some point he confronted TM; and, we all know that TM ended up dead as a result of a bullet from Zimmerman's gun.  Zimmerman can only 'avoid' conviction if he legally excuses is actions by arguing self-defense.

Has Zimmerman proven the excuse?  Has he proven his justification?  The dark spot in the picture is what actually happened during the killing.  There are no eyewitnesses.  Without knowing what happened within the dark spot independently, we can't be sure if his defense rises to the level of justification.  We don't have any vision into the dark spot, except what Zimmerman tells us.  

Now self-serving testimony is not independent testimony, and we need independent evidence to determine 'factual innocence'.   We all know that any and all defendants will lie, and typically do lie to avoid conviction.  That's why, mostly, we don't believe them.  Now you can believe Zimmerman...it's permissible.  In this case, if you are a southern racist on the jury, you will turn and believe the defendant because he is white and the victim is black.  So we can come to a verdict of 'not guilty'.  

Ahah, but we cannot come to a verdict of 'factually innocent'.  We don't have the independent evidence.

No, this is where your reasoning is off. The not guilty verdict was not good enough for you because you believe that Zimmerman shot Martin in cold blood, no matter what evidence you are presented with, and you have ignored the evidence which says he did not. I did not ignore that evidence, so my reasoning is much better than yours.

There is absolutely zero evidence that Zimmerman continued to follow Martin after the dispatcher said he didn't need to follow him. It's absolutely illogical to suggest that he did, unless you can explain how he lost sight of him and then suddenly found him again. You assume that Zimmerman confronted Martin and completely ignore the possibility that it was the other way around.

You keep saying there were no eye witnesses. There were no eye witnesses at the moment of the shooting, but there was an eye witness to what preceded it - something you consistently ignore in all of your posts. That evidence is clear - Martin was on top of Zimmerman straddling him and making movements which suggested that he was beating him. You've completely ignored the wounds on Zimmerman, and have even gone as far as to suggest that he got a cat to scratch him. Did the cat bash his nose in as well?

You assume that the jury went on the colour of the skin of Zimmerman and Martin, and completely disregard the fact that they saw all the evidence which clearly pointed to self defence. Your assumptions are flawed and illogical.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:The reason it's not enough for you is that you were biased from the start because of the colour of his skin and the colour of the skin of the person who got shot. You were swayed by the press reports which portrayed Zimmerman as a large man and Trayvon as a young boy who couldn't possibly have overpowered Zimmerman. You were swayed by the race baiters who clearly have an axe to grind. As a lawyer, you should really not allow yourself to be manipulated in that manner.

Not necessarily.  I am very sympathetic to blacks generally, I agree.  But that's generally; each individual case must be views on its own facts.  

What is persuasive in this case is the kind of evidence, and the type of interpretation you can put on the facts.  Once we've straightened out your misunderstanding of the difference between 'not guilty' and 'factually innocent', we can see that, while the jury is free to judge the defendant, we can come along and judge the jury.  Despite all the priorities of the law, this jury took extraordinary steps to find the white man not guilty.  Had it not been a white man on trial for killing a black child, things would most assuredly gone the other way.

I'm pleased with this discussion because it gives others some insight into the pattern of racist thinking.  While you are responding reflexively to your conservative (rather than racist) instincts, you are nevertheless compelled to walk through the same steps that the southern, racist jury would have gone through to favor the story of the white person, over all the traditional presumptions of jurisprudence.  That's really what we are doing.

Now we may speak about black/white.  After watching the reenactment, the real question we are left with is, why did this happen, when it ordinarily would have gone the other way?  Imagine that trial was a film we have just watched, and we are now walking out of the theater.  Isn't that the discussion everyone is having?

How many more times do I have to tell you that the "factually innocent" issue is a non-issue when it comes to the Zimmerman trial? There was no option for the jury to give that verdict, so it's completely irrelevant.

The jury did not take extraordinary steps to find him not guilty. The prosecution was a shambles, and it was an easy verdict - all the evidence pointed towards self defence.

You can say until you're blue in the face that Zimmerman stalked Martin, but you're making the mistake of assuming that murder automatically followed that. That is flawed thinking on your part.

You cannot say that I'm excusing Zimmerman because he's white because I do not see him as white. You can imply that I'm racist all you like, but it's absolutely clear that you have no understanding of this case whatsoever, and you, along with others, have merely assumed that it was a racially-motivated cold blooded murder because of your own prejudices. That is quite shocking for a man who claims to be a lawyer.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:



Not necessarily.  I am very sympathetic to blacks generally, I agree.  But that's generally; each individual case must be views on its own facts.  

What is persuasive in this case is the kind of evidence, and the type of interpretation you can put on the facts.  Once we've straightened out your misunderstanding of the difference between 'not guilty' and 'factually innocent', we can see that, while the jury is free to judge the defendant, we can come along and judge the jury.  Despite all the priorities of the law, this jury took extraordinary steps to find the white man not guilty.  Had it not been a white man on trial for killing a black child, things would most assuredly gone the other way.

I'm pleased with this discussion because it gives others some insight into the pattern of racist thinking.  While you are responding reflexively to your conservative (rather than racist) instincts, you are nevertheless compelled to walk through the same steps that the southern, racist jury would have gone through to favor the story of the white person, over all the traditional presumptions of jurisprudence.  That's really what we are doing.

Now we may speak about black/white.  After watching the reenactment, the real question we are left with is, why did this happen, when it ordinarily would have gone the other way?  Imagine that trial was a film we have just watched, and we are now walking out of the theater.  Isn't that the discussion everyone is having?

How many more times do I have to tell you that the "factually innocent" issue is a non-issue when it comes to the Zimmerman trial? There was no option for the jury to give that verdict, so it's completely irrelevant.

The jury did not take extraordinary steps to find him not guilty. The prosecution was a shambles, and it was an easy verdict - all the evidence pointed towards self defence.

But the jury did find him not guilty.  Therein is your continual confusion: you think 'not guilty' is the equivalent of 'factually innocent'.  In fact, "there was no option for the jury to" find him factually innocent, which is what I've been saying all along.

Raggamuffin wrote:You can say until you're blue in the face that Zimmerman stalked Martin, but you're making the mistake of assuming that murder automatically followed that. That is flawed thinking on your part.

Right there you are admitting that Zimmerman followed Martin. You can't deny the stalking, nor can you deny that the killing came after.  It's no mistake to conclude (not merely assume) that the murder was connected to the stalking: Zimmerman zoned on TM, stalked him, carried a loaded firearm, and ended up shooting TM.  What part of obvious conclusion do you not understand?

Raggamuffin wrote:You cannot say that I'm excusing Zimmerman because he's white because I do not see him as white. You can imply that I'm racist all you like, but it's absolutely clear that you have no understanding of this case whatsoever, and you, along with others, have merely assumed that it was a racially-motivated cold blooded murder because of your own prejudices. That is quite shocking for a man who claims to be a lawyer.

Yes, you see him as white...because you view him as non-black.  You side with a position, but I don't see you as motivated by the racial animus of those who invented that position.

I don't think you are necessarily racist in your argument, just that you are the conservative, and you reflexively side with the conservative which, in this case, is racist.  In my mind, the real value in observing your position is in pacing how the southern racist thinks.  The southerners on the Zimmerman jury had to have gone through the same rationalizations that you are doing right now, in order to arrive at their verdict.

It is ridiculous to call any of this analysis "assumption".  Assumption is when you fail to attach facts that support claims and conclusions.  We have been arguing facts-to-conclusions throughout this thread.  Assumptions are what tommy and stormee do when they engage in groundless characterizations about Muslims.  We are not doing that; we are actively engaged in attaching facts to conclusions.

Quill:

No, I put the evidence in proper perspective. As I recall, you showed overwhelming selective perception, dismissed important evidence, and cherry-picked the rest. Had you been on that jury I would have been looking into bribery somewhere.

Oh really? You wouldn't have found any bribery. The evidence was there to show that Zimmerman acted in self defence at the time of the shooting, regardless of what had gone before. It's not my fault that your countrymen are allowed to carry guns and use them in self defence.

Raggamuffin wrote:Quill:

No, I put the evidence in proper perspective. As I recall, you showed overwhelming selective perception, dismissed important evidence, and cherry-picked the rest. Had you been on that jury I would have been looking into bribery somewhere.

Oh really? You wouldn't have found any bribery. The evidence was there to show that Zimmerman acted in self defence at the time of the shooting, regardless of what had gone before. It's not my fault that your countrymen are allowed to carry guns and use them in self defence.

Self-defense by creating the situation that led to the altercation?
He racially profiled a black teenage boy
He was told by the police not to follow him
He ignored the Police  and followed the boy, who clearly was frightened knowing that someone was shadowing him. Him being a boy, followed by a man. His actions led to a frightened boy being in fear of his life. As who would not be if they can clearly see someone following them. What would you do, if you thought your life could be in danger from someone stalking you? Fight for your life maybe?
Zimmerman caused that boys death by his incompetence.
It certainly should have been manslaughter, as he created fear within the boy, by following him, after being told by the police not too and all because he racially profiled an innocent child.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Quill:



Oh really? You wouldn't have found any bribery. The evidence was there to show that Zimmerman acted in self defence at the time of the shooting, regardless of what had gone before. It's not my fault that your countrymen are allowed to carry guns and use them in self defence.

Self-defense by creating the situation that led to the altercation?
He racially profiled a black teenage boy
He was told by the police not to follow him
He ignored the Police  and followed the boy, who clearly was frightened knowing that someone was shadowing him. Him being a boy, followed by a man. His actions led to a frightened boy being in fear of his life. As who would not be if they can clearly see someone following them. What would you do, if you thought your life could be in danger from someone stalking you? Fight for your life maybe?
Zimmerman caused that boys death by his incompetence.
It certainly should have been manslaughter, as he created fear within the boy, by following him, after being told by the police not too and all because he racially profiled an innocent child.

That's all irrelevant, but in any case, he didn't carry on following Trayvon - he lost sight of him. Trayvon could have easily got home before Zimmerman finished his phone call with the police dispatcher, but he didn't go home.

There's no evidence that he racially profiled Trayvon.

Anyway, the suggestion that I would be open to bribery is absolutely false, and it would have been Quill up in court for slander if he had accused me of accepting bribes.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Self-defense by creating the situation that led to the altercation?
He racially profiled a black teenage boy
He was told by the police not to follow him
He ignored the Police  and followed the boy, who clearly was frightened knowing that someone was shadowing him. Him being a boy, followed by a man. His actions led to a frightened boy being in fear of his life. As who would not be if they can clearly see someone following them. What would you do, if you thought your life could be in danger from someone stalking you? Fight for your life maybe?
Zimmerman caused that boys death by his incompetence.
It certainly should have been manslaughter, as he created fear within the boy, by following him, after being told by the police not too and all because he racially profiled an innocent child.

That's all irrelevant, but in any case, he didn't carry on following Trayvon - he lost sight of him. Trayvon could have easily got home before Zimmerman finished his phone call with the police dispatcher, but he didn't go home.

There's no evidence that he racially profiled Trayvon.

So he claims, but the fact is he was following him, as stated by the fact they eventually met up, as he was looking for him. The fact is you are ignoring that such a person following someone based not on any evidence, but the colour of his skin. Would induce fear in most children. So it shows you have no conception of adrenaline kicking in. You are in fear because you know someone is following you. When adrenaline kicks in, its fight or flight. There is every evidence he racially pro filled him for being black based off his own testimony of house break in's. By him following the boy, which he was told not to do and ignored, led to the boys death. As many people will fight for their lives, when they perceive a threat. Its a natural reaction, when your life could be on the line. Especially when followed in the shadows by an adult. 

So its very relevant, that Zimmerman caused the boys death by his incompetent actions

"During the months leading up to the February 26, 2012, shooting, Zimmerman called the police several times to report people he believed to be suspicious. On each of the calls, Zimmerman only offered information about their race when specifically asked by the dispatcher to do so, reporting that the people were black males."

"About two minutes into the call, Zimmerman said, "he's running". The dispatcher asked, "He's running? Which way is he running?" Noises on the tape at this point have been interpreted by some media outlets as the sound of a car door chime, possibly indicating Zimmerman opened his car door. Zimmerman followed Martin, eventually losing sight of him. The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following him. When Zimmerman answered, "yeah", the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." Zimmerman responded, "Okay." Zimmerman asked that police call him upon their arrival so he could provide his location. Zimmerman ended the call at 7:15 p.m."

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

That's all irrelevant, but in any case, he didn't carry on following Trayvon - he lost sight of him. Trayvon could have easily got home before Zimmerman finished his phone call with the police dispatcher, but he didn't go home.

There's no evidence that he racially profiled Trayvon.

So he claims, but the fact is he was following him, as stated by the fact they eventually met up, as he was looking for him. The fact is you are ignoring that such a person following someone based not on any evidence, but the colour of his skin. Would induce fear in most children. So it shows you have no conception of adrenaline kicking in. You are in fear because you know someone is following you. When adrenaline kicks in, its fight or flight. There is every evidence he racially pro filled him for being black based off his own testimony of house break in's. By him following the boy, which he was told not to do and ignored, led to the boys death. As many people will fight for their lives, when they perceive a threat. Its a natural reaction, when your life could be on the line. Especially when followed in the shadows by an adult. 

So its very relevant, that Zimmerman caused the boys death by his incompetent actions

He didn't deny following him, but then he lost him. I believe that because of the evidence of the phone call. It's not actually relevant that he was suspicious of Trayvon - wrongly as it turned out. What matters is what happened after the two met each other, and the evidence shows that Trayvon was on top on Zimmerman, and that Zimmerman acted in self defence. You are not taking into account Zimmerman's fear when Trayvon was on top of him. It's very regrettable that it happened at all, and that Zimmerman didn't just stay in his vehicle, but the fact that he didn't doesn't show that he murdered Trayvon.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


So he claims, but the fact is he was following him, as stated by the fact they eventually met up, as he was looking for him. The fact is you are ignoring that such a person following someone based not on any evidence, but the colour of his skin. Would induce fear in most children. So it shows you have no conception of adrenaline kicking in. You are in fear because you know someone is following you. When adrenaline kicks in, its fight or flight. There is every evidence he racially pro filled him for being black based off his own testimony of house break in's. By him following the boy, which he was told not to do and ignored, led to the boys death. As many people will fight for their lives, when they perceive a threat. Its a natural reaction, when your life could be on the line. Especially when followed in the shadows by an adult. 

So its very relevant, that Zimmerman caused the boys death by his incompetent actions

He didn't deny following him, but then he lost him. I believe that because of the evidence of the phone call. It's not actually relevant that he was suspicious of Trayvon - wrongly as it turned out. What matters is what happened after the two met each other, and the evidence shows that Trayvon was on top on Zimmerman, and that Zimmerman acted in self defence. You are not taking into account Zimmerman's fear when Trayvon was on top of him.  It's very regrettable that it happened at all, and that Zimmerman didn't just stay in his vehicle, but the fact that he didn't doesn't show that he murdered Trayvon.

So if he followed him, he created fear and panic in a child.
The evidence of the phone calls proves he was following him, then its down to hearsay from Zimmerman. Which we already know he racially profiled him because he was black. So yes it does matter what happened next. Trayvon is clearly scared and knows someone is stalking him. Which is clear by the fact he then thought his life was in danger by actually fighting for his life. As we know there was an altercation. It was an uneven fight, as Zimmerman had a gun. Again Zimmerman was told to not follow, and yet he had been following. Zimmenman is completely to blame for the child's death..

"About two minutes into the call, Zimmerman said, "he's running". The dispatcher asked, "He's running? Which way is he running?" Noises on the tape at this point have been interpreted by some media outlets as the sound of a car door chime, possibly indicating Zimmerman opened his car door. Zimmerman followed Martin, eventually losing sight of him. The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following him. When Zimmerman answered, "yeah", the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." Zimmerman responded, "Okay." Zimmerman asked that police call him upon their arrival so he could provide his location. Zimmerman ended the call at 7:15 p.m."


"During the months leading up to the February 26, 2012, shooting, Zimmerman called the police several times to report people he believed to be suspicious. On each of the calls, Zimmerman only offered information about their race when specifically asked by the dispatcher to do so, reporting that the people were black males."

Thorin wrote:"About two minutes into the call, Zimmerman said, "he's running". The dispatcher asked, "He's running? Which way is he running?" Noises on the tape at this point have been interpreted by some media outlets as the sound of a car door chime, possibly indicating Zimmerman opened his car door. Zimmerman followed Martin, eventually losing sight of him. The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following him. When Zimmerman answered, "yeah", the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." Zimmerman responded, "Okay." Zimmerman asked that police call him upon their arrival so he could provide his location. Zimmerman ended the call at 7:15 p.m."

Exactly. Zimmerman said "OK", and then the call went on for at least another minute and a half when Zimmerman clearly couldn't see Trayvon. Trayvon could have been home by the end of that call.

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

He didn't deny following him, but then he lost him. I believe that because of the evidence of the phone call. It's not actually relevant that he was suspicious of Trayvon - wrongly as it turned out. What matters is what happened after the two met each other, and the evidence shows that Trayvon was on top on Zimmerman, and that Zimmerman acted in self defence. You are not taking into account Zimmerman's fear when Trayvon was on top of him.  It's very regrettable that it happened at all, and that Zimmerman didn't just stay in his vehicle, but the fact that he didn't doesn't show that he murdered Trayvon.

So if he followed him, he created fear and panic in a child.
The evidence of the phone calls proves he was following him, then its down to hearsay from Zimmerman. Which we already know he racially profiled him because he was black. So yes it does matter what happened next. Trayvon is clearly scared and knows someone is stalking him. Which is clear by the fact he then thought his life was in danger by actually fighting for his life. As we know there was an altercation. It was an uneven fight, as Zimmerman had a gun. Again Zimmerman was told to not follow, and yet he had been following. Zimmenman is completely to blame for the child's death..

"About two minutes into the call, Zimmerman said, "he's running". The dispatcher asked, "He's running? Which way is he running?" Noises on the tape at this point have been interpreted by some media outlets as the sound of a car door chime, possibly indicating Zimmerman opened his car door. Zimmerman followed Martin, eventually losing sight of him. The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following him. When Zimmerman answered, "yeah", the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." Zimmerman responded, "Okay." Zimmerman asked that police call him upon their arrival so he could provide his location. Zimmerman ended the call at 7:15 p.m."

"During the months leading up to the February 26, 2012, shooting, Zimmerman called the police several times to report people he believed to be suspicious. On each of the calls, Zimmerman only offered information about their race when specifically asked by the dispatcher to do so, reporting that the people were black males."

What Zimmerman said is not hearsay actually but I'll overlook that.

You're forgetting the evidence of Zimmerman's injuries, and the evidence of Jonathan Good who said that the guy who matched Zimmerman's appearance was underneath when they were on the ground.

Can you tell me what evidence the prosecution offered which proved that Zimmerman murdered Trayvon?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:"About two minutes into the call, Zimmerman said, "he's running". The dispatcher asked, "He's running? Which way is he running?" Noises on the tape at this point have been interpreted by some media outlets as the sound of a car door chime, possibly indicating Zimmerman opened his car door. Zimmerman followed Martin, eventually losing sight of him. The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following him. When Zimmerman answered, "yeah", the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." Zimmerman responded, "Okay." Zimmerman asked that police call him upon their arrival so he could provide his location. Zimmerman ended the call at 7:15 p.m."

Exactly. Zimmerman said "OK", and then the call went on for at least another minute and a half when Zimmerman clearly couldn't see Trayvon. Trayvon could have been home by the end of that call.

Hearsay about whether he could see him or not
Hearsay also about whether he could be home or not when you have failed to understand being in fear of your life and adrenaline.
He already was following him and then ended up in an altercation, which means he would have had to go on looking for him. The point is he was following him, thus creating a fear within the child. The point you miss. You do understand how people can be in fear of their lives if someone is stalking them?
Yes?
So if he was in fear for his life, which is clear by the later altercation, then Zimmerman caused and created the child's death

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


So if he followed him, he created fear and panic in a child.
The evidence of the phone calls proves he was following him, then its down to hearsay from Zimmerman. Which we already know he racially profiled him because he was black. So yes it does matter what happened next. Trayvon is clearly scared and knows someone is stalking him. Which is clear by the fact he then thought his life was in danger by actually fighting for his life. As we know there was an altercation. It was an uneven fight, as Zimmerman had a gun. Again Zimmerman was told to not follow, and yet he had been following. Zimmenman is completely to blame for the child's death..

"About two minutes into the call, Zimmerman said, "he's running". The dispatcher asked, "He's running? Which way is he running?" Noises on the tape at this point have been interpreted by some media outlets as the sound of a car door chime, possibly indicating Zimmerman opened his car door. Zimmerman followed Martin, eventually losing sight of him. The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following him. When Zimmerman answered, "yeah", the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." Zimmerman responded, "Okay." Zimmerman asked that police call him upon their arrival so he could provide his location. Zimmerman ended the call at 7:15 p.m."

"During the months leading up to the February 26, 2012, shooting, Zimmerman called the police several times to report people he believed to be suspicious. On each of the calls, Zimmerman only offered information about their race when specifically asked by the dispatcher to do so, reporting that the people were black males."

What Zimmerman said is not hearsay actually but I'll overlook that.

You're forgetting the evidence of Zimmerman's injuries, and the evidence of Jonathan Good who said that the guy who matched Zimmerman's appearance was underneath when they were on the ground.

Can you tell me what evidence the prosecution offered which proved that Zimmerman murdered Trayvon?

Other than the calls, it is hearsay
So you cannot over look anything
I am not disputing his injuries, they were caused by a child in fear of his life being stalked by an adult.
Where did I say murder?
I said casued his death

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Exactly. Zimmerman said "OK", and then the call went on for at least another minute and a half when Zimmerman clearly couldn't see Trayvon. Trayvon could have been home by the end of that call.

Hearsay about whether he could see him or not
Hearsay also about whether he could be home or not when you have failed to understand being in fear of your life and adrenaline.
He already was following him and then ended up in an altercation, which means he would have had to go on looking for him. The point is he was following him, thus creating a fear within the child. The point you miss. You do understand how people can be in fear of their lives if someone is stalking them?
Yes?
So if he was in fear for his life, which is clear by the later altercation, then Zimmerman caused and created the child's death

That's not hearsay. You should look up the definition of hearsay.

You have failed to understand the fear someone would feel if someone was on top of them trying to beat their head on the ground.

Someone in fear of their life if being followed would be more likely to go home, but Trayvon didn't. Can you explain why?

Thorin wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:


What Zimmerman said is not hearsay actually but I'll overlook that.

You're forgetting the evidence of Zimmerman's injuries, and the evidence of Jonathan Good who said that the guy who matched Zimmerman's appearance was underneath when they were on the ground.

Can you tell me what evidence the prosecution offered which proved that Zimmerman murdered Trayvon?

Other than the calls, it is hearsay
So you cannot over look anything
I am not disputing his injuries, they were caused by a child in fear of his life being stalked by an adult.
Where did I say murder?
I said casued his death

I would say that shooting someone would probably cause their death, but that's not the point is it? I was actually addressing Quill when you jumped in. Are you merely saying that Zimmerman is morally responsible? If so, that's a different point entirely.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Hearsay about whether he could see him or not
Hearsay also about whether he could be home or not when you have failed to understand being in fear of your life and adrenaline.
He already was following him and then ended up in an altercation, which means he would have had to go on looking for him. The point is he was following him, thus creating a fear within the child. The point you miss. You do understand how people can be in fear of their lives if someone is stalking them?
Yes?
So if he was in fear for his life, which is clear by the later altercation, then Zimmerman caused and created the child's death

That's not hearsay. You should look up the definition of hearsay.

You have failed to understand the fear someone would feel if someone was on top of them trying to beat their head on the ground.

Someone in fear of their life if being followed would be more likely to go home, but Trayvon didn't. Can you explain why?

I do not need to look up anything and that is a poor deflection, as it is hearsay

He would not be under someone or be in a fight in the first place if not for placing fear in the child first by stalking them. So your point is moot. As I have not stated anything about when Zimmerman felt fear. He caused the situation, because he stalked and racially profiled a child, because he was black

Again you fail to understand adrenaline, by saying someone is more likely to go home. Based on what evidence? Do you understand what adrenaline does? Fight or flight. That means its one of two situations and being black in the US where he is being followed by someone, he was clearly in fear for his life. Once adrenaline kicks in, it takes over your actions. His was one where he feared for his life, as anyone would fear having anb adult stalk them for no reason

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Other than the calls, it is hearsay
So you cannot over look anything
I am not disputing his injuries, they were caused by a child in fear of his life being stalked by an adult.
Where did I say murder?
I said casued his death

I would say that shooting someone would probably cause their death, but that's not the point is it? I was actually addressing Quill when you jumped in. Are you merely saying that Zimmerman is morally responsible? If so, that's a different point entirely.

Deflection, so where I am easily rubbishing your defense of someone clearly guilty of causing the death of a child. You claim its now wrong to questions posts on a debate forum, to poorly attempt to get out of looking wrong

No, I saying out right he caused the child's death by his actions