Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[Rare Truth]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, is it ?

There is no description of his hands, period, that I am aware of. Bloody or not.

If there was blood on his hands, don't you think they would have tested it?

Noted it?

They took swabbings from the lower cuff area of his arms and found no foreign DNA.

You seriously think they would do that and just ignore...his whole hands if there were blood on them?

 

[KatieG]

I consider it entirely appropriate to attempt to make sense of what GZ says happened, and even attempt to get closer to the likely truth of that night's events than he himself has been able to (at least during the interviews we have of him with police.)

I've yet to encounter any people on the other "side" who don't engage in this same behavior in ways which make GZ look worse, including here, so I don't see why it should be off limits in the other direction.

Not that I'm trying to make him look "better" I'm just trying to make sense of what seems to have occurred, and I don't disregard anything in the pursuit of coming to that understanding. Whether that be what GZ says, what witnesses say, what the evidence indicates, or just good old fashioned common sense.

All the while keeping in mind that what GZ and witness's say can be flawed, due to problems with human memory, problems with human sensory perception, lies, agenda, bias, honest mistakes... etc etc

And even the evidence can be flawed if not collected properly, or not collected at all, evidence is subject to human failings too. Just less so.

My discovery of Witness 6's interview with the local Fox news about a week after this event happened was what got me thinking, and started me on the road away from thinking GZ was a monster, and brought me to where I am now. Which is provisional, conditional acceptance of GZ's account in the broad strokes.

Witness 6's testimony remains probably the primary thing for me. Even his "updated" account later, where he dialed back his certainty on a few points, remained extremely damning of TM's behavior that night.

If TM was on top of GZ mere moments prior to the shot, and if that was GZ screaming, and in light of the injuries GZ sustained as compared to the injuries TM did not sustain... regardless of any arguments that the injuries are minor, etc etc... I don't see how it can be argued that this wasn't self-defense.

Or at the very least, that we have nowhere near the certainty required to put this man away for decades in a prison, and have any sort of moral confidence in doing so as a society.

That's why we have trials in this country. The fact that you base your belief in GZs story on a TV with one witness makes me very glad we have trials.

 

[12AX7]

Or at the very least, that we have nowhere near the certainty required to put this man away for decades in a prison, and have any sort of moral confidence in doing so as a society.

Are you a gun owner?

Just curious. Thanks.

 

[Rare Truth]

I consider it entirely appropriate to attempt to make sense of what GZ says happened, and even attempt to get closer to the likely truth of that night's events than he himself has been able to (at least during the interviews we have of him with police.)

I've yet to encounter any people on the other "side" who don't engage in this same behavior in ways which make GZ look worse, including here, so I don't see why it should be off limits in the other direction.

Not that I'm trying to make him look "better" I'm just trying to make sense of what seems to have occurred, and I don't disregard anything in the pursuit of coming to that understanding. Whether that be what GZ says, what witnesses say, what the evidence indicates, or just good old fashioned common sense.

All the while keeping in mind that what GZ and witness's say can be flawed, due to problems with human memory, problems with human sensory perception, lies, agenda, bias, honest mistakes... etc etc

And even the evidence can be flawed if not collected properly, or not collected at all, evidence is subject to human failings too. Just less so.

My discovery of Witness 6's interview with the local Fox news about a week after this event happened was what got me thinking, and started me on the road away from thinking GZ was a monster, and brought me to where I am now. Which is provisional, conditional acceptance of GZ's account in the broad strokes.

Witness 6's testimony remains probably the primary thing for me. Even his "updated" account later, where he dialed back his certainty on a few points, remained extremely damning of TM's behavior that night.

If TM was on top of GZ mere moments prior to the shot, and if that was GZ screaming, and in light of the injuries GZ sustained as compared to the injuries TM did not sustain... regardless of any arguments that the injuries are minor, etc etc... I don't see how it can be argued that this wasn't self-defense.

Or at the very least, that we have nowhere near the certainty required to put this man away for decades in a prison, and have any sort of moral confidence in doing so as a society.

All those words do not explain why you would make up something that happened and was not proposed by anyone, even the alleged murderer.

As far as witness 6, his literally 'few seconds' viewing in the dark, and then running upstairs to call 911, and that exhaustive FDLE near-hour long interview after don't hold much sway to me. He readily admits it was mere seconds. A snapshot in time of an event that had a beginning and end he did not see.

There are other witnesses that are just as important.

 

[johnny karate]

That's why we have trials in this country. The fact that you base your belief in GZs story on a TV with one witness makes me very glad we have trials.

Thanks, Katie. Well put.

Zimmerman will get his day in court, so we can dispense with the pearl-clutching over the loss of moral confidence in our soicety.

As a matter of fact, Zimmerman has already passed up on one opportunity to plead his case. Apparently his lawyers aren't quite as confident as his defenders in this thread.

 

[johnny karate]

I would say most people, having experienced what they believed to be a brush with death, have that moment burned in their memory.

Got it. A brush with death is permanently etched in someone's memory, while the details surrounding that brush with death are hazy and confused, even if the person asserting them doesn't express haziness nor confusion.

Quite convenient for people who kill other people under dubious circumstances.

 

[tsig]

[qimg]http://i1097.photobucket.com/albums/g350/misszandra/trayvon/gwetjacketwithgrassstains.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y221/who007/photo-43gzopenjacket_zpsc0e56385.png[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y221/who007/025_zpse74070a2.jpg?t=1363693085[/qimg]

Where's the blood, if TM was on top of Z when the shot was fired shouldn't Z be covered in blood?

 

[Skeptic Tank]

Are you a gun owner?

Just curious. Thanks.

No, I am not.

Never have been. Although I've always lived in states/cities with pretty permissive gun laws. (Nebraska, Colorado, Washington, Connecticut) and I have no criminal record whatsoever (I've never even had a speeding ticket)

So, there are no impediments whatsoever to me becoming a gun owner. Other than perhaps my own lack of interest and feeling of unease around firearms.

I served in the US Navy (got out about a year ago) and during my time there, I was given some very basic training on a pistol, shotgun, and M16. I wasn't very comfortable using them at all, and was glad to have those rare few occasions when we had to renew our weapons qualifications done with and behind me. I sort of dreaded them. I did have to stand watch on and around my submarine while carrying a shotgun and a pistol, but rather than feeling like any sort of a tough guy as a result... I just sort of disliked it. I don't want to overstate my dislike, I did what I was required to do, and didn't complain. It just wasn't something I enjoyed or looked forward to, at all.

I don't completely rule out getting a pistol for home defense in the future, but I have no current plans to do so.

How about you?

And since I have endeavored to answer your question fully, and honestly - will you do me the return favor of telling me, honestly, why you asked? And what you would have said if I had been a gun owner?

 

[johnny karate]

Maybe Rare Truth should just abstain from making fallacious arguments from incredulity, instead ?

And it wasn't as if it was just lack of stains he mentioned. He said:


So since he posted pictures with that description, I can only assume he thought the pictures represented GZ jacket "Fresh as a daisy clean". DO you really think it was wrong of cylinder to inject some reality ?

People should argue against what other people have actually put forth.

If you find Rare Truth's arguments fallacious, then argue that.

If you don't think the photos Rare Truth posted are valid evidence that Zimmerman looks surprisingly clean for someone who was pinned to the ground in a life-or-death struggle, then argue that.

But don't pretend grass and dirt stains are the same thing as actual grass and moisture, and then get all indignant about it.

It's disingenuous and rather tedious.

 

[tsig]

Then why did he sometimes include the word "homie" after "You got a problem?" and other times not?

George also words what he thinks TM said a bit differently each time, I think. Like sometimes it's "you got one now" vs. "well you've got one now" etc... correct me if I'm wrong on that.

Point is, no... he doesn't remember every phrase uttered. Not exactly, not perfectly.

Btw I consider the "you're gonna die tonight ______" piece to be perhaps the most likely thing to be a lie, in what he says. By no means does that imply I don't think it's POSSIBLE. I do think it's possible TM said that. Just saying, if I had to place a bet on one thing that's a lie... that'd be where my money was.

Because I don't believe Trayvon intended to kill George that night.

I believe Trayvon was tired of getting in trouble, having been suspended repeatedly... and had just about had it with adults being the bearers of more problems for him with his parents, or getting in the way of what he wanted to do. I believe George was the last straw, and when this person (whom he saw was on the phone) was keeping an eye on him, I think Trayvon likely knew exactly who was on the other end of that phone, and when he saw that GZ was now out of his truck, exposed... I think he made the rash, split second decision that he could go teach this guy a lesson with a quick knockout punch, and then return home.

I think when the one punch knockout didn't happen as planned, he improvised very poorly. But I don't think he ever intended to kill GZ. If he said "you're gonna die tonight" at all, I suspect it was bluster.

This is all my speculation. I wouldn't want anyone to think I'm presenting it as anything other than that.

Ultimately I don't think there's any getting around the obvious conclusion that GZ has a poor memory and was struggling with recalling the exact details about everything from that night, both things which had a direct bearing on his legal culpability and things which were entirely trivial.

My speculation is that Z set out to kill a black boy that night to boost his testicular quotient.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

If there was blood on his hands, don't you think they would have tested it?

Noted it ?


They took swabbings from the lower cuff area of his arms and found no foreign DNA.

You seriously think they would do that and just ignore...his whole hands if there were blood on them?

Another argument from incredulity. Got anything better ?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

You have been informed I am a she, more than once.

Please refrain from mislabeling my gender.

Actually, I have not been informed at all.

And you must not remember the last thread.

But if you want to insist you are female, I'll try to remember that in the future.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

My speculation is that Z set out to kill a black boy that night to boost his testicular quotient.

Honestly?

A man with partial black ancestry himself... with multiple black friends (Anthony Woodson, Joe Oliver, unnamed friend he did bouncer jobs with...) who apparently mentored young black kids (his neighbor attested to seeing them at his house) and whom a black neighbor said was the only person who came and greeted him and welcomed him to the neighborhood... and a man who at the very least, re: Sherman Ware, was telling the city council meeting that the police chief who oversaw how the white officer's son was not being held to account for knocking out a homeless black man... should lose his pension... (CNN posted the audio of this)

This man "set out to kill a black boy" ? Really?

I can only hope you're joking. Being deliberately absurd.

If his goal was to kill a black boy to "boost his testicular quotient" that evening, why involve the police? Why give this person the opportunity to beat him up and seemingly get the better of him before firing? Why only fire one bullet, risking his "victim" telling the police some very interesting things from a hospital bed? Why wait until the maximum number of neighbors are staring out of windows, and the police are closer than at any time before that... to I guess, according to you, "execute" this boy? Is that your narrative?

Is this based on any sort of deliberation or thought about what the evidence indicates or allows for, or just tapping straight into pure emotion within yourself?

I don't mean to be insulting, I'm genuinely trying to understand how someone comes to such a conclusion. If this was 3/20/2012 instead of 3/20/2013 I could probably be a bit more understanding.

Please recall, after the point where Zimmerman says "he ran" he remains on the phone with the operator for quite a while... he expresses complete ignorance as to Martin's location, and he does not sound excited, or anxious to get off the phone so he can resume his "pursuit" or anything of the sort... the conversation is very casual, and wraps up at a very slow pace.

In a previous part of that call, he says in a frightened sounding voice, as Martin approaches his truck "Just get an officer over here" - listen again to it, he sounds palpably frightened. If murder was on his mind, why desire an officer as fast as he can get one there?

In a previous call to police, he says "I don't want to approach him, personally." regarding another burglary suspect.

Just help me understand how you reach that speculation, or reassure me you were joking.

 

[AlBell]

My speculation is that Z set out to kill a black boy that night to boost his testicular quotient.

Shared by all the TT's. Now if sufficient beyond a reasonable evidence can just be presented at trial, you may be right.

I see a latino being railroaded for political reasons.

 

[Cylinder]

Where's the blood, if TM was on top of Z when the shot was fired shouldn't Z be covered in blood?

Inside Martin's chest cavity.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

Shared by all the TT's.

TT's?

 

[johnny karate]

Shared by all the TT's. Now if sufficient beyond a reasonable evidence can just be presented at trial, you may be right.

I see a latino being railroaded for political reasons.

In the same post in which you accuse other people of being "truthers" you then go on to allege a conspiracy against Zimmerman.

Priceless.

Absolutely priceless.

 

[johnny karate]

TT's?

"Trayvon Truther".

Apparently, one is a "truther" unless one acknowledges the conspiracy against George Zimmerman.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

conspiracy against Zimmerman.

I'm not sure it requires a "conspiracy."

I think a succession of cowardly people in positions of power, and misinformed people making demands based on bad information... prompting those cowardly people in power to respond in knee jerk efforts to appease them or make a troublesome story generating bad publicity go away... is sufficient to explain it.

Unless you'd consider that a conspiracy... I guess that could be argued.

I certainly don't envision any poorly lit board rooms with sinister figures plotting Zimmerman's fate... can't speak for the poster you're responding to on what he envisions.

 

[Rare Truth]

Actually, I have not been informed at all.

And you must not remember the last thread.

But if you want to insist you are female, I'll try to remember that in the future.

You most certainly were. There's a record in this thread you know...

You even acknowledge you read this post (which was directly below your post: )

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9082216&postcount=6019

When you said this, bolded the HE and made the incorrect statement it was made it sarcasm.:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9087393#post9087393

I corrected you immediately.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9087468&postcount=6219

Why you would lie about this, once can only guess.

I have no idea what you are talking about in "the last thread" and why you would think I need to "insist" I am a female. It's what I am.

Just weird man.