Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 28, 2024, 07:14:03 pm
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
News: Brian Fein is now blogging weekly!  Make sure to check the homepage for his latest editorial.
+  The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums
|-+  TDMMC Forums
| |-+  Off-Topic Board
| | |-+  Trayvon Martin case
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 39 40 [41] 42 43 ... 46 Print
Poll
Question: Do you think Zimmerman is
Guilty   -5 (25%)
Not Guilty   -2 (10%)
Self Defense   -1 (5%)
You don't know enough to decide   -12 (60%)
Total Voters: 17

Author Topic: Trayvon Martin case  (Read 148898 times)
badger6
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 1218



« Reply #600 on: June 26, 2012, 09:55:50 pm »



I am still struggling to understand why you keep clinging to this completely irrelevant point.  Do you somehow believe that there is someone in this thread that currently thinks that Zimmerman broke some law by following Martin, and that said violation will lead to his conviction?

I literally have NO IDEA why you would keep going back to the notion that the dispatcher had no legal status to order Zimmerman to stand down.  Who are you arguing that point with?  Who cares about that point?  When Zimmerman decided to make the claim that he stopped following Martin, that point became completely irrelevant.

I will try once more to make this clear: even if the dispatcher had no force of law behind his instruction to stop chasing Martin and Zimmerman was perfectly within his rights to continue his pursuit, the fact that Zimmerman decided to make the claim that he stopped following Martin means that if the prosecutor can convince the jury that Zimmerman did continue to follow Martin, that sets Zimmerman up as both a liar and the aggressor (because he lied to cover it up).  At that point, his rights within the law to follow someone are irrelevant; he would easily be convicted.

And all of this is a huge tangent from your statement that I originally objected to: your claim that the dispatcher "never told him to stop following Martin."  You've already admitted that the dispatcher's intent was clear, and Zimmerman's actions (and his own arguments in his defense) confirm this.  So why would you claim that the dispatcher never told him to stop?  What possible relevance does this have?

The relevance to what Zimmerman's defense is doesn't matter. Phish is solely talking about what the operator said. He said "We don't need you to do that". Not "We don't want you to do that", "Don't do that",  or"Stop doing that". Simple English, easy enough for ya spider ?

Long story short: if you don't like having your own statements micro-analyzed and ground into the dirt, then don't nitpick based on trite BS until you check your own statements first.  This entire tangent was brought on by you attempting to nitpick a claim ("the dispatcher told Zimmerman to stop chasing Martin") that was true in every meaningful way, by using an extremely shaky hyper-literal interpretation that any native-English-speaking American would immediately reject.  Take your crocodile tears elsewhere.

Because that's your job around here isn't it ? To micro analyze, twist words, and talk in circles just to make up for your lack of self esteem and inferiority complex. Always gotta be right don't ya ? I have seen this type of shit from you in countless threads and some people wonder what your problem is. But "YOU'RE" not the one with the problem, It's everyone else that has the problem, huh ? You ain't grinding anyone's posts into dirt, you're just making an ass of yourself like usual. Maybe hiding behind your keyboard, but 99% of the time I'm sure you don't talk to people like this face to face. Turn the internet off and get out in the real word and get some people skills !!!
Logged
bsmooth
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 4633


I love YaBB 1G - SP1!


« Reply #601 on: June 27, 2012, 02:43:37 am »

I had not looked up a map of the community before. That is a bit strange.

That is one of the myriad of reasons the police did not buy his story of the events.
Logged
bsmooth
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 4633


I love YaBB 1G - SP1!


« Reply #602 on: June 27, 2012, 02:44:55 am »

Also Zimmerman's statement that Martin was covering his mouth and making it very difficult to breath is later contradicted by his statement he looked up and saw a neighbor watching and screamed repeatedly for help.
Logged
Phishfan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 15558



« Reply #603 on: June 27, 2012, 09:41:35 am »

^^^ I would have to study the statement again, but it can be either contradictory or just a statement at a different moment in the event.
Logged
Pappy13
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 8200



« Reply #604 on: July 02, 2012, 10:50:57 am »

I am still struggling to understand why you keep clinging to this completely irrelevant point.
If it's irrelevent why do you continue to argue with him about it? Obviously you don't believe it's irrelevant or you would have dropped this whole argument long ago.

As I see it, the operator's instructions were very clear. The operator was not telling Zimmerman to stop following, only that she didn't need him to continue following. To me this is clear that she's leaving it up to Zimmerman whether or not he should continue following. This is made even more clear by the fact that the operator has no authority to tell Zimmerman to stop following. Her meaning is clear. She's making it clear that there's no requirement that Zimmerman continue following, it's up to him. If she wanted to be clear that he should stop she should have said that, but she didn't, she stopped short of saying that, either by intent or by accident, I don't know which.

Whether or not that's the way Zimmerman interpreted her meaning, I have no way of knowing, I only know that's how I would have interpreted her meaning, but if Zimmerman did interpret her meaning as I have described above, then replying affirmatively would only suggest that he understands that the decision is his and his alone and is not affirming that he's going to stop following. The fact that Zimmerman said he did stop following in no way proves that he understood that he was being told to stop following because he could have interpreted her as saying the choice was his and he decided to stop.

So in summary: you can use the "I wasn't chasing him" defense, OR you can use the "I had every right to chase him" defense, but you can't use BOTH.
Why not? I think it's perfectly reasonable for the defense to tell the jury "He wasn't following him, but even if you don't believe that, he had every right to follow him so that alone doesn't prove he's guilty of anything".
« Last Edit: July 02, 2012, 12:28:34 pm by Pappy13 » Logged

That which does not kill me...gives me XP.
Spider-Dan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 15573


Bay Area Niner-Hater


« Reply #605 on: July 02, 2012, 01:37:25 pm »

"I didn't stab my wife, but if you don't believe that, well... I stabbed her in self-defense!"
Logged

Pappy13
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 8200



« Reply #606 on: July 02, 2012, 01:56:22 pm »

More like "I didn't intend to stab my wife, but she came at me with a knife so I defended myself." I see absolutely nothing wrong with that statement since both parts indicate that he was not guilty of committing a crime. Both are perfectly legit defenses and do not contradict each other.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2012, 02:16:22 pm by Pappy13 » Logged

That which does not kill me...gives me XP.
Spider-Dan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 15573


Bay Area Niner-Hater


« Reply #607 on: July 02, 2012, 02:24:26 pm »

You don't understand the difference between "I did not stab my wife" and "I did stab my wife"?

Zimmerman can make the argument that he was not following Martin (which he is).  But if he were to try to provide a justification for following Martin (i.e. "it's a free country"), then such a justification would only be needed if he was following Martin.  Which would make Zimmerman a liar.

You say that he can offer up his legal right to follow him (as an alternative explanation) if the jury doesn't believe that he wasn't following him, but you seem to have neglected to consider that the only time Zimmerman would find out if the jury believed him is at the verdict.  He's not going to get a mid-trial progress report to try to change to a more believable story.

P.S. "I didn't intend to stab my wife" is not even REMOTELY close to "I did not stab my wife."
« Last Edit: July 02, 2012, 02:45:38 pm by Spider-Dan » Logged

Pappy13
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 8200



« Reply #608 on: July 02, 2012, 06:59:14 pm »

You don't understand the difference between "I did not stab my wife" and "I did stab my wife"?
Yes I do, those 2 statements are mutually exclusive which means it's an impossible scenario and an indefensible position, but that's not what Zimmerman is claiming. What Zimmerman has said is in no way impossible or indefensible. He claims that he was not following Trayvon and that he acted in self defense. Those are 2 different statements which are not mutually exclusive, so your scenario above does not match the scenario in question. It's a fatally flawed argument. So what I proposed was an alteration of your statement that is NOT mutually exclusive. My statement reflects an actual possible scenario where 2 statements are made and both are possible, just like in Zimmerman's case. It's a more accurate depiction of the scenario.

Having said that, none of that precludes the defense from pointing out to the jury that even if Zimmerman had been following Trayvon that doesn't prohibit him from claiming self defense. He could have been following Trayvon and still claimed self defense. He's not claiming that, but he could have.

There are 4 possible scenarios, only 2 of which means Zimmerman is guilty. The defense can argue that if the jury finds either #1 or #2 below to be the truth, then they must come back with a not guilty verdict even if Zimmerman himself is claiming #1 below.

1) He was not following Trayvon and he acted in self defense.
2) He was following Trayvon and he acted in self defense.
3) He was not following Trayvon and he did not act in self defense.
4) He was following Trayvon and and he did not act in self defense.
Logged

That which does not kill me...gives me XP.
badger6
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 1218



« Reply #609 on: July 02, 2012, 08:08:38 pm »

It's a moot point. Zimmerman claims that he didn't follow Martin and even if he did doesn't make him guilty of murder. There is no evidence that I know of to this point  that has been released that proves that Zimmerman followed Martin

And since Zimmerman is claiming that he did stop pursuit and the lead investigator at the bail hearing stated under oath that there was no evidence to disprove Zimmerman's contention he was walking back to his vehicle when confronted by Martin. He also stated that he does not know whether Martin or Zimmerman threw the first punch or who got physical first.


Then I guess if the prosecution plans on basing their entire case on the singular testimony of the lead investigator, they are probably in trouble.

The lead investigator should know all of the evidence against Zimmerman. He should have evidence of who started the physical part of the confrontation. The lead investigator signed the arrest affidavit to charge Zimmerman, which should have been based on all the evidence against Zimmerman as a whole.  Why do you think legal analysts and attorneys are speaking out against the charges against Zimmerman.
Logged
Spider-Dan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 15573


Bay Area Niner-Hater


« Reply #610 on: July 02, 2012, 09:27:11 pm »

Yes I do, those 2 statements are mutually exclusive which means it's an impossible scenario and an indefensible position, but that's not what Zimmerman is claiming.
Correct; Zimmerman is claiming that he was not following Martin.  This does not eliminate the possibility of self-defense, but what it DOES eliminate is the "I had every right to be following Martin" defense.  Zimmerman cannot rely upon the claim that he was justified in following Martin when his position is that he was not following Martin.  That was the point of my analogy: you cannot say that you were justified in stabbing your wife at the same time you are claiming you did not stab her.  The two positions are not compatible.

Quote
Having said that, none of that precludes the defense from pointing out to the jury that even if Zimmerman had been following Trayvon that doesn't prohibit him from claiming self defense. He could have been following Trayvon and still claimed self defense. He's not claiming that, but he could have.
Such an admission would be pounced upon by the prosecution as evidence that even the defense doesn't buy Zimmerman's story, and is trying to provide alternate explanations.

Quote
There are 4 possible scenarios, only 2 of which means Zimmerman is guilty. The defense can argue that if the jury finds either #1 or #2 below to be the truth, then they must come back with a not guilty verdict even if Zimmerman himself is claiming #1 below.

1) He was not following Trayvon and he acted in self defense.
2) He was following Trayvon and he acted in self defense.
3) He was not following Trayvon and he did not act in self defense.
4) He was following Trayvon and and he did not act in self defense.
Put rather simply, I don't think 2 is a realistic option.  If the prosecution can convince the jury that Zimmerman was lying about following Martin, then the immediately subsequent question is, what was Zimmerman's motive for lying?  So effectively, option 2 would quickly transition to option 4.
Logged

Pappy13
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 8200



« Reply #611 on: July 03, 2012, 12:12:44 am »

Correct; Zimmerman is claiming that he was not following Martin.  This does not eliminate the possibility of self-defense, but what it DOES eliminate is the "I had every right to be following Martin" defense.
He doesn't need to defend that, it is within his rights to have been following Martin if he was. All he needs to defend is that it was self defense which you just admitted he still can.

Put rather simply, I don't think 2 is a realistic option.
But earlier you said "I am still struggling to understand why you keep clinging to this completely irrelevant point. Do you somehow believe that there is someone in this thread that currently thinks that Zimmerman broke some law by following Martin, and that said violation will lead to his conviction?"

Now you seem to be saying just the opposite. You want it both ways Spider. On the one hand you say it's irrelevent whether or not he was following Trayvon because it's not necessary for a self defense plea, but on the other hand you are saying that if you prove he's lying on not following Trayvon, then you have proven he's lying about the self defense as well. That's bunk. Proving one does not prove the other. They are independant actions and it's quite possible that Zimmerman is lying about the first action while telling the truth about the second action. I'm not saying a jury should believe him, only that it's possible. I would need supporting evidence to show that he's either telling the truth about the second action or supporting evidence that he wasn't before I would consider the self defense plea regardless of whether or not he's telling the truth about following Martin. That's what his attorney's will explain to the jury. It doesn't matter whether you believe him or not about following Trayvon, it only matters what can be proven about the self defense plea.

Now we all know that a jury probably isn't going to believe it's irrelevent just like you don't believe it (despite your insistence that it is), but from a purely argumentative standpoint it is irrelevant and that's what I would base my verdict on if I were a juror.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2012, 01:08:41 am by Pappy13 » Logged

That which does not kill me...gives me XP.
Spider-Dan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 15573


Bay Area Niner-Hater


« Reply #612 on: July 03, 2012, 01:34:21 am »

On the one hand you say it's irrelevent whether or not he was following Trayvon because it's not necessary for a self defense plea, but on the other hand you are saying that if you prove he's lying on not following Trayvon, then you have proven he's lying about the self defense as well.
It is not against the law to follow someone.
Had Zimmerman chose to pursue that line of defense, that would have been a perfectly valid argument.
However, since Zimmerman has chosen NOT to use that defense, and to instead use the incompatible defense of, "I was not following him," discussion as to the legality of following (or the minutia of parsing what the dispatcher said) is irrelevant.  It doesn't matter that you can legally follow someone, because if Zimmerman was (legally) following Martin, that makes Zimmerman a liar.

You can't say, "I did not have sex with that woman... but if I did, it was after the divorce was final."  It's an absurdly transparent lie.

Either Zimmerman was not following Martin, or he was following him (possibly because he was entitled to).  But he cannot claim BOTH of those things.

Now, is lying the same thing as murder?  No.  But when the case rests on whether or not you initiated the confrontation, and the only evidence that you did not initiate the confrontation is your word, and the thing that you lied about is whether or not you chased him, and chasing reasonably leads to confrontation, well, your odds are not looking good.

Quote
They are independant actions and it's quite possible that Zimmerman is lying about the first action while telling the truth about the second action. I'm not saying a jury should believe him, only that it's possible.
Well, as long as you're not talking about the actual impact on the case... sure, I guess so?  I mean, from a purely philosophical standpoint, could Zimmerman be lying but have nothing to hide?  Yes, I suppose that (however unlikely it may be) it is not impossible.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2012, 02:31:19 am by Spider-Dan » Logged

Pappy13
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 8200



« Reply #613 on: July 03, 2012, 10:04:50 am »

Now, is lying the same thing as murder?  No. 
Agreed.

But when the case rests on whether or not you initiated the confrontation, and the only evidence that you did not initiate the confrontation is your word, and the thing that you lied about is whether or not you chased him, and chasing reasonably leads to confrontation, well, your odds are not looking good.
Now we are getting closer, but we're not quite there yet. For me, this case is gonna turn on 2 things.

First, was he following him or not? Not because that's evidence who confronted whom, but because if he was following Martin and says he wasn't that calls serious question into this testimony about the self defense claim assuming that he does testify in his defense and that he sticks to his story. But, I still think it's going to be exceedingly hard to prove that he's lying about following Martin, the best the prosecution will probably be able to do is show reasonable doubt to the jury, which is enough to question his testimony.

But if that happens then the physical evidence is going to be the key. The injuries that both men sustained are going to be front and center then. Were the injuries that Zimmerman sustained compatible with him being attacked? Could he have reasonably believed that his life was in danger? What about the injuries to Martin? What story do they tell? Even if the jury doesn't believe Zimmerman is telling the truth about following Martin, they could still believe that he's telling the truth about whether he fired the gun in self defense if the physical evidence suggests that he is.

I'd have a very tough time convicting him of 2nd degree murder without some kind of evidence it wasn't self defense even if I think Martin was lieing about following him. Remember it's innocent until proven guilty and lieing about following him is not proof that it wasn't self defense. The prosecution would have to show me beyond reasonable doubt that Martin was the agressor even if they're able to show me he lied about following Martin.
Logged

That which does not kill me...gives me XP.
Phishfan
Global Moderator
Uber Member
*****
Posts: 15558



« Reply #614 on: July 03, 2012, 10:33:38 am »

Injuries really don't even matter that much. Zimmerman's story is that his gun became exposed and Martin reached for it. That should be enough for any juror to have reasonable doubt regarding murder (especially when combined with the statement "you are gonna die tonight"), provided Zimmerman is considered trustworthy.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 39 40 [41] 42 43 ... 46 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

The Dolphins Make Me Cry - Copyright© 2008 - Designed and Marketed by Dave Gray


Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines