Trayvon Martin Case

[Juror#8]

So, Martin was "standing his ground" when he followed GZ back to his vehicle? Or was he "standing his ground" when he punched GZ in the nose, breaking it? Maybe Martin was "standing his ground" when he was smashing the back of GZ's head into the concrete?

 

From what info has been made public, it would appear that the prosecution has no case. I didn't come to this conclusion overnight. I was one of the several posters urging caution, believing that the facts needed to come out before figuratively lynching GZ. You were one of the hissy fitters claiming "cold blooded killing", "hunting poor Trayvon down with his Skittles and ice tea", "GZ outweighed poor Trayvon by 100#s", "coon", blah, blah, blah. Now you're all over the board stating that GZ should be charged with manslaughter and then claiming that we have to wait for the facts.

 

I still haven't seen one thing that suggests that Trayvon initiated the attack on Zimmerman.

 

Your thesis appears to rely on that.

 

The facts that have been made known to the public are that Zimmerman (an individual with a criminal record) followed Trayvon (an individual with no criminal record but who liked weed, rap, and guns) for an unknown amount of time and for a reason, ostensibly related to a concern that he had that Trayvon had some kind of mens rea.

 

Zimmerman followed Trayvon. Trayvon fled. But they later encountered one another again and an altercation ensued.

 

NO ONE knows how they encountered one another again, or why the altercation ensued. No amount of cartography lessons or forensic positioning analysis will explain it. At least initially, Zimmerman was following Trayvon. Trayvon didn't know the neighborhood well (he had been there three other times before - and we don't know for how long, or what time of day), it was dark, he was being chased by someone, and it was raining.

 

If we get into the realm of the subjective, it stands closer to reason that Trayvon was unsure of where he was and re-encountered Zimmerman while still fleeing (because of the bolded points above), then it does to say that he decided to flee, tell his girlfriend that he was fleeing, Zimmerman acknowledged to the officer that he was fleeing, but then EUREKA! he decides to not only stop fleeing, but actively find the person he was once ACTIVELY, PLAINLY, EVIDENTLY fleeing from.

 

Sorry 3rd. I know you're trying to play the '12 Angry men' Juror#8 role, but it seems like you're feigning objectivity to advance a pro-Zimmerman agenda.

 

I don't know what happened. Maybe Trayvon tracked down Zimmerman wantonly and whooped his ass. OR MAYBE Trayvon was fleeing, got lost, Zimmerman found him after he finished his phone call, they scuffled, then Trayvon whooped his ass.

 

I don't pretend to know. But you keep mentioning these points that haven't been proven or even substantiated (Trayvon later attacked Zimmerman). And every time you say it, it belies any claim you have to retraint and objectivity.

 

So like Socrates, I feel that I know more than you about what happened because at least I'm willing to admit that I know nothing about what happened.

 

As many times as I've typed the circumstances of the rain, the lack of familiarity with the neighborhood, the pursuit, and that it was nighttime, no one has ever challenged it in a cogent way.

 

I hear things about cartography, but never a coherent answer to why it's more probable that Trayvon would 1. flee but then decide later, all of a sudden, to change his mind and pursue rather than 2. Trayvon was lost (owing to myriad factual, provable, verifiable, atmospheric conditions) which caused him to re-encounter his assailant (Zimmerman).

 

Either way Zimmerman got beat up. That's not dispositive. The question is did he or Trayvon start the fight.

Edited May 30, 2013 by Juror#8

[GG]

I still haven't seen one thing that suggests that Trayvon initiated the attack on Zimmerman.

 

Your thesis appears to rely on that.

 

The facts that have been made known to the public are ....

 

You know what's funny? Every time, your posts preface that you only want to follow facts. Yet, every time, after you bold the only known facts, you throw out conjecture to support the case.

[Juror#8]

You know what's funny? Every time, your posts preface that you only want to follow facts. Yet, every time, after you bold the only known facts, you throw out conjecture to support the case.

 

I'm not supporting anything.

 

I'm pointing out actual atmospheric realities that could easily be dispositive.

 

I'm THE ONLY one saying that Trayvon could have attacked Zimmerman just as easily as Zimmerman could have attacked Trayvon. You and others are just assuming that Trayvon did the attacking (because Zimmerman was beat up and where he was beat up).

 

I'm saying that your contention doesn't necessarily comport with the evidence.

 

Read my points. I'm not saying what happened. I'm asking what makes you (and 3rd) so sure that it didn't happen? I'm just looking for some evidentiary strength from you guys - rather than you two floating opinion as fact.

 

You know what's funny? Every time, your posts preface that you only want to follow facts. Yet, every time, after you bold the only known facts, you throw out conjecture to support the case.

 

 

And what about addressing my points? They still stand. You keep arguing style instead of the substance.

Edited May 30, 2013 by Juror#8

[IDBillzFan]

The death of Trayvon Martin isn't any different than the countless deaths that occur in this country every weekend in Chicago. Hell, six were killed over Memorial Day Weekend alone.

 

If you really want to be up in arms about something, consider that the leader of the free world is happy to personally call Trayvon his son, and is happy to personally call Sandra Fluke after being named a slut, and is happy to personally call a gay basketball player for coming out...but four Americans killed in Benghazi and a border agent killed with a Fast and Furious gun are just a "bump in the road" that don't warrant any attention.

 

There's your Trayvon Martin lesson.

[GG]

I'm not supporting anything.

 

I'm pointing out actual atmospheric realities that could easily be dispositive.

 

I'm THE ONLY one saying that Trayvon could have attacked Zimmerman just as easily as Zimmerman could have attacked Trayvon. You and others are just assuming that Trayvon did the attacking (because Zimmerman was beat up and where he was beat up).

 

I'm saying that your contention doesn't necessarily comport with the evidence.

 

Read my points. I'm not saying what happened. I'm asking what makes you (and 3rd) so sure that it didn't happen? I'm just looking for some evidentiary strength from you guys - rather than you two floating opinion as fact.

 

 

 

 

And what about addressing my points? They still stand. You keep arguing style instead of the substance.

 

You continue to introduce conjecture by lumping in the girlfriend's statements as fact. They are not a fact. The only fact is that he was on the phone with her, or actually the only fact is that there was a telephone connection between his number and her number. Everything else is conjecture.

[Juror#8]

You continue to introduce conjecture by lumping in the girlfriend's statements as fact. They are not a fact. The only fact is that he was on the phone with her, or actually the only fact is that there was a telephone connection between his number and her number. Everything else is conjecture.

 

The girlfriend's statement has probative value. The extent of that value, the jury will determine.

 

It is a fact that it was nighttime, Trayvon didn't live there, he was being pursued at some point, and it was raining.

 

What is NOT a fact is that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman.

 

What is NOT a fact is that Zimmerman attacked Trayvon.

 

Welcome to the "everything else is conjecture" club. It's good to have you. For a while, you were with 3rd in the "Trayvon attacked Zimmerman and that's a fact, Jack" club.

[KD in CA]

What is NOT a fact is that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman.

 

What is NOT a fact is that Zimmerman attacked Trayvon.

 

Why do you refer to one of the parties using his first name and one using his last name? Seems odd. Is that standard practice in the courtroom?

[Joe Miner]

Why do you refer to one of the parties using his first name and one using his last name? Seems odd. Is that standard practice in the courtroom?

 

I also liked council's choice of the word pursue. Nice objective word with no negative connotation.

[GG]

 

 

The girlfriend's statement has probative value. The extent of that value, the jury will determine.

 

It is a fact that it was nighttime, Trayvon didn't live there, he was being pursued at some point, and it was raining.

 

What is NOT a fact is that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman.

 

What is NOT a fact is that Zimmerman attacked Trayvon.

 

Welcome to the "everything else is conjecture" club. It's good to have you. For a while, you were with 3rd in the "Trayvon attacked Zimmerman and that's a fact, Jack" club.

I have never said that it was a fact that martin attacked Zimmerman. Yet you continue to introduce Martin conversation with the girlfriend as a fact. AFAIK she wasn't even deposed.

[DC Tom]

Why do you refer to one of the parties using his first name and one using his last name? Seems odd. Is that standard practice in the courtroom?

 

Seriously? Use a first name to develop the jury's rapport with one party, and last name to distance them from the other party?

 

The only reason that wouldn't be standard courtroom practice is if the court disallows it - which I could see happening outside of opening and summation.

[Juror#8]

I have never said that it was a fact that martin attacked Zimmerman. Yet you continue to introduce Martin conversation with the girlfriend as a fact. AFAIK she wasn't even deposed.

 

I bring it up because, her statement (as recorded by her attorney), at least as it concerns being pursued by Zimmerman, is consistent with what Zimmerman said that he was going to do.

 

I could care less about all the hyperbole and what she says Martin allegedly said about being followed and what the follower was allegedly saying. I never mention that cause I think that it's probative value is watered down.

 

You're arguing just to argue.

 

Edit: If you weren't arguing that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman, then my apologies. I won't lump you in with 3rd's group in that regard.

 

Why do you refer to one of the parties using his first name and one using his last name? Seems odd. Is that standard practice in the courtroom?

 

Despite what clever answers people will come up with to explain this it really is this simple.

 

If I say "Trayvon," what do you think?

 

If I say "Zimmerman," what do you think?

 

Conversely, what do you think about when I say, in a vaccuum, "George" or "Martin."

 

Now granted, since we're discussing the subject matter, anyone knows what we're talking about. It's just that the name "Trayvon" and "Zimmerman," in the media, and now in common culture, have a strong associational value.

 

It's easier to refer to them that way because those names are much more associative.

 

It's just not that deep.

Edited May 30, 2013 by Juror#8

[Juror#8]

I also liked council's choice of the word pursue. Nice objective word with no negative connotation.

 

Really?

 

Pursue has a "negative connotation"?

 

Just grasping...

 

I guess this is what happens when someone's theesiis can't be challenged. Instead, the spelling of "thesis" is attacked.

 

There is nothing wrong with "pursue." In fact, that is what Zimmerman was doing to Trayvon. He pursued him...and for arguably honorable reasons. I'd take more issue with the potential synonyms "follow," "stalk," or "accost."

 

I'm sure you wouldn't though, since those aren't the words that I used - considering, let's be honest, your issue isn't with the "word," it's with the person typing the word and with your predilections in this case.

 

I could have said that ZImmerman "sweet talked" Trayvon with watermelon and chicken and you would have had a complaint that my usage of "sweet" implied that Zimmerman was gay.

 

But back to my thesis and the issue of rain, night, unfamiliar, and pursued...

Edited May 30, 2013 by Juror#8

[KD in CA]

Despite what clever answers people will come up with to explain this it really is this simple.

 

If I say "Trayvon," what do you think?

 

If I say "Zimmerman," what do you think?

 

Conversely, what do you think about when I say, in a vaccuum, "George" or "Martin."

 

 

We're not in a vaccuum. We're in an 80+ page thread titled "Trayvon Martin Case". I'm pretty sure everyone know who "Martin" refers to. I guess it's also easier to associate him with a picture of a 12 year old and a bag of Skittles, huh? And easier to refer to George in whatever way will tilt the case to your prefered viewpoint.

 

Tom already pointed out the obvious answer to my admittedly rhetorical question.

[Gene Frenkle]

The death of Trayvon Martin isn't any different than the countless deaths that occur in this country every weekend in Chicago. Hell, six were killed over Memorial Day Weekend alone.

 

If you really want to be up in arms about something, consider that the leader of the free world is happy to personally call Trayvon his son, and is happy to personally call Sandra Fluke after being named a slut, and is happy to personally call a gay basketball player for coming out...but four Americans killed in Benghazi and a border agent killed with a Fast and Furious gun are just a "bump in the road" that don't warrant any attention.

 

There's your Trayvon Martin lesson.

Well, that was all very Fair and Balanced. Nice job!

[Joe Miner]

Really?

 

Pursue has a "negative connotation"?

 

Just grasping...

 

I guess this is what happens when someone's theesiis can't be challenged. Instead, the spelling of "thesis" is attacked.

 

There is nothing wrong with "pursue." In fact, that is what Zimmerman was doing to Trayvon. He pursued him...and for arguably honorable reasons. I'd take more issue with the potential synonyms "follow," "stalk," or "accost."

 

I'm sure you wouldn't though, since those aren't the words that I used - considering, let's be honest, your issue isn't with the "word," it's with the person typing the word and with your predilections in this case.

 

I could have said that ZImmerman "sweet talked" Trayvon with watermelon and chicken and you would have had a complaint that my usage of "sweet" implied that Zimmerman was gay.

 

But back to my thesis and the issue of rain, night, unfamiliar, and pursued...

 

I like how 80+ pages into this thread you want to appear to be objective and logical.

 

It's too bad that you can't since you don't possess either of those qualities to draw from.

 

Wonder where this version of you was at the beginning of the thread?

[Gene Frenkle]

We're not in a vaccuum. We're in an 80+ page thread titled "Trayvon Martin Case". I'm pretty sure everyone know who "Martin" refers to. I guess it's also easier to associate him with a picture of a 12 year old and a bag of Skittles, huh? And easier to refer to George in whatever way will tilt the case to your prefered viewpoint.

 

Tom already pointed out the obvious answer to my admittedly rhetorical question.

Who cares what you call them? You seem to be using minutia to distract from your reluctance to argue facts.

[Juror#8]

We're not in a vaccuum. We're in an 80+ page thread titled "Trayvon Martin Case". I'm pretty sure everyone know who "Martin" refers to. I guess it's also easier to associate him with a picture of a 12 year old and a bag of Skittles, huh? And easier to refer to George in whatever way will tilt the case to your prefered viewpoint.

 

Tom already pointed out the obvious answer to my admittedly rhetorical question.

 

I acknowledged that we weren't in a vaccuum...in my response to you.

 

But there you go again...arguing the spelling of "theesis" instead of the thesis.

 

If it makes you feel better about thinking that my points can't have merit because someone is called by their first name while someone else is called by their last name, then so be it. Keep the "Zimmerman was wronged" narrative going a little longer.

 

Interesting that you mention Tom's point...and the idea that the name thing was in an effort to make one more relateable - yet you miss that I clearly say in multiple places that Trayvon may have wantonly attacked Zimmerman; I just don't know.

 

Now imagine Trayvon's attorney saying that. Let me save you the suspense, he wouldn't say that because his job is to advocate. I'm not advocating for him; however you implied with your little "name" diddy that I was. How about you chew on that one for moment?

 

But alas, you won't; because then you'd have to step out of your fallacy and look at my points in a reasonable, coherent, way.

 

But that's not happening, now is it KD?

[3rdnlng]

Juror #8:

 

When you were addressing GZ's supposed criminal record you failed to mention TM's fondness for fighting and making other people bloody.

 

I say it's important where the altercation took place. You explain that away with pure speculation worthy of Jackie Chile's courtroom theatrics.

 

From the beginning, GZ's story has been what I now believe to be the case (with what knowledge has been made public). Evidence has leaked out over the last year or so that is perfectly in line with GZ's version of events.

 

The District Attorney declined to prosecute GZ. Why?

[Joe Miner]

I acknowledged that we weren't in a vaccuum...in my response to you.

 

But there you go again...arguing the spelling of "theesis" instead of the thesis.

 

If it makes you feel better about thinking that my points can't have merit because someone is called by their first name while someone else is called by their last name, then so be it. Keep the "Zimmerman was wronged" narrative going a little longer.

 

Interesting that you mention Tom's point...and the idea that the name thing was in an effort to make one more relateable - yet you miss that I clearly say in multiple places that Trayvon may have wantonly attacked Zimmerman; I just don't know.

 

Now imagine Trayvon's attorney saying that. Let me save you the suspense, he wouldn't say that because his job is to advocate. I'm not advocating for him; however you implied with your little "name" diddy that I was. How about you chew on that one for moment?

 

But alas, you won't; because then you'd have to step out of your fallacy and look at my points in a reasonable, coherent, way.

 

But that's not happening, now is it KD?

 

You play a mean victim.

 

You wanna whine about people arguing semantics. All the people "arguing semantics" have said in one way or another over the course of this thread that outside of Martin and Zimmerman no one can know for sure what exactly happened.

 

Do you want a cookie for taking a year and an 80 page thread to figure that out?

 

It's the bozos like you and a number of others that have been screaming for GZ's head since day 1 when no one knew anything about the case. Don't be a whiny B word now because people don't wanna put up with your phony objectivity.

Edited May 30, 2013 by Joe Miner

[Juror#8]

I like how 80+ pages into this thread you want to appear to be objective and logical.

 

It's too bad that you can't since you don't possess either of those qualities to draw from.

 

Wonder where this version of you was at the beginning of the thread?

 

I always get a chuckle out of how bold people can be behind a computer and how the same conversation, face to face, would be so radically different.

 

Anyways...I've been consistent. You'll bring up the page 1, post incident "emotion," about "poor Trayvon, poor Trayvon."

 

Yet you ignore, blatantly, posts #245, 267, 335, etc.

 

I said over and over again, through numerous posts, the same thing that I said a year ago, best articulated in post 335:

 

"The best thing to do is to let the matter unfold fully. Zimmerman deserves a fair and impartial adjudication of these issues. Martin's family does too."

 

But what about the 80 page thing?

 

Oh, you must be referring to page 1 when I say that he is a "pathetic ghetto thug." By the way, that's "1" page, not "80." But I digress...

 

Yea, well good luck getting a backtrack on that. I still, to this day, right here in my high back chair, and in a non-technical, non-legal, analytical context that doesn't affect my dispassionate analysis above, think that a man getting his ass whooped, should fight back and not resort to gun play.

 

ANNNNNNNNNNND now that we have that out of the way..........how do you reconcile your claim of 80 pages of subjectivity with my "let's let the facts come to light and give Zimmerman a fair process" mentions spread out of 84 pages in this thread.

 

That's right, you can't reconcile them. That was you talking out of your slutty crotch.

 

Additionally, what about night, pursuing, raining, unfamiliarity...

 

Cause I'm tired of arguing about the spelling of "thesis."

 

Aside: waiting for the inevitable preoccupation with how someone should fight and how my thought on "fighting" doesn't comport with the values that inhere in surburbia....

 

Let me short cut that and say "I Don't Care." I don't care if Zimmerman is a ghetto thug or if he should have fought like a man. I don't care and it doesn't implicate my analysis.

 

You play a mean victim.

 

You wanna whine about people arguing semantics. All the people "arguing semantics" have said in one way or another over the course of this thread that outside of Martin and Zimmerman no one can know for sure what exactly happened.

 

Do you want a cookie for taking a year and an 80 page thread to figure that out?

 

It's the bozos like you and a number of others that have been screaming for GZ's head since day 1 when no one knew anything about the case. Don't be a whiny B word now because people don't wanna put up with your phony objectivity.

 

Just read my response to Joe the Miner. It applies equally to you.

 

I understand that you can't argue the substance of my point and you're emotional right now.

 

Can you reconcile what you just said with my posts? Or will you just keep throwing "pathetic ghetto thug" out as if it comprises the entirety of my thoughts about Mr. Zimmerman and his situation.

 

Don't bother, it's rhetorical.

 

The only thing that matters and what your post above demonstrates, is that you can't even argue your own contention that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman.

 

You'd rather just throw stones and create diversions.

 

OK, carry on then...

Edited May 30, 2013 by Juror#8