Thread: Do You Think Zimmerman is Guilty?

Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon

Yes, the funeral director came out and said that he didn't see any other wounds besides the gsw.

here's a link that was used here on DP

Trayvon Martin

This was touted as evidence that Zimmerman's story was legit.
Now, that it has come out that M did have injuries on his hands, it's being touted as evidence that Zimmerman's story is legit

When I initially posted the link it was being reported "the skin on his knuckles was broken" (I just noticed I linked to WND, I know better) which in my comprehension is different than "he had a small cut on one finger". I think several knuckles with abrasions is significant. A small cut is not.
I think we learn the most from the contrast between TM and GZ. George Zimmerman obviously severely battered, Trayvon Martin unbattered. TM unbattered is significant to the case and helps Zimmermans case. Trayvon Martin unbattered except his knuckles would prove GZ case even more since his knuckles is what he used to batter GZ.

Originally Posted by Phoenix

When I initially posted the link it was being reported "the skin on his knuckles was broken" (I just noticed I linked to WND, I know better) which in my comprehension is different than "he had a small cut on one finger". I think several knuckles with abrasions is significant. A small cut is not.
I think we learn the most from the contrast between TM and GZ. George Zimmerman obviously severely battered, Trayvon Martin unbattered. TM unbattered is significant to the case and helps Zimmermans case. Trayvon Martin unbattered except his knuckles would prove GZ case even more since his knuckles is what he used to batter GZ.

Trayvon has a very small abrasion on the lower knuckle of his left hand ring finger.

The fact that Trayvon slugged GZ and knocked him down hasn't been in dispute.

Originally Posted by sharon

Trayvon has a very small abrasion on the lower knuckle of his left hand ring finger.

The fact that Trayvon slugged GZ and knocked him down hasn't been in dispute.

It was actually on his finger below the knuckle. As I said I don't see this as significant to the case either way.

Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon

[INDENT]U.S. News - Trayvon Martin killed by single gunshot fired from 'intermediate range,' autopsy shows

I figured I would go ahead and get this out of the way.

3. Intermediate range ( 6 - 8 inches to 1.5 - 3.5 feet): This is too far for soot to travel, so there is no fouling, but hot fragments of burning propellant (gunpowder) follow the bullet to the victim and produce stippling by causing pinpoint burns around the entrance wound. Of the two type of propellant, "ball" and "flake," the former will produce stippling at a greater distance.

Surfer beware if you decide to look up "intermediate range entrance wound" There's some disturbing stuff out there.

Originally Posted by Phoenix

I don't know the specifics of this place but usually any grassy area is a common area in a condo community. Actually any area not inside your house or NOT your immediate front and back porch are considered common areas.

I knew someone would say something.

Built in 2006
.05 Acres
Seminole County
Townhouse

1203 Square Feet
2 Bedrooms
2 Baths

12 Pictures

2650 RETREAT VIEW CIR SANFORD $94,900.00
2650 RETREAT VIEW SANFORD Real Estate Listing Photo

Built in 2007
.04 Acres
Seminole County
Townhouse

1203 Square Feet
2 Bedrooms
2 Baths

12 Pictures

2710 RETREAT VIEW CIR SANFORD $99,999.00
2710 RETREAT VIEW SANFORD Real Estate Listing Photo

Built in 2007
.06 Acres
Seminole County
Townhouse

1409 Square Feet
3 Bedrooms
2 Baths

2 Pictures
RETREAT AT TWIN LAKES REPLAT Homes For Sale | SANFORD Fl | R P Realty

A two story home/condo has a smaller footprint than the actual square footage.

But even then, the reflected acreage is larger than the listed square footage.

The first two listings have the same square footage but different acreage.

This would indicate, at least for these listings, that the acreage belongs to the condo owner.
It wouldn't be much of a leap to assume it is the same for the whole community.


And just for the inquisitive: Square Feet to Acres converter

Originally Posted by Excon

Just for Tucker.


Wow.
You really have said a lot just to say nothing of import.

What gives you the impression you are qualified to make such a determination?

Most of what you said is non-sense, because you apparently believe being objective somehow lets impossible scenarios come into play when it doesn't.

Do you know what the word impossible means?

It is has also become apparent to me that you have a hard time understanding exactly what has been said and argued. When you need clarification just ask.

What is it you think I have misunderstood?

But you also apparently believe things will happen that won't.

Why do you have that impression?

You have claimed that I have ignored major consideration which is untrue.

"Trayvon's state of mind has no bearing on the legality of Zimmerman's actions."
You do not seem to understand that.
Too bad for you.

Excellent use of the "because I said so" argument. Phenomenally invalid, and amazingly illogical, but excellent for avoiding an intelligent rebuttal. Kudos, good sir. .

Wow. Talk about deflection.
Lets see if you can follow along.
Take a look at what you said and what I highlighted.

if the prosecution shows, through witnesses and such, that a reasonable person might have felt as though they were in danger of becoming the victim of a crime at Zimmerman's hands if they were thrust into the same position that Martin was in.

Now ask yourself just what witnesses could be called to establish such "cough" reasonableness.

Psychologists and other such experts on the human psychology immediately spring to mind. Couple that with police witnesses describing Zimmerman's statement to police about how Martin struck him as he reached for his phone and the 911 call where Zimmerman notes that martin fled and you have a case for Martin's use of force being reasonable.

Now to make it even more clear. How do you think the defense would counter such?

Probably cross examining those witnesses as well as providing some similar ones of their own. If such an approach is employed by the prosecution, it'll ultimately come down to what the jury believes to be reasonable.

Is it sinking in yet?

You haven't made any argument. You've just asked extremely stupid questions that are quite easy to answer as though these extremely stupid questions were magically made "profound" by the simple act of having come from you.

Were you under the delusional belief that something other than the obvious fact that you have no rebuttal would sink in due to your asking of easily answered questions?

It should be obviously that such a claim was ridiculous, and what I said, that they would argue it, but not present witnesses to such, is accurate.

Are you aware of what an expert witness is? If they argue it, then they will present witnesses to it. You don't have to believe it in order for it to be true.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the speaking to any of the actual witnesses.

For you to be so certain that no witness is capable of presenting any evidence to the reasonableness of Martin's behavior under the given situation you certainly would need to have spoken with all of the witnesses. that, or an expert on human psychology yourself, but since that is my own field of expertise I can already tell that you are most definitely not an expert on human psychology and, as such, I was able to narrow down the ways that you could have come by any such information to having spoken directly with all of the witnesses for the case.

Obviously you do not.

If one ignores all reality and common sense, then one can believe that the above is true. But if one takes reality and common sense into consideration, it is false.

Apparently it is your objectivity that is in question here. Not mine.

Why? Wait, never mind. I know the answer to that. Because you said so. I keep forgetting about your status as a time-traveller and/or psychic detective.

My speculation is based upon the known evidence. And I have always indicated such.

Now you admit that you are speculating. Excellent. Now all you need to do is acknowledge that you are ignoring the fact that there is a preponderance of evidence that remains unknown and you'll understand why your speculations are not actually based on the evidence. For example, you have not taken all of it into account, because if you did, you would not that the available evidence does not paint a full picture.

The gaps in the evidence must be included in any speculations for those speculations to be valid. Were you capable of objectivity, you would recognize this. Instead, you have already acquitted Zimmerman based on insufficient evidence to do so.

And there is a plethora of known evidence which you have chosen to ignore in your speculations. One piece, a very important one, is that those who do have access to all of the evidnce have made the decision to charge Zimmerman with 2nd degree murder. That means that they believe they can present a case.

I'm speculating on how that case might take shape based on other evidence which you have chosen to ignore.

Just because your speculations are based on evidence, doesn't mean you have taken all of the evidence into consideration. You moist certainly have not, because you have concluded that Martin's use of force was definitely unlawful, which is an impossible conclusion for an objective analyst that has reviewed all of the known evidence to reach.

Only a biased person who has made the conscious choice to ignore all of the information that does not support said conclusion can reach it.

It is not a qualifier that needs to be attached in every post.

Your inability to recognize how the lack of evidence affects speculation and your conscious choice to ignore certain evidence is the qualifier in every post that belies your lack of objectivity.

Which is very different from the speculation based upon no evidence, like what you, and others, are tying to get away with.

Basing our speculations on evidence you have chosen to ignore =/= basing it on "no evidence".

That is your problem, you want to make argument outside of the known evidence. That doesn't fly.

My arguments are based entirely on known evidence. Hell, it's based entirely on Zimmerman's own statements about how the incident went down.

Just because you have chosen to ignore that evidence doesn't mean it isn't known evidence.

You fail to consider the evidence "in toto".

Here's the ultimate failing in your analysis. You are pretending that you are doing this, when it's impossible to do.

The reason that it's impossible to consider the evidence "in toto" at this time is because we do not have access to the evidence "in toto".

The fact that you play this game of pretend with yourself belies you inability to analyze the case objectively.

That's true even if we don't take your choice to ignore much of the known evidence into consideration.

When we couple your choice to ignore evidence with your false belief in the patently absurd idea that you are viewing the evidence in toto despite the fact that such an idea is totally impossible at this time, we can conclude, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that you are incapable of viewing the case objectively.

lol
Wrong.
I have pointed out in that case that it still falls back to the reasonableness of Zimmerman's actions.

You need to learn the difference between "Repeatedly claimed without any actual evidence to support my claim" and "pointed out". What you have done is make claims without supporting them. Your total reliance on the "because I said so" argument is not logically valid.

You are wrong.
Trayvon is not on trial. He gets no presumption of anything.

You say he gets no presumption of anything, yet you are presuming that he is guilty.

If you were actually not presuming anything, you'd be capable of entertaining the notion that he is not guilty of any crime. You have demonstrated you are incapable of this, thus proving you're incapable of objective analysis.

Zimmerman is, and Zimmerman does, but in accordance with the evidence.

Of course. And a big part of that evidence will be whether or not Martin's use of force against Zimmerman was lawful or unlawful. You can ignore that fact all you want, but it won't make it any less of a fact. You are speculating that Martin's use of force was definitely unlawful, and that speculation is definitely not based on all of the evidence that exist, nor is it even based on all of the evidence which is known to us.

Evidence that can be subject to change. But evidence none-the-less.

You becoming aware of the evidence doesn't change the evidence. It simply alleviates your ignorance of it. A lot of evidence exists which we are all ignorant of, and there is evidence that some people have chosen to be ignorant of.

And this crap about not having all the evidence, is crap.

So when you want to pretend I'm the one who is not being objective for speculating on the case that the prosecution will present and how it may cause problems for the defense you say "You fail to consider the evidence "in toto"", but when you want to pretend that you can objectively reach a conclusion about the guilt and innocence of the parties involved, we don't even need the evidence in total.

Never mind the fact that you aren't even taking all of the known evidence into consideration, the fact that you can be this blatantly hypocritical while pretending to be objective is truly breathtaking in it's ironic hilarity.

We have enough evidence as it is, to draw preliminary conclusions.

Not about the lawfulness of the actions of any of the parties involved. But we can draw some preliminary hypotheses about what form the prosecution and defense's cases will take.

Evidence which should be considered ‘in toto’.

You aren't even taking the partial evidence into total consideration.

Wrong.
It is that what we know of Zimmerman's account is consistent with the other evidence we know of and other witnesses accounts.
Besides his immediate and continuing cooperation, the above is in itself strong reason to believe what we know of his account.

What, that Martin hit Zimmerman first? If you've been following my argument in any way, you'd realize that Martin initiating the violence is a prima facie assumption I am making with my speculation about how the prosecution will present their case.

That's why the reasonableness of Martin's use of force against Zimmerman is be important. If he didn't hit Z first, there wouldn't be any question at all about the lawfulness of Martin's use of force against Z.

Save your hyperbole.

This word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

It is a reason Zimmerman got on top of Trayvon after he shot him.

If that's why he got on top of him it makes perfect sense. Simply being on the ground doesn't mean someone isn't a threat anymore.


The big question is why would you call a statement you appear to agree with hyperbole?

Originally Posted by Phoenix

It was actually on his finger below the knuckle. As I said I don't see this as significant to the case either way.

Yes.. your post is clearer and more accurate.. and I agree that it is not significant.

The Engles houses originally sold for $250K.. Due to foreclosures and evictions.. 15 % of the properties are empty.. ad about 50% are occupied by renters or have been converted to Section 8.

Originally Posted by Excon

I knew someone would say something.

Built in 2006
.05 Acres
Seminole County
Townhouse

1203 Square Feet
2 Bedrooms
2 Baths

12 Pictures

2650 RETREAT VIEW CIR SANFORD $94,900.00
2650 RETREAT VIEW SANFORD Real Estate Listing Photo

Built in 2007
.04 Acres
Seminole County
Townhouse

1203 Square Feet
2 Bedrooms
2 Baths

12 Pictures

2710 RETREAT VIEW CIR SANFORD $99,999.00
2710 RETREAT VIEW SANFORD Real Estate Listing Photo

Built in 2007
.06 Acres
Seminole County
Townhouse

1409 Square Feet
3 Bedrooms
2 Baths

2 Pictures
RETREAT AT TWIN LAKES REPLAT Homes For Sale | SANFORD Fl | R P Realty

A two story home/condo has a smaller footprint than the actual square footage.

But even then, the reflected acreage is larger than the listed square footage.

The first two listings have the same square footage but different acreage.

This would indicate, at least for these listings, that the acreage belongs to the condo owner.
It wouldn't be much of a leap to assume it is the same for the whole community.


And just for the inquisitive: Square Feet to Acres converter

Originally Posted by Phoenix

When I initially posted the link it was being reported "the skin on his knuckles was broken" (I just noticed I linked to WND, I know better) which in my comprehension is different than "he had a small cut on one finger". I think several knuckles with abrasions is significant. A small cut is not.
I think we learn the most from the contrast between TM and GZ. George Zimmerman obviously severely battered, Trayvon Martin unbattered. TM unbattered is significant to the case and helps Zimmermans case. Trayvon Martin unbattered except his knuckles would prove GZ case even more since his knuckles is what he used to batter GZ.

Lesson: Don't bring knuckles to a gunfight.

Originally Posted by Excon

I knew someone would say something.

A two story home/condo has a smaller footprint than the actual square footage.

But even then, the reflected acreage is larger than the listed square footage.

The first two listings have the same square footage but different acreage.

This would indicate, at least for these listings, that the acreage belongs to the condo owner.
It wouldn't be much of a leap to assume it is the same for the whole community.

I can't find their covenants online without requesting them from leland management or paying $50 so I guess we can't know for sure. I was just relaying the norm for these type properties.