I always liked that guy!Ptolemy's rule: "We consider it a good principle to explain the phenomena by the simplest hypothesis possible."
I always liked that guy!Ptolemy's rule: "We consider it a good principle to explain the phenomena by the simplest hypothesis possible."
"A man's got to know his limitations"
'Harry Callahan' Magnum Force 1973
Again--why posit this as the only alternate explanation to Z acting in SD?then viciously attack Martin knowing the cops would shortly arrive
"Why are you following me?" is a dang reasonable question (understand, that I prefer tactics to good questions, so I might have run away from Z instead).
"What are you doing here?" is probably a reasonable question, but...it presumes the questioner has some authority, authority that M would not have been aware of. If a uniformed LEO asks me that question, or if a homeowner asks me why I'm standing on his property, he's likely to get a different response than if it's some guy who's been following me in his car and then on foot, in the rain, in the dark. And again, tactically, I would have preferred apologizing and backing away from M, rather than ask questions.
Z says he then "went for his phone" presumably because he was scared of M. Maybe he did, or maybe he reached for his gun. Either way, M could have reasonably presumed Z was going for a weapon, and Z was about to mug him...or worse. And so M responded.
If Z created the conditions that would make a reasonable person fear for his life, and M's death resulted...that might be manslaughter.
Carl, you talk about "simplest" hypothesis--isn't it simplest to assume the above scenario? If we should not assume that Z "suddenly" became assaultive or murderous, why should we assume that M "suddenly" became so? Conversely, if we're going to assume M was "predisposed" to attack someone without due cause, why shouldn't we also presume that Z was "predisposed" to draw his gun on someone before there was a need, because he was already presuming M was a criminal?
Stick that in your Ptolemy and smoke it!
[BTW, thanks again for the chronology. Are we sure the verbal exchange reported between Z and M comes from M's girlfriend, or does it come from Z's statement?]Legal presumptions of innocence are designed to protect the innocent, even at the expense of letting the guilty go free. Logical principles (as per Ptolemy and Occam) are unconcerned with presumptions of innocence.presumption of innocence
In other words, the question of whether or not Z should be convicted is very different from the question of whether he most likely bears most or all of the responsibility for M's death. The difference between "beyond reasonable doubt" and "preponderance of the evidence".
Originally Posted by Carl N. Brown
I'm not sure I agree with the 2nd degree murder charge, I'd think shooting someone after starting to lose a fight you started would get you a manslaughter charge.
I keep seeing this assertion that since Martin allegedly circled around and confronted Zimmerman then he must be guilty. Maybe he was just standing his ground in accordance with FL law?
The way I see this whole thing, any time you shoot an unarmed guy without a witness who will testify in court that the dead guy jumped you first, it's going to look bad for you. It's going to look even worse when you were chasing the guy around in the dark first.
Maybe Zimmerman is innocent, heck I wasn't there to witness it. It's also entirely plausible he's not. He's certainly guilty of being an idiot and creating the whole situation out of nothing.
I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.
We're (still) waiting for objective evidence that would prove/suggest otherwise.No kidding, ya'll are still assuming Martin started it.
(continuing sound of crickets chirping)
Not guilty...just not the sharpest knife in the drawer.I keep seeing this assertion that since Martin allegedly circled around and confronted Zimmerman then he must be guilty.
Let the record reflect I refrained from comment.I always liked that guy!
“Fairy tales do not tell children that dragons exist. Children already know that dragons exist. Fairy tales tell children that dragons can be killed.”
- G. K. Chesterton
Hi Horse,
It is so rare that logic and law come to the same conclusion as to make the latter worthy of note. If only for the comfort that sometimes there is reason behind the rhyme.Legal presumptions of innocence are designed to protect the innocent, even at the expense of letting the guilty go free. Logical principles (as per Ptolemy and Occam) are unconcerned with presumptions of innocence.
“Fairy tales do not tell children that dragons exist. Children already know that dragons exist. Fairy tales tell children that dragons can be killed.”
- G. K. Chesterton
Where's the evidence that Martin did start it?We're (still) waiting for objective evidence that would prove/suggest otherwise.
(continuing sound of crickets chirping)and chasing people around in the dark is a great idea?Not guilty...just not the sharpest knife in the drawer.Creating these situations out of thin air is a great idea?
I guess everyone who has ever stood their ground in FL isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer.
We're (still) waiting for objective evidence that would prove/suggest otherwise.basic, you yourself seem to have just said that the evidence suggests that M is "not guilty" (just not sharp); so it seems we already have evidence that suggests M didn't "start it."Not guilty...just not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
What a mess.
EDIT: Maybe I should elaborate on my comment. When the incident happened the news ran the photo of TM in his football uniform and GZ in his mug shot. I saw bias right off the bat. The more I read the more it gets messy.
Well now I'm confused...are you talking 'bout Martin or Zimmerman?and chasing people around in the dark is a great idea? Creating these situations out of thin air is a great idea?
Not sure how you could be, Martin didn't chase anyone. Zimmerman is the one that decided to create the whole thing out of thin air by chasing a guy who was just walking home.
I don't remember where or who said it but I've read that TM was walking/prowling around the back of the houses. Whether that's true or not I have no idea but something had prompted GZ to step out of his vehicle.
We won't bother to ask and you know this how?Not sure how you could be, Martin didn't chase anyone.
And you know he committed the first overt physical act how?Zimmerman is the one that decided to create the whole thing out of thin air...
Until someone committed the first overt physical act, just how much of a "thing" was this?
Zimmerman started the whole thing by following and then chasing Martin. Apparently he did this because Martin was walking through a rich neighborhood in a hoody?
If Zimmerman had just driven home nothing would have happened. Nobody would have chased anyone. There would have been no fight. There would have been no shooting. Zimmerman wouldn't be on trial.
Martin didn't chase anyone.We won't bother to ask and you know this how?
We know Zimmerman chased Martin. I don't know where you're getting this idea that Martin chased someone. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that Martin did anything wrong.
If an athletic wide receiver had decided (once he'd put overweight non-athlete in the mirror) to just keep going, nothing would have happened.If Zimmerman had just driven home nothing would have happened.
That pesky old door continues to swing both ways...
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...on-martin.htmlLoosedhorse
[BTW, thanks again for the chronology. Are we sure the verbal exchange reported between Z and M comes from M's girlfriend, or does it come from Z's statement?]
Accounts of the Confrontation Between Trayvon and Zimmerman -- New York Times
......
Trayvon’s last phone call
According to Benjamin Crump, a lawyer for Trayvon’s parents, Trayvon was on his cellphone with his girlfriend before he was shot, telling her that a man was following him. Trayvon asked, “Why are you following me?” Mr. Crump said the girl told her. The girl then heard a faraway voice ask, “What are you doing around here?” Mr. Crump said. She also said that she heard what sounded like an earpiece to Trayvon’s cellphone falling away before the line went dead.
.....
Actually all we have on the call is the log of when it was made (7:12 to 7:16pm 26 Feb 12) and what the girlfriend remembers hearing. (MSNBC NBC had to publish a correction to this 21 Mar report on 28 Mar 2012 of their condensed version of Zimmerman's call. MSNBC NBC is very much biased against Zimmerman.)http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20...artins-shooter
msnbc.com staff and NBC News, "Neighbor comes to defense of Trayvon Martin's shooter", MSNBC NBC, 21 Mar 2012.
....
In Trayvon Martin's final phone call with his own girlfriend, according to Martin family attorney Benjamin Crump, he could be heard saying ,“Why are you following me?” with Zimmerman replying, “What are you doing around here?”
....
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headline...ine-of-events/
Matt Gutman, Lauren Effron, "Trayvon Martin Case: Timeline of Events", ABC News, 23 Mar 2012
....
March 19: A 16-year-old girl tells Benjamin Crump, the Martin family’s attorney, about the last moments of Trayvon Martin’s life. Martin was on the phone with her when George Zimmerman began following him. She recounted that she told Martin to run, then she heard some pushing, then the line went dead.
....
Cogito me cogitare; ergo, cogito me esse.
Martin was standing his ground in accordance with FL law. I guess everyone who's been attacked in FL since stand your ground was passed was responsible for the attack on themselves? Besides, all this came after Zimmerman created the situation out of thin air.If an athletic wide receiver had decided (once he'd put overweight non-athlete in the mirror) to just keep going, nothing would have happened.
This is the dumbest thing about the anti-gunners critisizing FL's law. SYG clearly didn't stop Zimmerman from being arrested and charged either.
Really?Martin was standing his ground in accordance with FL law.
If Martin had put distance on Zimmerman, then returned, I don't know how kindly the state is going to view that AFA SYG.
Value on some of the townhouses was $80,000 (consider real estate in urban Florida), but a lot of the residents were renters not owners; about 20% of the residents were black, and 20% were hispanic. It was a gated community, with a prominent Neighborhood Watch sign at the gate.Apparently he did this because Martin was walking through a rich neighborhood in a hoody?
From the Reuters article linked and cited above, but apparently not read:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...83O18H20120425
Chris Francescani, "George Zimmerman: Prelude to a shooting", Reuters, 25 Apr 2012.
....
On February 2, 2012, Zimmerman placed a call to Sanford police after spotting a young black man he recognized peering into the windows of a neighbor's empty home, according to several friends and neighbors.
"I don't know what he's doing. I don't want to approach him, personally," Zimmerman said in the call, which was recorded. The dispatcher advised him that a patrol car was on the way. By the time police arrived, according to the dispatch report, the suspect had fled.
On February 6, the home of another Twin Lakes resident, Tatiana Demeacis, was burglarized. Two roofers working directly across the street said they saw two African-American men lingering in the yard at the time of the break-in. A new laptop and some gold jewelry were stolen. One of the roofers called police the next day after spotting one of the suspects among a group of male teenagers, three black and one white, on bicycles.
Police found Demeacis's laptop in the backpack of 18-year-old Emmanuel Burgess, police reports show, and charged him with dealing in stolen property. Burgess was the same man Zimmerman had spotted on February 2.
Cogito me cogitare; ergo, cogito me esse.
Key word there being if.If Martin had put distance on Zimmerman, then returned
I'm really not sure why you're so eager to blame Martin, espicially based on assumptions like "well, he must have returned". We know Zimmerman started the whole thing, we know Zimmerman chased Martin around in the dark. We don't know if Martin was doing anything besides just walking home.
I'm not sure why I'm wasting time defending Martin. Maybe because so many on this forum seem so eager to condem the guy when we don't even know if he actually did anything wrong.
And don't forget-it's not Zimmerman that's making a big deal 'bout the hoodie, just as he didn't make a big deal 'bout race (that's Al, Jesse, and their crew's department).Apparently he did this because Martin was walking through a rich neighborhood in a hoody?
Zimmerman only mentioned race when asked by the operator.
He also mentioned the hoodie when asked for a description by the operator.
He did not just state there's a black man with a hoodie in the neighborhood!
I haven't - I've just pointed out that door swings both ways.I'm really not sure why you're so eager to blame Martin...
All I've done is ask a number of (reasonable person) questions, but so far, few/none have been answered.
And once again we have to ask exactly how do we know this?We know Zimmerman started the whole thing...
....
Except that it doesn't. We don't know if Martin did anything wrong. We know Zimmerman started the whole thing by following and then chasing Martin.I haven't - I've just pointed out that door swings both ways.
I can see this will just go on with you blaming Martin, so whatever. I'm out, I'll let you get back to bashing the dead guy.
Just as we don't know if Zimmerman did anything wrong.We don't know if Martin did anything wrong.
That old door just keeps a' swingin'!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote