Justice for Zimmerman

Or maybe there had been a spring of burglaries in his neighborhood perpetrated by people matching Treyvon's description. You know, black & wearing a hoody.

He called the police to report a suspicious looking character and followed him so that when the police arrived he would be able to point him out. Then when 911 said "we don't need you to do that", he began returning to his SUV when he was jumped.
At least that's how the facts up until this point have suggested, and the prosecutor didn't prove otherwise.

I've only been called once and I got picked to sit on a dumb case where a couple of rednecks went out fishing on a boat, got drunk, and dumb shit happened. They didn't tell us shit besides "no bullshitting". It was like Judge Judy levels of dumb. Maybe that's why. They just called our name and started asking questions, then picked us.

It's interesting to know it's notsupposedto work like that.

Numbers, looking for trouble is exactly what NW does. Gz saw some dude in a hoody skulking around peoples houses at night during a rain storm and immediately called the cops. There was nothing to suggest Gz grabbed Tm. The only proven racism here was TM calling GZ a creepy ass cracker and that same chick also said Tm was aggressive towards GZ.

I just happen to interpret the little bit of evidence I have seen, or heard of differently I suppose.

Who is we?

Well, if you speak for everyone who understands then I guess I've been told.

Numbers_sl said:

Who is we?

Click to expand...

<---

I'm curious just to see how rational people come to the conclusion of George following, confronting, and then killing Martin. I consider Numbers rational with a working logical mind, not like the FB people who post on the subject, and would love a light Sunday banter about it when I get back.

I could be wrong but I think hodj is just asking you to present evidence that we can follow logically that allows us to follow the account you believe.

If you are going with a gut feeling, and you wish to believe an account you are creating, because you just don't believe certain facts or how those facts are presented then that is okay. If you wish to believe an account you create despite evidence that counters your account and you dont wish to change your mind then that's okay to. The problem lies in that refusing an account that is substantiated by evidence and then arguing your own account and merely suggesting that reasonable people should be able to follow or only pay attention to certain pieces of evidence to follow your account seems to be a contradiction. The contradiction is in suggesting that we should rely on reason or logic to consider the account where Zimmerman is a racist killer, but in order to do so we must ignore an account substantiated by evidence, or we must ignore pieces of evidence. You don't ignore the facts if you are being reasonable or logical.

I think what just angers people is that the counter-argument to zimmerman's defense seems to be a flat, I don't believe his story or his intentions. Now granted you don't have to, but if you were on that jury I would hope you would pay attention to the facts so as not to put what could potentially be an innocent man away in prison.

I could be wrong and misinterpreting the back and forth and if so well I apologize.

Another day folks. I'm only half paying attention. Plus I don't actually want to convince anyone.

It's a reasonable assumption to make. It could have happened that way.

But it didn't.

If it had happened that way it wouldn't be such a kangaroo case.

Which is why it's a badly veiled SYG dispute, isn't it? And I guess it's a smart defense lawyer for not being willing to even play that game.

If I'm wrong tell me I'm wrong. Hypothetically Z could have been an aggressor and still used SYG as a defense. Not what happened. But that could conceivably happen.

Numbers_sl said:

Another day folks. I'm only half paying attention. Plus I don't actually want to convince anyone.

Click to expand...

If you are being truthful in your belief that Zimmerman is responsible and guilty, then I believe we have a missed opportunity to try to understand that viewpoint. I have a hard time understanding how people can believe that this will result in a guilty verdict, and I wish I could understand. So if you don't feel comfortable because you feel people will jump on you, I can understand your reluctance and unwillingness to express those points.

I don't mean to throw everyone who believes Zimmerman to be guilty all under one box, but it would be interesting to get one person who could that side justice when it comes to arguing Zimmerman's guilt. I think we can all agree that no one else could possibly do worse than the Prosecution.