Monday, November 18, 2013

George Zimmerman Answers All The Questions

Well, at least this pretty much settles the debate about the Zimmerman-Treyvon Martin confrontation...


Blogger Grung_e_Gene said...


It was never in doubt but to those who love when children are gunned down for the crime of being black.

4:06 PM  
Blogger Winston Smith said...

Some kind of satire?

9:39 PM  
Blogger Aa said...

I was wondering if this was going to come back up on the site.As is often the case, Josh Marshall at TPM sums it up well (at least from my perspective:

"...the real world verdict is now beyond a reasonable doubt as to this point: Zimmerman is a liar and a habitually violent and frequently out of control man who should never have been allowed to possess a gun.

Given all we know now about Zimmerman and all the additional evidence he's provided us with post-acquittal, there's simply no reason to doubt the worst case scenario of how Trayvon Martin died. The only real question is whether Zimmerman shot him in cold blood or killed him during the confrontation he himself forced to happen"

3:17 PM  
Blogger Winston Smith said...

Er, does anybody question that now?

7:13 AM  
Blogger Aa said...

I'm sure there are many, many people who still question this. It seems to be human nature - when the facts don't fit the preconceived opinions/narratives, ignore the facts.

Or maybe I'm just too cynical but as a chemistry teacher I deal with global warming deniers and creationists more often than you would believe. And when I suggest they go look at the evidence, they usually don't (based on followup conversations that they instigate).

10:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

But look, the case for Zimmerman's having been found guilty of killing Martin should not rest upon his having turned out to be a really terrible, violent person, just as it should not have rest upon Martin being an innocent child. Even if Zimmerman had gone on to do nothing but save kittens from trees, and Martin had been definitively shown to be thug the right desperately wanted him to be, the verdict still should have been guilty. That is true based upon the actions of the night, and a standard of reasonable behaviour applicable to saints and psychos alike. If we let cases of this type turn on judgements of the participants' character, then we are telling jurors to side with whomever they find more sympathetic.

1:19 PM  
Blogger Winston Smith said...


I don't agree that the (informal, non-legal) case against Z needs to rest only on what we know about that night. If, say, Z did exactly what he did the night of the Martin shooting, but was caught on camera doing things that unequivocally put him at fault, then that, I'd say, would be relevant evidence for those of us trying to figure out what really happened...though not for the courts.

I went back and forth on the case, and ultimately thought that Z was more likely to be, technically, innocent than guilty. I now think I was wrong, but that judgment wasn't based on who I found more sympathetic.

Anyway, it just seems like an extremely good bet to me now that Z was at fault. I'd probably bet large amounts of money on that.

7:50 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home