Merged Continuation Part 2: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[Mumbles]

Have you watched Vincent Di Maio's testimony in full, John Good's testimony in full and listened to the audio recordings of the screams for help? Both the witness and physical evidence place Martin on top of Zimmerman and assaulting him. The screams for help that were captured on recording seem very likely to have been coming from Zimmerman given the evidence presented at the trial. GZ may not have sustained any serious injuries, but he was under attack and was apparently terrified and screaming for help apparently wasn't causing TM to relent.

(I'm not saying this necessarily justifies the shooting.)

I also heard all of the above. I also heard Rachel Jenteal's testimony indicating that he had no interest in a fight, but was pursued and most likely attacked by George Zimmerman, as well as George Zimmerman's own police call, which both wildly contradicts his reenactment, and clearly shows that he had decided to pursue Martin.

And given that Zimmerman said he was punched so hard that he thought that Martin had weapons, while simultaneously having his head gripped and beaten into the concrete that he was nowhere near, while screaming despite being smothered so badly that he feared losing consciousness...

Actually, I'll need you to explain how you consider this possible because...I see no possibility, not that any of it mattered.

Here's the thing. Just because someone is winning a fight, doesn't mean they started it. And given that from everything we do know, Zimmerman's story is impossible, while Jeantel's story matches perfectly with Zimmerman's call...no, sorry, the evidence falls entirely on the side of Zimmerman beginning the fight.

And by the way, O'Mara's theatrics in his closing argument - the idea that black kids are armed if they walk on pavement, his dramatic pause - was of no relevance. Because Zimmerman described that he shot Martin because Martin, while straddling him, looked back, noticed the gun on his backside, said "you gonna die tonight!" And then...began rubbing the side of Zimmerman's chest, which oddly, should have been covered my Martin's legs. Because Martin was supposedly straddling Zimmerman and punching/holding/covering his face.

Someone asked me a while back here (or really, on JREF), if I thought this meant that Zimmerman was a masterful liar. I responded that his story was an obviously stupid lie. Nothing in the trial changed my mind on that. Nothing he's done since the trial have convinced me that he is anything more than a very stupid person with severe anger issues, who was threatened by the sight of a black kid walking down the street in the evening. If anything, he has only reinforced this. At this point, it would not shock me if Zimmerman had pulled his gun on Martin immediately. The fact that he has been in multiple violent incidents since then, surprises me in no way.

And as for why he was found not guilty...well, it appears this same team needed two tries to get Dunn convicted of murder. Apparently, they simply aren't very good. They were obviously terrible in the Zimmerman trial - missing obvious impossibilities, but acting all a concerned about whether Martin lived 3 versus 10 minutes at the longest.

 

[johnny karate]

And as for why he was found not guilty...well, it appears this same team needed two tries to get Dunn convicted of murder. Apparently, they simply aren't very good. They were obviously terrible in the Zimmerman trial - missing obvious impossibilities, but acting all a concerned about whether Martin lived 3 versus 10 minutes at the longest.

And the thing that most Zimmerman supporters seem to want to sweep under the rug is that despite the horrible job the prosecution did of presenting their case, it wasn't a slamdunk acquittal. At least one juror wanted to convict him, and reportedly two others did as well.

That's saying something considering that the common refrain has been that there wasn't enough evidence to even charge Zimmerman in the first place.

It's always seemed weird to me that such a thread-the-needle acquittal is viewed by some as a complete and total exoneration of Zimmerman, and evidence that every aspect of his story is true.

 

[Mumbles]

And the thing that most Zimmerman supporters seem to want to sweep under the rug is that despite the horrible job the prosecution did of presenting their case, it wasn't a slamdunk acquittal. At least one juror wanted to convict him, and reportedly two others did as well.

That's saying something considering that the common refrain has been that there wasn't enough evidence to even charge Zimmerman in the first place.

It's always seemed weird to me that such a thread-the-needle acquittal is viewed by some as a complete and total exoneration of Zimmerman, and evidence that every aspect of his story is true.

The thing that really clicked it for me was comparing it to this one.

In the latter, the officer is telling things, from the perspective of a very scared, very violent man. Jones "Jumped out of his car." Well, no, he was at a gas station, he got out to buy something and noticed you rolling up, that's all. "He stared at me." Well, yes, you were probably staring at him. "He dove into his car." No, he reached at his passenger seat after you asked for his license, and then he checked his back pocket and realized it wasn't there.

But you can see how a frightened, jittery cop who shouldn't ever have a badge, could see a black guy constantly diving in and out of his car, in this situation. It's horrible. He belongs in jail, but you can at least say that he's describing what he saw, even though it's not what happened.

Here's the thing. There's no possible way to reconcile Zimmerman's 311 call, with his own reenactment, thus everything in his reenactment is out, unless otherwise noted. There's no reason to think that Zimmerman ever crossed the famous T junction at all during the phone call. There's no telling where he abandoned his car, or why. The only things that can *possibly* link up, are Zimmerman seeing Martin at the edge of the street, looking both ways, Martin walking by him at the clubhouse, and then Zimmerman following him - but that would (if you assume it took about 15-30 seconds for Zimmerman to drive to the clubhouse and call "311") put Zimmerman's car far away from where he said he parked, near the mailboxes. Everything else he says, until the fight, are lies.

And he obviously lied about the fight as well, since he was contradicting himself, and making impossible statements about that.

As I said, Zimmerman's clearly a very stupid liar.

Not that we haven't seen him pull the same "Nah, that other person attacked *me*" line several other times now...oh, wait....

 

[quadraginta]

And the thing that most Zimmerman supporters seem to want to sweep under the rug is that despite the horrible job the prosecution did of presenting their case, it wasn't a slamdunk acquittal. At least one juror wanted to convict him, and reportedly two others did as well.

That's saying something considering that the common refrain has been that there wasn't enough evidence to even charge Zimmerman in the first place.

It's always seemed weird to me that such a thread-the-needle acquittal is viewed by some as a complete and total exoneration of Zimmerman, and evidence that every aspect of his story is true.

"Thread-the-needle". I like that. I'm going to have to try and remember it.

And I agree. George was acquitted because of 'reasonable doubt'. An excess of it, in my opinion, but I can still recognize that a conviction would have been "thread-the-needle" as well, especially with Florida's attitude toward claims of self-defense.

I also agree that it is ridiculous to characterize that acquittal as any sort of evidence that he wasn't actually guilty. It is only evidence that the threshold of 'beyond reasonable doubt' wasn't met ... in the minds of this jury.

 

[WildCat]

"Thread-the-needle". I like that. I'm going to have to try and remember it.

And I agree. George was acquitted because of 'reasonable doubt'. An excess of it, in my opinion, but I can still recognize that a conviction would have been "thread-the-needle" as well, especially with Florida's attitude toward claims of self-defense.

I also agree that it is ridiculous to characterize that acquittal as any sort of evidence that he wasn't actually guilty. It is only evidence that the threshold of 'beyond reasonable doubt' wasn't met ... in the minds of this jury.

Keep hanging on to that, and continue to ignore that the prosecution had absolutely no evidence supporting their charges, and the case was based entirely on speculation and assertions and would never have even lead to charges or a trial in normal circumstances. And in fact all of the evidence presented by the prosecution supported Zimmerman's version of events.

 

[Giz]

Keep hanging on to that, and continue to ignore that the prosecution had absolutely no evidence supporting their charges, and the case was based entirely on speculation and assertions and would never have even lead to charges or a trial in normal circumstances. And in fact all of the evidence presented by the prosecution supported Zimmerman's version of events.

It's useless to point it out. People got so emotionally invested that they became incapable of viewing the accumulating evidence and trial rationally.

 

[Unabogie]

It's useless to point it out. People got so emotionally invested that they became incapable of viewing the accumulating evidence and trial rationally.

Look, there's nothing to hang on to. Zimmerman got away with murder and there's nothing anyone can do with that. But since his acquittal, Zimmerman has clearly demonstrated again and again that he's a violent, unhinged, and unlawful thug. Whether it's barricading himself inside his girlfriend's home after threatening her with a gun, or assaulting his ex-faith-in-law, or stalking a person over a road rage incident, anyone who hasn't re-examined their opinion of this guy and questioned whether or not he's actually the meek and mild victim his lawyers claimed he was is either dishonest or has other biases they're clinging to.

 

[Giz]

Look, there's nothing to hang on to. Zimmerman got away with murder and there's nothing anyone can do with that. But since his acquittal, Zimmerman has clearly demonstrated again and again that he's a violent, unhinged, and unlawful thug. Whether it's barricading himself inside his girlfriend's home after threatening her with a gun, or assaulting his ex-faith-in-law, or stalking a person over a road rage incident, anyone who hasn't re-examined their opinion of this guy and questioned whether or not he's actually the meek and mild victim his lawyers claimed he was is either dishonest or has other biases they're clinging to.

Or, suffering from PTSD after a bunch of fellow Dems tried to lynch him.

 

[johnny karate]

Or, suffering from PTSD after a bunch of fellow Dems tried to lynch him.

Well, Angela Corey is a Republican assigned to the Zimmerman case by a Republican governor, so I'm not sure how that impacts your conspiracy theory.

I'm not sure Zimmerman got away with murder, but I feel pretty certain he got away with manslaughter.

His attorneys played it smart and took the path of least resistance. They made the state prove their case instead of putting Zimmerman in position to have to prove his. And that was no accident. It was a shrewd legal strategy. And despite, that - and coupled with the fact that the prosecution put on a terrible case - half the jury still went into deliberations wanting to convict Zimmerman.

To pretend this whole thing was a miscarriage of justice for Zimmerman, and that the verdict was a resounding exoneration is disingenuous.

This guy got away with something by gaming the system, and now he's out in the world, proving on a consistence basis what a public menace he is and always has been.

 

[Unabogie]

Or, suffering from PTSD after a bunch of fellow Dems tried to lynch him.

This would only be logical if the violent outbursts occurred solely after the acquittal. However, we know that Zimmerman had several violent episodes involving both an assault on a DEA agent and a spousal abuse accusation occurring prior to the murder, as well as an accusation of rape and molestation. These violent and disturbing episodes have continued after the acquittal, and include multiple instances of spousal abuse. To blame all of this on "Dems" seems like willful ignorance.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

This would only be logical if the violent outbursts occurred solely after the acquittal. However, we know that Zimmerman had several violent episodes involving both an assault on a DEA agent and a spousal abuse accusation occurring prior to the murder, as well as an accusation of rape and molestation. These violent and disturbing episodes have continued after the acquittal, and include multiple instances of spousal abuse. To blame all of this on "Dems" seems like willful ignorance.

Did you mean to say "he pushed somebody" ? Because that's not really worth being called assault, right ?

And of course, we have to take the police officers word for that. Good thing we know police are 100% honest and would never lie or exaggerate under any circumstances, right ?

And accusations are pretty much the same as "actually happened" , I suppose.

 

[Unabogie]

Did you mean to say "he pushed somebody" ? Because that's not really worth being called assault, right ?

And of course, we have to take the police officers word for that. Good thing we know police are 100% honest and would never lie or exaggerate under any circumstances, right ?

And accusations are pretty much the same as "actually happened" , I suppose.

I'm sorry, would it be more accurate to call him a "strongarm robber"? I keep forgetting when shoving someone is a sign you're a violent felon and when it's just a misunderstanding. As I said above, if you haven't re-examined your opinion of George Zimmerman after all of the violent outbursts since his acquittal, there's something else at work there.

 

[McHell]

Did you mean to say "he pushed somebody" ? Because that's not really worth being called assault, right?

Actually the correct term is "battery." Your opinion as to the seriousness of the incident has no bearing on the actual facts.

Florida Statute 784.03 Battery; felony battery.—

(1)(a) The offense of battery occurs when a person:
1. Actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other; or
2. Intentionally causes bodily harm to another person.

And of course, we have to take the police officers word for that. Good thing we know police are 100% honest and would never lie or exaggerate under any circumstances, right?

And accusations are pretty much the same as "actually happened" , I suppose.

What reasons, if any, do you have for believing that this particular police officer lied in this particular instance? Or are you merely pointing out that it's merely possible that the police officer lied - in which case why did you bother pointing that out considering that nobody, anywhere, at any time, ever suggested otherwise?

Do you think people accused of crimes (like Zimmerman) are "100% honest and would never lie or exaggerate under any circumstances?"

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Actually the correct term is "battery." Your opinion as to the seriousness of the incident has no bearing on the actual facts.

He wasn't charged with battery - thanks for the definition though.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/...ing-justice-a-felony-sentence-Anger-Managemet

He was arrested in 2005 in Orlando Fl. for resisting an undercover alcohol control officer (who was making arrests in a bar), and obstructing justice (a felony).

What reasons, if any, do you have for believing that this particular police officer lied in this particular instance? Or are you merely pointing out that it's merely possible that the police officer lied - in which case why did you bother pointing that out considering that nobody, anywhere, at any time, ever suggested otherwise?

Do you think people accused of crimes (like Zimmerman) are "100% honest and would never lie or exaggerate under any circumstances?"

If you really want to understand, you need to read the entire thread. I wouldn't recommend it.

I was just curious about the inconsistencies on positions held in this thread versus another thread. There appears to be much hypocrisy.

 

[McHell]

He wasn't charged with battery - thanks for the definition though.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/...ing-justice-a-felony-sentence-Anger-Managemet

He was arrested in 2005 in Orlando Fl. for resisting an undercover alcohol control officer (who was making arrests in a bar), and obstructing justice (a felony).

Thanks for the link, but I prefer to go directly to the source - in this case the Orange County Clerk of the Court website where anyone can look up Zimmerman's records themselves.

There were two charges, one of which was in fact battery on a law enforcement officer.

Charges: ZIMMERMAN, GEORGE MICHAEL
1. CR-RESISTING OFFICER WITH VIOLENCE
843.01 Third Degree - Felony 07/16/2005

2. BATTERY ON LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
784.07(2)(B) Third Degree - Felony 07/16/2005

Zimmerman was initially arrested and charged with battery and resisting arrest with violence. He agreed to participate in a first-time offender program, and so the charges were eventually reduced to resisting without violence, and then dropped altogether after completion of the program.

If you really want to understand, you need to read the entire thread. I wouldn't recommend it.

I was just curious about the inconsistencies on positions held in this thread versus another thread. There appears to be much hypocrisy.

Fair enough, I was just interested to see if you were consistent in your skepticism as well.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Thanks for the link, but I prefer to go directly to the source - in this case the Orange County Clerk of the Court website where anyone can look up Zimmerman's records themselves.

There were two charges, one of which was in fact battery on a law enforcement officer.

Zimmerman was initially arrested and charged with battery and resisting arrest with violence. He agreed to participate in a first-time offender program, and so the charges were eventually reduced to resisting without violence, and then dropped altogether after completion of the program.

Fair enough, I was just interested to see if you were consistent in your skepticism as well.

Thanks, I didn't find the original link and I didn't remember the specific charges.

So to answer your questions - both police and people like (and including) George Zimmerman lie.

 

[Mumbles]

It's useless to point it out. People got so emotionally invested that they became incapable of viewing the accumulating evidence and trial rationally.

From what I can see, Zimmerman's own defense conceded that Zimmerman racially profiled (they even brought up a witness to swear that she had two young black men break into her home before, that the one who had been caught was not Martin, and that she had discussed the break-in with Zimmerman many times, and then said that this is why Martin "fit the profile") and followed Martin. Jeantel's testimony shows showed that Zimmerman continued looking for Martin after he hung up his own phone, and almost certainly started the fight. Zimmerman himself claims that he pulled his pistol, aimed it at Martin, and fired. Martin's autopsy shows that he died of that gunshot wound. I'd say that this is rather a lot of evidence against Zimmerman's innocence, despite what you and Wildcat may believe.

Now, Zimmerman stated that Martin somehow saw the his gun and reached for it, but since according to all witnesses and experts Martin was straddling Zimmerman, and multiple witnesses stated that it was very dark, and Zimmerman repeatedly showed that his gun was holstered at his back, this is impossible. The prosecution should have emphasized this, instead of just briefly saying so in their closing arguments since. And Dr Bao has said that he had wished to discuss the back that both of Martin's lungs were struck by bullet fragments, thus rendering him almost immediately unable to breathe. The prosecution could have easily compared that, and the 911 tape where cries for help cut off instantly after the gun shot is heard, and compared them to Zimmerman's own claim that Martin was still talking after being shot, and that he still considered Martin to be a serious threat. But they apparently just didn't want to get into that.

At the very least, this would render Zimmerman's entire story after Martin walked by him at the clubhouse impossible, which would force him onto the stand.

But I repeat myself. Really, it was obvious since Zimmerman's phone call was released that he's some violent nut who chased down and shot a teen for walking while black. And the evidence we've seen since, only reinforced that. So again, miss me with the "there was no evidence" claim.

 

[Mumbles]

Or, suffering from PTSD after a bunch of fellow Dems tried to lynch him.

Hahahaha!

I missed this fried ball of hot shenanigans. So, a white guy (and no, being Hispanic doesn't mean you aren't culturally white) chases down and shoots a black guy who was just walking down the street, and his prosecution is *him* being lynched? Putting aside the brazen disregard for basic US history...um, Zimmerman hasn't been lynched, in any way. It's not even a good metaphor.

 

[12AX7]

And of course, we have to take the police officers word for that. Good thing we know police are 100% honest and would never lie or exaggerate under any circumstances, right ?

Agree. Cops against Zimmerman are liars and crooked. Cops for Zimmerman are top-notch investigators; the best of the best.

As I said above, if you haven't re-examined your opinion of George Zimmerman after all of the violent outbursts since his acquittal, there's something else at work there.

It seems to me that most Zimmerman supporters are either gun owners or conservatives. Weird, eh?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Agree. Cops against Zimmerman are liars and crooked. Cops for Zimmerman are top-notch investigators; the best of the best.

I know right ? It's hard to figure out when to believe what the police say, and when they are just thugs? I guess it all depends which side of the argument you are on (or which thread you are in).

It seems like you are wanting to direct that argument (snark?) at me ... but I never claimed the police investigating this case were top-notch investigators. So I guess that straw is out out the window....

It seems to me that most Zimmerman supporters are either gun owners or conservatives. Weird, eh?

And I'm neither of those. Weird, eh?