Merged Continuation Part 2: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[Giz]

Possibly assault. We can't know for sure.


Yeah, because black kids in Florida, or in the US in general, have confidence that they can get help from the police.

Are you completely unaware of history, modern social media, or the news? The protests here in the greater St. Louis area may be new, but the social forces behind them go back decades and centuries. In what universe would Martin have an expectation that the police would make the situation better for him?

Zimmerman calling the police is prima facie evidence that he did not plan on committing a crime or acting as a vigilante.

Martin had a working phone and chose not to use it to request assistance from law enforcement. He also chose not to remain separated after he had run off. We know these things.

And, regarding your opinion on young black people and the police... those attitudes are a big part of the problem. Civil society relies on people calling the police to respond to strangers... not grounding and pounding them into the sidewalk.

 

[Upchurch]

Zimmerman calling the police is prima facie evidence that he did not plan on committing a crime or acting as a vigilante.

Not planning to commit a crime does not mean that he didn't commit one.

Martin had a working phone and chose not to use it to request assistance from law enforcement. [snip]

And, regarding your opinion on young black people and the police... those attitudes are a big part of the problem. Civil society relies on people calling the police to respond to strangers... not grounding and pounding them into the sidewalk.

It is debatable whether those attitudes are the problem or whether other factors are the root problem. Regardless, you cannot merely hand wave away that those are real attitudes or ignore their possible effects on Martin's decision to not notify the police. To merely attribute that decision to what you perceive as his plan to attack Zimmerman is dangerously nieve.

Civil society also relies on the police not abusing their privilege against the public. You don't have to look far to find examples of that happening.

 

[McHell]

Sure, we can go over everything again ad nauseum, but to what end ?

There isn't any new evidence. I've already come to my conclusions, you to yours.

There is no reason to believe the timeline while GZ was on the NEN isn't accurate. Sure, he could be lying about where he was, or whether he really lost site of TM, etc., but I am not aware of any reason to believe that's the case - so TM had plenty of time to go 300 feet to brandys house if he wanted to. The conclusion is he didn't want to.

I simply don't believe TM was scared - that's not what his texts, photos, actions at school, actions at home, lead me to believe.

Fair enough, I won't bother rehashing the specific points then. Although I will say that I'm always open to having my mind changed with better arguments or new evidence - that's the ends for me. Please don't feel obligated to continue to respond if you aren't interested in having the discussion, though.

Also I would just like to highlight what seems to me to be an interesting tendency I'm seeing here. Namely the apparent desire to keep bringing this discussion back to focus on the actions and motivations of the deceased rather than the one who was supposed to be on trial. Notice that I asked specifically about whether you would be interested in evidence regarding the truth of falsity of Zimmerman's statements and Zimmerman's narratives, and you somehow manage to simultaneously dismiss any and all evidence that suggests he's lying ("there is no reason to believe" and "I'm not aware of any reason to believe") while at the same time changing the subject again to what Martin did and why he did it. Which I think misses the point here as he wasn't the one on trial.

More importantly, it's apparently not enough to say that the evidence was insufficient, or that it was unconvincing, rather it ends up being a blanket denial that any evidence exists at all - and that seems to be a bridge too far. We clearly do have both physical evidence and witness testimony that seems to contradict key points in Zimmerman's timeline. Now I could at least understand and respectfully disagree with folks who think said evidence and testimony just wasn't sufficient to overcome the reasonable doubt standard or folks who don't find it convincing enough, but it's a real red flag to me to see anyone start claiming that said evidence just doesn't even exist at all and that there is literally no part of Zimmerman's narrative that is in any way contradicted by the evidence. That's a blanket dismissal or denial of every shred of evidence and of testimony presented by the State at trial, which to me is a big red flag.

 

[McHell]

Zimmerman calling the police is prima facie evidence that he did not plan on committing a crime or acting as a vigilante.

Martin had a working phone and chose not to use it to request assistance from law enforcement. He also chose not to remain separated after he had run off. We know these things.

[snip part addressed to someone else]
Civil society relies on people calling the police to respond to strangers... not grounding and pounding them into the sidewalk.

I agree with you on the first point, although I would like to point out that this is not enough to take manslaughter off the table. Intent is not a required element for manslaughter, which I believe would have been the correct result.

I would argue the "ground and pound" narrative has been debunked. The physical evidence (namely the insignificant nature of the Zimmerman's injuries and lack of corroborating physical evidence from Martin's autopsy) does not support that narrative and the witness testimony that included the phrase was recanted.

Also if people not calling the police is part of the problem in civil society, then surely it's also a problem if people call the police but then for whatever reason they don't hang back and let the police handle it. That Zimmerman called the police was good and I agree with you that it indicates that he had no intention of committing a crime at that time. But the fact that he didn't haul his butt back to his truck and actually let them handle things effectively negated the fact that he had called in the first place, didn't it?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Fair enough, I won't bother rehashing the specific points then. Although I will say that I'm always open to having my mind changed with better arguments or new evidence - that's the ends for me. Please don't feel obligated to continue to respond if you aren't interested in having the discussion, though.

I'm open to discussion. I'm just not sure I'm willing to invest the time and energy required to dig for posts, re-read documents, and re-watch testimony that needs to happen to have an informed discusion.

Also I would just like to highlight what seems to me to be an interesting tendency I'm seeing here. Namely the apparent desire to keep bringing this discussion back to focus on the actions and motivations of the deceased rather than the one who was supposed to be on trial. Notice that I asked specifically about whether you would be interested in evidence regarding the truth of falsity of Zimmerman's statements and Zimmerman's narratives, and you somehow manage to simultaneously dismiss any and all evidence that suggests he's lying ("there is no reason to believe" and "I'm not aware of any reason to believe") while at the same time changing the subject again to what Martin did and why he did it. Which I think misses the point here as he wasn't the one on trial.

I don't think you asked me, specifically. Are you referring to this post ?

I understand GZ story has problems. At the end of the day, I don't think they amount to enough to overcome the burden of reasonable doubt.

What is it you think the lies will prove ?

More importantly, it's apparently not enough to say that the evidence was insufficient, or that it was unconvincing, rather it ends up being a blanket denial that any evidence exists at all - and that seems to be a bridge too far. We clearly do have both physical evidence and witness testimony that seems to contradict key points in Zimmerman's timeline. Now I could at least understand and respectfully disagree with folks who think said evidence and testimony just wasn't sufficient to overcome the reasonable doubt standard or folks who don't find it convincing enough, but it's a real red flag to me to see anyone start claiming that said evidence just doesn't even exist at all and that there is literally no part of Zimmerman's narrative that is in any way contradicted by the evidence. That's a blanket dismissal or denial of every shred of evidence and of testimony presented by the State at trial, which to me is a big red flag.

There are people on all sides of this case. Some of them are more open to discussion than others.

The side I was on is that there is no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. And in that case, it's self defense. And that's how it worked out.

 

[Cylinder]

Namely the apparent desire to keep bringing this discussion back to focus on the actions and motivations of the deceased rather than the one who was supposed to be on trial.

So you're claim is that a trial is focused solely on the actions of the accused? That's not how it works. The very essence of a claim of self defense is actions that would be criminal absent intervening circumstances.

I'm certainly curious about your claim of proof that the altercation did not begin where Zimmerman's narrative asserts -- remembering that setting an arbitrary start time for an event and later using that self-selected time as proof of exclusion has already been tried many, many times here.

 

[McHell]

I understand GZ story has problems. At the end of the day, I don't think they amount to enough to overcome the burden of reasonable doubt.

In which case I have no more nits to pick with you then. I am comfortable respectfully agreeing to disagree with you on the final conclusion.

 

[McHell]

So you're claim is that a trial is focused solely on the actions of the accused? That's not how it works. The very essence of a claim of self defense is actions that would be criminal absent intervening circumstances.

No, I did not intend to suggest that a trial is "solely focused on the actions of the accused". My apologies for not being more clear. First, I was talking about discussion that is occurring here on this forum, not about standards and rules of law that apply in a trial. That said, of course I agree with you that Martins's actions and motivations matter and they are fair game for discussion, but I would argue that they matter less so than Zimmerman's, primarily by due to the fact that Martin's consequences (for whatever role he played that night) have already been meted out in final form. Additionally, since Zimmerman was the one on trial, Martin's actions and motivations only really mattered to the extent that they may have influenced and provided context for Zimmerman's actions and motivations.

What I intended to point out was an apparent tendency by some people to repeatedly shift discussion away from Zimmerman and onto Martin. Whether it's intentional or not, it just comes off to me like an attempt at deflection at times. Again, please note that I said "some people" meaning not everyone. If anyone thinks this shoe doesn't fit, then perhaps you aren't amongst those to whom I was referring.

I hope you don't mind that I will try to address the other point in a separate response.

 

[johnny karate]

I would argue the "ground and pound" narrative has been debunked. The physical evidence (namely the insignificant nature of the Zimmerman's injuries and lack of corroborating physical evidence from Martin's autopsy) does not support that narrative and the witness testimony that included the phrase was recanted.

The "ground and pound" narrative has been misunderstood and misconstrued from the beginning due to a clever defense attorney and people with predetermined conclusions.

The term was only ever used to describe the position Martin was in on top of Zimmerman, it was never used to describe his actions. And the witness who used the term was quite clear on that point, testifying unambiguously that he did not see Martin striking Zimmerman or slamming his head into the concrete. He merely described what he saw as a struggle.

O'Mara - to his credit - emphasized "ground and pound" over and over again to the jury, while the prosecution did nothing to counter that tactic.

And so "ground and pound" has become an accepted part of Zimmerman lore - along with Martin's "assault" - that uncritical minds accept at face-value and parrot as if it were the truth.

 

[johnny karate]

The side I was on is that there is no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

And yet somehow half the jury walked into deliberations wanting to convict Zimmerman.

Zimmerman wasn't acquitted due to lack of evidence. He was acquitted because the defense put on a much better case than the prosecution. And it still almost didn't go his way.

And in that case, it's self defense. And that's how it worked out.

Incorrect. Zimmerman was merely acquitted. End of story. There was no official ruling or determination made that he actually acted in self-defense.

Zimmerman had the opportunity to have an official self-defense ruling made on his behalf, and he chose otherwise.

 

[johnny karate]

I don't claim to have the evidence you're asking for, but I wonder if you would be at all interested or moved by a simple demonstration that Zimmerman almost surely lied to detectives about how and/or where the fight began? This can (IMO at least) be done using only Zimmerman's own recorded statements as compared with some of the physical evidence.

I wouldn't bother. We've been round and round and that topic to no avail.

Here's how it basically breaks down: Whatever parts of Zimmerman's story that are confirmed by independent evidence is proof that Zimmerman was telling the unvarnished truth. Whatever parts are contradicted by independent evidence are dismissed because of how traumatized and confused Zimmerman was from suffering a vicious attack.

You'll note the nice bit of circular logic that allows one to presume Zimmerman is telling the truth in order to believe he is telling the truth.

 

[McHell]

I'm certainly curious about your claim of proof that the altercation did not begin where Zimmerman's narrative asserts -- remembering that setting an arbitrary start time for an event and later using that self-selected time as proof of exclusion has already been tried many, many times here.

Let's be clear as to what I actually claimed as opposed to the way you put it above. Forgive me for quoting myself but apparently it's necessary to avoid further confusion. Please note that not only did I not make any sort of "claim of proof" as you put it, but that I also repeatedly and explicitly stated otherwise.

Not to quibble, but I would argue that we do have some fairly compelling evidence of the reverse, in that there is some good evidence to show that Zimmerman's version of how the confrontation started and unfolded is untrue. I'm talking about both physical evidence and witness testimony.

We can't definitively prove anything of course, but it's also not like a toss-up or a coin-flip or anything. Not even close. The evidence weighs very heavily on the side of Zimmerman being responsible for provoking the physical confrontation, IMO, and so (INAL but) I believe a manslaughter conviction would have been the correct application of the law.

I wonder if you would be at all interested or moved by a simple demonstration that Zimmerman almost surely lied to detectives about how and/or where the fight began?

As to the specific evidence that I was referring to, I'll just note that what I consider to be the two best evidence-based reasons that I strongly suspect that Zimmerman lied about how and/or where the fight began. I think there are more reasons that could be mentioned and others might disagree as to which are the best reasons, but if you aren't moved or impressed at all by either of these then IMO there's no point mentioning the rest.

Please keep in mind I'm not saying any of this amounts to proof, only that these reasons (and others) are sufficient to convince me that he's almost certainly lying.

(1) The apparent discrepancy between the alleged location of the start of the fight compared to the location of the body

Zimmerman says (in recorded statements to SPD) the fight started at the "T" intersection, he was punched in the face, fell backwards and was mounted. Yet somehow the body ended 30-40 feet down the sidewalk in the direction of Martin's destination and in the opposite direction of Zimmerman's truck (which he says that he had intended to return to). Zimmerman never really was able to provide a convincing explanation for this apparent 30-40 foot discrepency.​

(2) The location of Zimmerman's tactical flashlight

Zimmerman says (in recorded statements to SPD) that he had his tactical flashlight in his hand at the moment that he and Martin came face to face and he was allegedly punched in the nose. As established already, we know he claims this occurred at the "T" intersection, whereas the tactical flashlight was actually found south of the body, which (as has also already been established) was found 30-40 feet from the "T".

We are left with two possible explanations, as far as I can tell. One, that the confrontation actually occurred much closer to where the tactical flashlight was found than to the "T", which would seem to suggest that Zimmerman lied. Or two, the confrontation actually did start at the "T" and that Zimmerman somehow managed to hold onto that tactical flashlight during his as yet unexplained trip from the "T" to where the body was found. Which is certainly possible but I would argue it's not very likely or convincing.

The two main theories that have been floated to explain this trip from the "T" to where the body was found are that either Zimmerman stumbled forward some 30-40 feet after being punched in the nose and before falling on his back and being mounted (which directly contradicts what Zimmerman himself said about it), or that he managed to "shimmy" down there on his back with Martin mounted on his chest (which also directly contradicts what Zimmerman said about it). Or some combination thereof. In any case, he did this all while holding on to that tactical flashlight and yet apparently never once managing to use it in defense at any point.​

Of course I have no doubts that you can come up with some way to explain these and other apparent discrepancies away. However at some point I would argue that Occam's Razor kicks in and the mere fact that so many post-hoc explanations are even necessary becomes good reason to suspect that Zimmerman lied. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts as to what specific points you disagree with and why.

 

[KatieG]

Stand his ground against what? What crime was Zimmerman committing?

Do you realize that SYG laws only mean you have no duty to retreat from someone intent on committing a crime against you?

We also know that of the 2, only Zimmerman called the police. And as Psiload mentioned in the 4 minutes and 7 seconds that elapsed after Zimmerman said "he ran" Zimmerman only ventured a few dozen feet to the T, which is where the incident occurred. Wherever Martin "ran", it wasn't far.

It's not like Martin didn't have a phone with which to call the police, because he did. He chose not to, because he didn't want police to be there. Zimmerman did.

There is not one shred of evidence that's true. You don't know whether Trayvon Martin wanted the police there or not. You just made that up to fit your scenario.

 

[Mike!]

There is not one shred of evidence that's true. You don't know whether Trayvon Martin wanted the police there or not. You just made that up to fit your scenario.

Did Trayvon call the police? He had a phone. Did he ask the person he was talking to, on the other end of that same phone, to call the police for him? It's a sure bet they had a phone too. I'm pretty sure we do know the answer to those two questions, don't we?

 

[Cylinder]

Of course I have no doubts that you can come up with some way to explain these and other apparent discrepancies away. However at some point I would argue that Occam's Razor kicks in...

Jeantel describes the three-part exchange and a bump with no mention of any altercation occurring before that point.

Zimmerman describes a three-part exchange then asserts he was struck -- this occurring just west of the T and moving south.

Lauer describes a three-part exchange that occurs near the north side of her townhome which turns into an altercation that moves south down the dogwalk.

The Manalos describe the altercation occurring just south of their townhome which kind of caps the T.

Goode describes the altercation moving south toward his townhome and ending in his backyard.

 

[This is The End]

Martin would be presumably acting on the perception of being observed and followed in a common area.

You are conveniently leaving out the part where Z made a move for his pocket immediately when M asked Z why Z was following M. He said "I don't have a problem" while reaching for his pocket. This is according to Z's own story. That is the justification for self defense, and you leave it out for a reason.

Remember, under Florida law, Martin does not have to have evidence that what Z was going for was a gun, just reasonable suspicion. The guy was following him, in the dark, repeatedly, with no other people around anywhere. Not in dispute at all. Then when asked what he wants he immediately reaches for his pocket. Not in dispute at all. That, under Florida law, is slam dunk reasonable suspicion for self defense.

Zimmerman was acting on the reality of being punched in the face, mounted and having his head driven into a concrete sidewalk.

First of all the highlighted is made up ********. You know it. I know it. We all know it. Let's not kid ourselves. No one on that night was having their head driven into concrete repeatedly.

Secondly the punch and the mounting were in self defense as explained above.

No double standard necessary.

Exactly. Zimmerman had little right to self defense when the other person was justifiably defending themselves from Zimmerman.

Remember, two of the jurors said they had made a mistake immediately after the trial when presented will all of the evidence. One of them even said "a horrible" mistake.

Any competent prosecutor could have gotten manslaughter easily. Murder would be pretty much impossible.




http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hanni...eorge-zimmerman-breaks-silence-hannity?page=3

ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir. And I was wearing a rain jacket, and I had put my cell phone in my jacket pocket, as opposed to my jeans pocket where I normally keep it. And I immediately went to grab my phone to this time call 911 instead of a non-emergency, and when I reached into my pants pocket -- because that's where I keep it out of habit -- it wasn't there, and I was shocked. I looked up and he punched me and broke my nose.

 

[Mumbles]

Did Trayvon call the police? He had a phone. Did he ask the person he was talking to, on the other end of that same phone, to call the police for him? It's a sure bet they had a phone too. I'm pretty sure we do know the answer to those two questions, don't we?

No, we don't.

Why would he even think about the police?

It's clear that Zimmerman was right by him, and cops weren't all that close. At that point, it's already too late to call police - as was made obvious by the fact that they didn't show up until after he was fatally shot, despite being called beforehand. Also, it's pretty easy to find people who were followed, threatened, etc. who took it to law enforcement...only to have law enforcement state that they couldn't really do anything - and many times, they are right to say so. Even in this case, the police chief basically shrugged off the fact that Zimmerman was following Martin, and declared that he knew Martin "regrets what he did", as if we know of any actual wrongdoing by Martin. In his case, the first issue would be safety getting away from the creepy guy following him around, not calling the police.

 

[johnny karate]

Did Trayvon call the police? He had a phone. Did he ask the person he was talking to, on the other end of that same phone, to call the police for him? It's a sure bet they had a phone too. I'm pretty sure we do know the answer to those two questions, don't we?

Who did or didn't call he police proves nothing about nothing.

Martin had no obligation to call the police, and probably felt he could defend himself, which Florida law quite clearly allowed him to do.

Zimmerman called the police before he had done anything wrong or knew how his poor judgement would quickly escalate the situation. There are at least two other incidences (one before the shooting and one after) in which we have seen Zimmerman behave confrontationally and quickly resort to unprovoked violence. It would have been perfectly in character for him if this was a third.

 

[johnny karate]

ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir. And I was wearing a rain jacket, and I had put my cell phone in my jacket pocket, as opposed to my jeans pocket where I normally keep it. And I immediately went to grab my phone to this time call 911 instead of a non-emergency, and when I reached into my pants pocket -- because that's where I keep it out of habit -- it wasn't there, and I was shocked. I looked up and he punched me and broke my nose.

It's funny, but if an unarmed black guy makes a move like that while sitting in his car, it's perfectly reasonable for the police to smash his window and taze him.

But if a black kid punches the strange guy following him for doing the same thing, it's assault.

And, once again, here's what Florida law tells about the use of force in self-defense:

A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.

So, by Zimmerman's own account, we can conclusively determine Martin was legally defending himself from Zimmerman.

 

[This is The End]

Zimmerman calling the police is prima facie evidence that he did not plan on committing a crime or acting as a vigilante.

Note you said "plan on". We're talking about manslaughter here, it doesn't require a "plan on".

Also, I dispute that entire claim. People acting as vigilantes call the police while doing it all the time.