Merged Continuation Part 2: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[Dan O.]

...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.

In the past there was some debate as to where George wore the gun and also if he wore it while driving. In the video from his latest altercation, we can see the police officer removing the gun that George apparently always wears in the waistband holster in the middle of his back.

 

[McHell]

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.

How does any of this explain, refute or negate the points that I raised, which are based on physical evidence? I'm not seeing the connection, could you spell it out for me? How do these witness statements negate or explain away the apparent 30-40 foot discrepancy in terms of the location of the body relative to the "T" where Zimmerman claims the fight began? How do these witness statements negate or explain away the fact that Zimmerman's tactical flashlight was found south of the body?

The points I raised are all grounded in physical evidence that is not in dispute (e.g., the locations of items found at the crime scene), whereas your counter argument seems to be entirely based on witness statements. I would argue that, on the one hand, these statements fail to explain away the points that it raised, and on the other hand that eye witness testimony is the least reliable kind of evidence due to the way human memory and cognition actually works.

 

[tsig]

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.

I have watched the story evolve from martin taking a punch at Z to Martin stalking Z to now Martin plans to kill Z and is engaged in beating him to death when Z heroically manages to shoot him.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

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 yet somehow all the jury walked out of deliberations without convicting Zimmerman.

Clearly demonstrating that despite having "killed an unarmed child" there simply wasn't proof it wasn't in self defense.

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.

Seriously Johnny, you are better than this. If he was a acquitted, it's because he was found to have acted legally in self defense ... when else are you allowed to kill someone like that ?

I don't understand why you are choosing to quibble over all this.

 

[johnny karate]

And yet somehow all the jury walked out of deliberations without convicting Zimmerman.

Clearly demonstrating that despite having "killed an unarmed child" there simply wasn't proof it wasn't in self defense.

No, the prosecution simply failed to overcome their burden.

The trial wasn't about the defense proving self-defense, or proving anything for that matter. It was about the prosecution proving murder or manslaughter, which they failed to do.

Seriously Johnny, you are better than this. If he was a acquitted, it's because he was found to have acted legally in self defense ... when else are you allowed to kill someone like that ?

I don't understand why you are choosing to quibble over all this.

It's not a quibble. It's the how the law works. An acquittal is not a finding of fact, and demonstrates no determination about what actually happened. It doesn't prove Zimmerman was innocent, and it certainly doesn't prove he acted in self-defense. It only means that the prosecution failed to prove their case, and nothing more.

If you want to believe Zimmerman is innocent and acted in self-defense (which clearly you do), then feel free. But don't pretend his trial proved either.

 

[Cylinder]

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)...

That particular meme is objectively false. In the reenactment video, Zimmerman describes the initial encounter and the movement south. He place the terminal phase of the altercation around 12' north of the location of the body while expressing uncertainty about the exact placement. Basically Zimmerman place this endpoint behind Lauer instead of Goode and acknowledges uncertainty.



Start at 10:00.

The best I can track it, the 30-40' claim was kind of started with the media reports and social media accounts that the altercation occurred at the T without the intervening information that Zimmerman himself describes of the movement south.

 

[McHell]

That particular meme is objectively false.

The 30-40 foot discrepancy is not a meme and it most certainly didn't start on social media. It came from (a) Zimmerman's own statements to SPD as to where the altercation started and how it unfolded as compared to where the body and shell casing were found, plus (b) measurements taken from a sketch of the crime scene. In other words, it's based on actual evidence from the trial.

Zimmerman gave no less than half a dozen separate statements to SPD, including his written statement from the night of the shooting; interviews with Detectives Serino and/or Singleton on 2/26/12, 2/27/12, and 2/29/12; a voice stress test; and the reenactment.

In all but one of these statements, he says he was punched and at the "T", fell backwards and was mounted - making no mention having somehow moved 30-40 feet down the sidewalk. Only in the one reenactment video does he mention stumbling, and even then he never says it was as far down the sidewalk as where the body was found. In other words, even if we take his explanation from the reenactment as true, there is still a discrepancy of another 20 feet or more that remains unexplained.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree because I'm just not convinced by an unsatisfying half-explanation that (even if true) still leaves a material discrepancy, and that only appears in 1 out of 6 of his statements. I think the simpler and more likely explanation is that Zimmerman lied.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

No, the prosecution simply failed to overcome their burden.

The trial wasn't about the defense proving self-defense, or proving anything for that matter. It was about the prosecution proving murder or manslaughter, which they failed to do.

It's not a quibble. It's the how the law works. An acquittal is not a finding of fact, and demonstrates no determination about what actually happened. It doesn't prove Zimmerman was innocent, and it certainly doesn't prove he acted in self-defense. It only means that the prosecution failed to prove their case, and nothing more.

Since GZ (or anyone) isn't required to prove his innocence, I don't understand why you keep harping on this topic.

If you want to believe Zimmerman is innocent and acted in self-defense (which clearly you do), then feel free. But don't pretend his trial proved either.

Uhm, GZ is innocent, unless you are playing semantic games ?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

The 30-40 foot discrepancy is not a meme and it most certainly didn't start on social media. It came from (a) Zimmerman's own statements to SPD as to where the altercation started and how it unfolded as compared to where the body and shell casing were found, plus (b) measurements taken from a sketch of the crime scene. In other words, it's based on actual evidence from the trial.

Zimmerman gave no less than half a dozen separate statements to SPD, including his written statement from the night of the shooting; interviews with Detectives Serino and/or Singleton on 2/26/12, 2/27/12, and 2/29/12; a voice stress test; and the reenactment.

In all but one of these statements, he says he was punched and at the "T", fell backwards and was mounted - making no mention having somehow moved 30-40 feet down the sidewalk. Only in the one reenactment video does he mention stumbling, and even then he never says it was as far down the sidewalk as where the body was found. In other words, even if we take his explanation from the reenactment as true, there is still a discrepancy of another 20 feet or more that remains unexplained.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree because I'm just not convinced by an unsatisfying half-explanation that (even if true) still leaves a material discrepancy, and that only appears in 1 out of 6 of his statements. I think the simpler and more likely explanation is that Zimmerman lied.

Do you have an alternate theory of events that goes along with the belief that GZ lied about the altercation ?

I'd be interesting in reading it, and seeing how it reconciles with the physical evidence.

BTW, IIRC, I think it was 37 feet from the T to TM.

 

[johnny karate]

Since GZ (or anyone) isn't required to prove his innocence, I don't understand why you keep harping on this topic.

Because you seem to have difficulty understanding the difference between "not guilty" and "innocent".

Uhm, GZ is innocent, unless you are playing semantic games ?

No, Zimmerman is "not guilty". And it's not a semantic game, it's a very important and specific distinction within the law, and it's there for a reason.

 

[McHell]

Do you have an alternate theory of events that goes along with the belief that GZ lied about the altercation ?

I'd be interesting in reading it, and seeing how it reconciles with the physical evidence.

BTW, IIRC, I think it was 37 feet from the T to TM.

The short of it is that I believe Z-man told the lie about the fight happening at the "T" in order to prop up his false claim that he had called off his search for Martin before allegedly being attacked. In his attempt to make himself look completely blameless, Zimmerman locked himself into this story about calling off his search and trying to return to his truck - and I think he knew that it would be problematic to admit that he had followed or chased Martin down that sidewalk, given the story he had told.

As for the specifics of what actually did happen that night, I can only speculate of course. I wouldn't say that I have a fully formed theory as much as I have different ideas as to what is more likely to have taken place. In the end, I have a high degree of confidence that Zimmerman lied and that the requirements for manslaughter were met, even with the uncertainties and unknowns.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Because you seem to have difficulty understanding the difference between "not guilty" and "innocent".

No, Zimmerman is "not guilty". And it's not a semantic game, it's a very important and specific distinction within the law, and it's there for a reason.

Yes, yes. BTDTGTTS. I know you think this legal definition of presumption of innocence somehow supports you, but is doesn't.

I understand perfectly well that the court did not find him innocent, but rather not guilty.

The default state we are all in is innocent.

To claim that we are all simply "not guilty" of crimes, but not innocent, is simply absurd.

 

[Unabogie]

Yes, yes. BTDTGTTS. I know you think this legal definition of presumption of innocence somehow supports you, but is doesn't.

I understand perfectly well that the court did not find him innocent, but rather not guilty.

The default state we are all in is innocent.

To claim that we are all simply "not guilty" of crimes, but not innocent, is simply absurd.

I think this dumb semantic game aside, the bigger question is how you've watched George Zimmerman conduct himself over the last two years, but haven't rethought who the real "thug" was and who the person prone to violent outbursts really was and whether or not Zimmerman is a credible witness in his own defense. Seems to me a skeptic may have begun to have doubts by now.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

The short of it is that I believe Z-man told the lie about the fight happening at the "T" in order to prop up his false claim that he had called off his search for Martin before allegedly being attacked. In his attempt to make himself look completely blameless, Zimmerman locked himself into this story about calling off his search and trying to return to his truck - and I think he knew that it would be problematic to admit that he had followed or chased Martin down that sidewalk, given the story he had told.

I'm open to the possibility that GZ was searching around for TM, walking down the sidewalk, and that's why it took so long to get back to the truck. And that he was reticent to tell the police that is what he was doing.

As for the specifics of what actually did happen that night, I can only speculate of course. I wouldn't say that I have a fully formed theory as much as I have different ideas as to what is more likely to have taken place. In the end, I have a high degree of confidence that Zimmerman lied and that the requirements for manslaughter were met, even with the uncertainties and unknowns.

Just to go down the path a bit farther ... do you speculate that GZ had his gun out and chased TM down from the Tee to the location of the body?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I think this dumb semantic game aside, the bigger question is how you've watched George Zimmerman conduct himself over the last two years, but haven't rethought who the real "thug" was and who the person prone to violent outbursts really was and whether or not Zimmerman is a credible witness in his own defense. Seems to me a skeptic may have begun to have doubts by now.

Ahhhhh, the no true skeptic fallacy.

 

[Unabogie]

Ahhhhh, the no true skeptic fallacy.

I posed a question to you which you've evaded.

 

[Giz]

I think this dumb semantic game aside, the bigger question is how you've watched George Zimmerman conduct himself over the last two years, but haven't rethought who the real "thug" was and who the person prone to violent outbursts really was and whether or not Zimmerman is a credible witness in his own defense. Seems to me a skeptic may have begun to have doubts by now.

Or perhaps not due to ptsd.

In any case, if we want to look at relevant personal conduct. .. One party did have a history, prior to the incident, of street fighting and involvement in burglary.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I think this dumb semantic game aside, the bigger question is how you've watched George Zimmerman conduct himself over the last two years, but haven't rethought who the real "thug" was and who the person prone to violent outbursts really was and whether or not Zimmerman is a credible witness in his own defense. Seems to me a skeptic may have begun to have doubts by now.

I posed a question to you which you've evaded.

Your question was poorly phrased, and based on false assumptions.

I hilited the part that you couldn't possibly know whether I have done or not.

And, in the end, it's still a no true scotsman fallacy, which I think a skeptic would avoid making.

 

[Unabogie]

Or perhaps not due to ptsd.

In any case, if we want to look at relevant personal conduct. .. One party did have a history, prior to the incident, of street fighting and involvement in burglary.

No, you're factually incorrect. Where on earth did you read that Trayvon Martin had a history of street fighting and burglary? Perhaps this is why you're so confused on this issue. You've been reading false information. Besides, burglary, even if true, would have nothing to do with what happened that day since burglary is not the same as violence. We all know that the defense successfully planted the idea that Trayvon was a burglar, but no charges were ever filed against him for anything, ever. TheL8Elvis has made a case above that innocence is absolute until proven guilty. Are you saying that this standard only applies to Zimmerman and not Martin?

As to your first point about PTSD, Zimmerman's violence clearly predated the murder. He had an assault on a DEA agent, an alleged rape of a cousin, and a sordid accusation of assault on his fiancee which include kicking a dog. Looking at his post trial behavior, which included two more incidences of violence, and especially the one where he barricaded himself inside a home not his own and threatened her with a gun, and this latest road rage incident where he stalked a random guy after he "pointed at him", are you sure that you've correctly identified which of the two had a history of unstable and violent behavior?

 

[McHell]

Yes, yes. BTDTGTTS. I know you think this legal definition of presumption of innocence somehow supports you, but is doesn't.

I understand perfectly well that the court did not find him innocent, but rather not guilty.

The default state we are all in is innocent.

To claim that we are all simply "not guilty" of crimes, but not innocent, is simply absurd.

Surely your disagreement comes down to the definitions each of you are using.

If you define innocent to mean someone who has not been found guilty in a court of law (or someone who was found not guilty), then you are correct to say that Zimmerman is innocent.

If you define innocent to mean someone who actually and truly did not commit the crime of which they are accused, then you are making an unproven assertion that is at best, debatable.

I would argue that a person is, in the most true and accurate and sense, guilty if and only if they actually committed the crime of which they are accused - and this would be true regardless of whether or not they are ever convicted in a court of law. On the other hand, if and only if a person actually did not commit the crime, they are in the most true and accurate sense innocent, regardless of whether they are ever convicted in a court of law.

The decision of a jury does not retroactively change history in any way; nor does our lack of certainty with respect to what actually happened. This being the case, surely we need to have terms that describe what we think actually happened as separate and distinct from what the jury eventually decides. Hence innocent versus not guilty. To ignore the distinction seems to ignore the distinction between actual history and history as adjudicated by a jury, as if the two magically become one and the same after the trial has ended.