Merged Continuation Part 2: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[Unabogie]

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.

Oh, wait, so you've not paid attention to Zimmerman's post trial violence? Or you're just saying that to continue being pedantic.

 

[McHell]

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.

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?

I do think it is a strong possibility, at least, that Zimmerman had his gun out during that time but obviously it's nothing more than speculation. If I had to place a bet on whether he did or not, I would cautiously put my chips down on "yes," not least because his story about how Martin eventually spotted the gun seems physically impossible (i.e., black gun in a black holster tucked inside the waist and worn closer the backside, while laying on the ground, with Martin straddling him, with very little light in which to see clearly, and during the midst of a life or death struggle, etc.). I would confidently bet all of my chips on the fact that the gun came into play earlier in the narrative than Zimmerman claims, but I can't really pinpoint the exact moment.

I wouldn't necessarily say that Zimmerman "chased" Martin down the sidewalk, but I do think that he continued searching for him and made no effort and had no intent to go back to his truck. The word "chase" seems paint the picture of one person running away and the other running after them, whereas what seems to have happened here is that Martin stopped running for some period and was either hiding or circled back for whatever reason. For that reason I think "follow" or "search" is more precise than "chase."

 

[12AX7]

The cultural assumption is that all young black men are violent thugs and that white guys are law abiding citizens that would never provoke a fight. Even when the history of the individuals involved indicates the opposite.

George Zimmerman has repeatedly proved he is an immature hothead but we still pretend that Martin must have started the fight.

This.

You know, one would think Zimmerman's supporters would take a step back, look at Zimmerman's behavior since the Martin incident, and rethink their position on the case and what happened that night. You know, maybe say to themselves "Gee, George may not have been completely honest in his version of the story, or maybe George bears at least some culpability in the event".

That kind of intellectual honesty would be refreshing to see. If its happened, I must have missed it.

 

[McHell]

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.

The other (Zimmerman) had a prior criminal record with violent crimes including battery on a law enforcement officer and resisting arrest with violence, plus domestic violence. You can verify these records yourself through the Orange County Clerk of the Court website. Let's not forget about the accusation of child molestation as well.

Before you argue that Zimmerman was never convicted of those allegations, recall that Martin was never even arrested much less actually convicted of anything.

In short, if you try to condemn Martin for allegations that were never proven to be true, then by the same reasoning (such as it is) you should also condemn Zimmerman for the serious allegations in his past. If you try to ignore or minimize Zimmerman's past allegations on the basis that he was never convicted, certainly the same reasoning would mean that you should also ignore or minimize Martin's.

Unless you are operating with a blatant double-standard, that is.

 

[12AX7]

Not assault Zimmerman.

Ok.

Martin shouldn't have assaulted Zimmerman.

I got a better one:

How about Zimmerman stay in his damn truck and let the police handle the event instead of following Martin? You know, like he was asked to do by the police dispatcher?

How about that?

 

[McHell]

I got a better one:

How about Zimmerman stay in his damn truck and let the police handle the event instead of following Martin? You know, like he was asked to do by the police dispatcher?

How about that?

Not only was Zimmerman told by the non-emergency call-taker "OK, we don't need you to do that" [follow him], prior to that night he had been instructed by SPD representatives as to the rules and guidelines for neighborhood watch - which include don't carry weapons, don't follow or engage people, just get away from the situation, call the police and let them handle it, etc.

While it is certainly not illegal to disregard neighborhood watch rules or the advice of the SPD call-taker, it does speak to whether or not his behavior should be considered to have been reasonably prudent and/or more likely to provoke a response in his "suspect." I believe it also should have weighed more heavily as to his level of responsibility for what occurred.

On 9/22/11, Zimmerman and 24 others from the neighborhood were provided with both written and verbal instruction from SPD (including PowerPoint presentation and written handbook), much of which was ignored by Zimmerman on 2/26/12.

Excerpt from SPD rep Wendy Dorival's 3/19/12 statement to FDLE:

DORIVAL: "In this case [the presentation for Retreat View] I had an officer and a Sergeant there... Mr. Zimmerman was present..."
DORIVAL: "Actually, during the whole presentation, and in the manuals, excuse me, the coordinator handbook, it says you don't approach him, you don't make contact, no confrontations, um, don't try to get into a physical altercation with him. I mean, you kind of see that kind of wording everywhere."
(...)
FDLE: "So again, the policy is for them is just to simply observe and report?"
DORIVAL: "Observe and report, that's..."
FLDE: "Don't follow, not..."
DORIVAL: "No, never!"
FDLE: "...not to carry a firearm..."
DORIVAL: "No."
FDLE: "...and confront individuals on the property?"
DORIVAL: "No, not at all! We always tell them 'let the police do their job. Call us and let us take of it...'"

 

[Cylinder]

I got a better one:

How about Zimmerman stay in his damn truck and let the police handle the event instead of following Martin? You know, like he was asked to do by the police dispatcher?

How about that?

Or Martin keep his damn fist out of Zimmerman's nose. Zimmerman had the same right to that common area as Martin. What exactly was it that created an exclusion zone around the dog walk that night.

 

[johnny karate]

Or Martin keep his damn fist out of Zimmerman's nose.

Florida law allows you to defend yourself with force against someone who you reasonably believe to be a threat, and does not require you to retreat.

1) Martin was being followed by a stranger at night.

2) The stranger did not identify himself nor announce his intentions.

3) The stranger made a quick move for his pocket.

Sounds to me like a reasonable justification to defend oneself.

I'm wondering why you disagree.

 

[Dan O.]

I've said it before and nothing has come to light to change my belief. I don't think the gun came into play until the moment before George shot Trayvon.

If the gun was out earlier, Trayvon would have at a minimum tried to gain control of that gun or disabled George to prevent him from using it. There were no prints or DNA found on the Gun that would indicate such a struggle took place.

We see exactly where George carries his gun. It is in the waistband holder in the middle of his backside. [could someone post a clipping from that last altercation showing the officer retrieving the gun from George's person]

With the gun in this position and Trayvon strattling George, it will be impossible for Trayvon to see the gun as George has claimed and it will be impossible for George to retrieve the Gun.

Trayvon has to be backing off in order to give George access to the Gun.

 

[McHell]

Or Martin keep his damn fist out of Zimmerman's nose. Zimmerman had the same right to that common area as Martin. What exactly was it that created an exclusion zone around the dog walk that night.

Of course both had a right to be in the common area, but then both should also be held responsible for what happens based on their decision as to when and how to exercise said right, right?

The question is not whether Zimmerman had a right to be there, but whether his decision as to when and how to exercise that right may have amounted to provocation or a perceived threat to Martin. The question is how did Zimmerman's nose end up close enough to be punched by Martin in the first place, and what exactly happened just prior to the punch.

Last point... Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding you, buy you seem to be hung up on the question as to which one struck the first blow, as if that's indicative of who is more responsible. However that's just not consistent with Florida law on justifiable use of force. Responsibility does not necessarily come down to who threw the first punch - in this case it's down to whether or not Zimmerman did anything to (intentionally or unintentionally) provoke a reasonable fear in Martin's mind.

Here's a brief excerpt from SPD Detective Chris Serino's (CS) exchange with Zimmerman from the 2/29/12 interview (emphasis added):

CS: Okay, so by not, were you, your job’s not to really to do anything at all when it comes to that kind of, it wasn’t your job...
GZ: [inaudible]
CS: … to monitor him either, but for future reference, I mean you can usually dismiss a lot of this kind of insanity… I mean, had that been done, and that’s, you know, and from our vantage point, you’ve had two opportunities to identify yourself as somebody who was actually not meaning to do him harm. Problem being, is that we’re visiting in his mind’s eye, which I can’t get into because he’s passed, that he perceives you as a threat. Okay, he perceives you as a threat, he has every right to go and defend himself, especially when you reach into your pocket to grab a cell phone.

Here's an excerpt from the final recommendation of (manslaughter) charges from Serino.

"Investigative findings show that George Michael Zimmerman had at least two opportunities to speak with Trayvon Benjamin Martin in order to defuse the circumstances surrounding their encounter. On at least two occasions, George Michael Zimmerman failed to identify himself as a concerned resident or a neighborhood watch member to Trayvon Benjamin Martin. Investigative findings show the physical dimensions of Trayvon Benjamin Martin, and that of George Michael Zimmerman, coupled with the absence of any specialized training in hand to hand combat between either combatant, did not place George Michael Zimmerman in an extraordinary or exceptional disadvantage of apparent physical ability or defensive capacity. Investigative findings show the physical injuries displayed by George Michael Zimmerman are marginally consistent with a life-threatening violent episode as described by him, during which neither a deadly weapon nor deadly force was deployed by Trayvon Martin."

"The encounter between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin was ultimately avoidable by Zimmerman if Zimmerman had remained in his vehicle and awaited the arrival of law enforcement or conversely if he had identified himself to Martin as a concerned citizen and initiated dialog in an effort to dispel each party's concern. There is no indication that Trayvon Martin was involved in any criminal activity at the time of the encounter."

“Based upon facts and circumstances outlined in this narrative, I believe there exists probable cause for issuance of a capias charging George Michael Zimmerman with Manslaughter, in violation of Ch. 782.07 FS.”

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Oh, wait, so you've not paid attention to Zimmerman's post trial violence? Or you're just saying that to continue being pedantic.

No, I'm saying you are making lots of assumptions about things you don't know.

Regardless of my opinions on GZ, that doesn't change whether or not I believe there was sufficient evidence to find him guilty.

For some posters, this thread has always been about what they believed GZ did. For me, I have tried to focus on what I thought the state could prove GZ did.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I do think it is a strong possibility, at least, that Zimmerman had his gun out during that time but obviously it's nothing more than speculation. If I had to place a bet on whether he did or not, I would cautiously put my chips down on "yes," not least because his story about how Martin eventually spotted the gun seems physically impossible (i.e., black gun in a black holster tucked inside the waist and worn closer the backside, while laying on the ground, with Martin straddling him, with very little light in which to see clearly, and during the midst of a life or death struggle, etc.). I would confidently bet all of my chips on the fact that the gun came into play earlier in the narrative than Zimmerman claims, but I can't really pinpoint the exact moment.

OK, thanks. I thought that's where you were going.

I wouldn't necessarily say that Zimmerman "chased" Martin down the sidewalk, but I do think that he continued searching for him and made no effort and had no intent to go back to his truck. The word "chase" seems paint the picture of one person running away and the other running after them, whereas what seems to have happened here is that Martin stopped running for some period and was either hiding or circled back for whatever reason. For that reason I think "follow" or "search" is more precise than "chase."

In this instance, I literally meant chased him from the tee, and perhaps tried to "arrest" or detain TM.

Thanks for elaborating.

 

[Unabogie]

No, I'm saying you are making lots of assumptions about things you don't know.

Regardless of my opinions on GZ, that doesn't change whether or not I believe there was sufficient evidence to find him guilty.

For some posters, this thread has always been about what they believed GZ did. For me, I have tried to focus on what I thought the state could prove GZ did.

Yet you called Trayvon Martin a "thug", so apparently you don't actually hold that standard across the board since no one ever "proved" that any more than they proved Zimmerman was guilty of murder.

 

[Dan O.]

In this instance, I literally meant chased him from the tee, and perhaps tried to "arrest" or detain TM.

And would you agree that George would be committing a crime if he had in fact attempted to arrest or detain Trayvon at that point? And would you further agree that Trayvon would be within his rights to defend himself against such an unwarranted assault?

 

[Upchurch]

For some posters, this thread has always been about what they believed GZ did. For me, I have tried to focus on what I thought the state could prove GZ did.

Yet you called Trayvon Martin a "thug", so apparently you don't actually hold that standard across the board since no one ever "proved" that any more than they proved Zimmerman was guilty of murder.

Agreed. That the state could not prove Zimmerman's guilt, that does not prove the reverse that Martin is guilty of assaulting Zimmerman first. A great many posters have failed to acknowledge or accept this basic fact. Largely, I feel, because it goes against their preferred narrative.

 

[Mumbles]

Agreed. That the state could not prove Zimmerman's guilt, that does not prove the reverse that Martin is guilty of assaulting Zimmerman first. A great many posters have failed to acknowledge or accept this basic fact. Largely, I feel, because it goes against their preferred narrative.

Well, I wouldn't say that they *couldn't* prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, I think they simply dropped the ball. Again, the only evidence we have that Martin assaulted Zimmerman is Zimmerman's own story. And his story contains numerous impossibilities - from how far along Martin could have walked in the given time frame, to what the dispatcher asked Zimmerman to do.

As counterevidence, we have Zimmerman's stated motivation "they always get away.", his clear hostility towards Martin, Martin's apparent fear of Zimmerman (to the point of running away from him - and frankly, the claim that Martin did not run because he was afraid of the random guy staring at him and following him, is just stupid), and the fact that the fight could not have occured as Zimmerman describes.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Yet you called Trayvon Martin a "thug", so apparently you don't actually hold that standard across the board since no one ever "proved" that any more than they proved Zimmerman was guilty of murder.

TM proved he was a thug himself. Did you see the pics and texts on his phone ? That's why he was kicked out of his mothers house, and suspended from school. Because he was a thug.

Which is besides the point of what could be proven about GZ actions.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

And would you agree that George would be committing a crime if he had in fact attempted to arrest or detain Trayvon at that point? And would you further agree that Trayvon would be within his rights to defend himself against such an unwarranted assault?

I don't know if attempting to arrest or detain someone is a crime, but if it is, and GZ did that, sure that would be a crime.

And I suppose if that were the case TM would be with in his rights to defend himself.

That all seems pretty straightforward. Is there some gotcha coming ?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I got a better one:

How about Zimmerman stay in his damn truck and let the police handle the event instead of following Martin? You know, like he was asked to do by the police dispatcher?

How about that?

No, you got nothing.

 

[Upchurch]

Well, I wouldn't say that they *couldn't* prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, I think they simply dropped the ball.

Call it incompetence, call it lack of evidence. They didn't prove Zimmerman's guilt in a court of law.

Further, I've not seen anyone provide evidence on who assaulted whom first, despite claims that it exists. The fact is, we don't know what happened at the crucial moment. Anyone who says differently, unless they have new data not yet provided, is pushing a belief, not critical thinking. This thread has been lousy with assumptions and fitting facts to theories.