Merged Continuation Part 2: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[quadraginta]

No I didn't. That paragraph was the part in the New York Times that mentioned he was trying to get the gun the quadraginta lamented him not having.

I wouldn't have thought that particular post would have needed a 'sarcasm' smiley as a disclaimer, but I guess it was too subtle for some people.

 

[Upchurch]

It's pretty clear that Zimmerman attacked Martin

We just don't have the evidence to support that, just as we don't have the evidence to support Martin assaulting Zimmerman. We have only one living eye witness to that crucial moment and he is neither unbiased nor, IMHO, credible.

 

[Mumbles]

We just don't have the evidence to support that, just as we don't have the evidence to support Martin assaulting Zimmerman. We have only one living eye witness to that crucial moment and he is neither unbiased nor, IMHO, credible.

I must disagree. Again, we have Zimmerman openly expressing hostility towards Martin, and chasing after Martin, as Martin *ran away* from Zimmerman. We have a witness who claims that Zimmerman continued to pursue Martin, even after the police call ended, and that Zimmerman assaulted him. We know that Zimmerman's version of what happened is impossible.

And although this is relatively unimportant, we also have a history of violence at the hands of Zimmerman.

We have a story where Martin spots a black gun located at Zimmerman's back, as Zimmerman lied on his back in a dark alleyway, and states "You gonna die tonight!" and begins...stroking Zimmerman's side.

We know that Zimmerman has since that time, assaulted his wife, his father-in-law, his mistress, and some random guy in a road rage incident.

This is not difficult.

 

[Belz...]

It's still not enough to convict, though it's enough, especially in light of events since then, to doubt Zimmerman's sincerity, and consider him a dangerous hothead with a victim complex.

 

[johnny karate]

While cutting classes is not indicative of a thug, to me, I think I understand where others are coming from. Initially it was claimed Martin was an angel, who didn't have a bad bone in his body. While I can understand his family painting that picture, it doesn't seem quite accurate. The skipping school thing does, to me at least, speak to him being a troubled teen.

If anyone here was making the argument that Martin was an angel (and good luck finding anyone doing that), and someone disagreed, the correct response is to point out that argument was fallacious, and explain why. The correct response is not to make a fallacious argument of one's own.

So this "place" you see others coming from is one of uncritical thought and poor argumentation.

The aspects of him that I view as being signs of a troubled teen, combined with what I view as his desire to be associated with a thuggish lifestyle combine to paint a different image of him. Weather that image is an accurate description of what kind of person he was at the core, I don't know.

Pop culture - from music to movies to television - celebrates criminality. That a teenage boy superficially associated himself with this lifestyle is unsurprising and meaningless absent any evidence he actually engaged in that lifestyle.

You might as well argue that all little boys are ninjas and cowboys.

I do believe skipping school is also, although not exclusively, associated with being a thug. Is the stereotypical thug known to have a fondness for rules and school? I don't think they are, even though these characteristics are not exclusively thug like, they do seem to be associated. To me, if you have a troubled teen, that likes to be associated with handguns, you have an image of a thug. While that person may not actually be a thug, they certainly do look like one to me. To me, that seems like the point of others bringing it up.

Skipping school is also associated with perfectly normal kids who merely skip school. Now, statistically speaking, if a teenager skips school, do you think it is more likely he is a violet criminal or just a normal kid skipping school?

Again, the only traits that can be used to describe a thug are traits that actually describe a thug. Everything is just window dressing from someone lacking the substance to honestly support their assertions.

 

[johnny karate]

We just don't have the evidence to support that, just as we don't have the evidence to support Martin assaulting Zimmerman. We have only one living eye witness to that crucial moment and he is neither unbiased nor, IMHO, credible.

While we can never know if Zimmerman assaulted Martin, I don't think it matters, because at the very least, we can establish Martin was legally defending himself from Zimmerman.

It was night. Zimmerman was a stranger to Martin. Zimmerman followed Martin. At no point did Zimmerman identify himself nor announce his intentions. Zimmerman made a quick reach into his pocket.

I would love to see someone explain how Martin didn't have the legal right to defend himself in that situation.

 

[johnny karate]

It's still not enough to convict, though it's enough, especially in light of events since then, to doubt Zimmerman's sincerity, and consider him a dangerous hothead with a victim complex.

I agree it wasn't enough to convict him of murder. But I think had the prosecution done a better job and not put all their eggs in the "murder" basket, they could have gotten a manslaughter conviction.

 

[McHell]

We just don't have the evidence to support that, just as we don't have the evidence to support Martin assaulting Zimmerman. We have only one living eye witness to that crucial moment and he is neither unbiased nor, IMHO, credible.

I'm confused by your reasoning here... Would you mind clarifying?

So you seem to be saying that Zimmerman, who claims that he did not start the fight, is both biased and not credible (which I agree with, by the way). What other conclusion does that leave you with aside from him likely being responsible for starting the fight?

Or are you just saying that the above line of reasoning simply doesn't amount to evidence or that there is no physical evidence to confirm or disconfirm this conclusion?

 

[Dan O.]

It was night. Zimmerman was a stranger to Martin. Zimmerman followed Martin. At no point did Zimmerman identify himself nor announce his intentions. Zimmerman made a quick reach into his pocket.

We have two divergent theories to the physical start of the altercation: George's version above and DeeDee's version with Trayvon to saying "get off, get off". I think we can discard Georges first version that he was struck from behind since that is incompatible with his later statements. Both versions lead to the same likely response: Trayvon hits George in the face and George falls to the ground.

There is the possibility that both accounts are right though George is leaving out the critical detail of how he gets so far past the Tee. George meets Trayvon, words are exchanged, George reaches into his pocket, Trayvon starts to take off, George detains Trayvon then Trayvon says "Get off" and hits George in the face.

All accounts lead to George on the ground where Trayvon straddles him.

At this point, George is claiming that Trayvon is beating him and pounding his head into the sidewalk. The physical evidence: lack of defensive wounds on George, lack of blood and scalp on the sidewalk, lack of blood and injuries on Trayvon's hands, etc. simply doesn't support this. Alternatively, Trayvon is controlling George by pinning his arms outstretched as one witness reported. This is still compatible with what George claims he felt as after being struck in the face and falling backwards hitting his head on the ground or sidewalk, George's head would be pounding internally and with each pound he would think his head was being smashed into the hard sidewalk.

Who was screaming for help? This may not be possible to determine. Trayvon could have taken off as soon as George went down. With Trayvon physically restraining George and not beating the crap out of him, Trayvon would have a desire for help to arrive to stop the fight and prevent retaliation. George is defenseless in this position and also desires help. I would expect George to experience serious head pain each time he forced a scream but George never mentions this.

In the end, the neighbor steps out, witnesses the fight, says he is calling the police and steps back inside. In the position that they were lying on the grass, George would be able to see this. But Trayvon's back would be towards the neighbor. Trayvon could have heard the neighbor say he was calling the police but would not have seen him retreat back into his home.

It is at this time that George is thinking about his gun. He says he thinks that Trayvon could have seen it. George hears the words "You're going to die tonight". We are supposed to think that Trayvon said those words but really?! Trayvon doesn't have the gun, Trayvon cannot see the gun, Trayvon thinks that there is a witness standing behind him. I think those words were in George's head.

George knows he has a gun and the only way for George to access that gun is for Trayvon to be backing off. Only then can George pull the gun, plant it in Trayvon's chest and pull the trigger while there are no witnesses.

 

[Upchurch]

So you seem to be saying that Zimmerman, who claims that he did not start the fight, is both biased and not credible (which I agree with, by the way). What other conclusion does that leave you with aside from him likely being responsible for starting the fight?

I'm saying that any conclusion is about who assaulted who first is speculation. There is no physical evidence and no third-party impartial witness to the event.

Or are you just saying that the above line of reasoning simply doesn't amount to evidence or that there is no physical evidence to confirm or disconfirm this conclusion?

I wouldn't go so far as to say that it is not evidence, it just isn't conclusive evidence, as some have claimed on both sides of the issue. The highlighted portion most closely fits my position.

If you were to ask my opinion, I'm leaning toward the conclusion that Martin attempted to verbally confront Zimmerman about following him and Zimmerman grabbed or attempted to grab Martin, constituting the first actual assault of the encounter. That, however, is just speculation on my part based on the available evidence. It is not meant to be an actual conclusion and I am willing to be swayed by any new evidence.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

If anyone here was making the argument that Martin was an angel (and good luck finding anyone doing that), and someone disagreed, the correct response is to point out that argument was fallacious, and explain why. The correct response is not to make a fallacious argument of one's own.

So this "place" you see others coming from is one of uncritical thought and poor argumentation.

Pop culture - from music to movies to television - celebrates criminality. That a teenage boy superficially associated himself with this lifestyle is unsurprising and meaningless absent any evidence he actually engaged in that lifestyle.
You might as well argue that all little boys are ninjas and cowboys.

Skipping school is also associated with perfectly normal kids who merely skip school. Now, statistically speaking, if a teenager skips school, do you think it is more likely he is a violet criminal or just a normal kid skipping school?

Again, the only traits that can be used to describe a thug are traits that actually describe a thug. Everything is just window dressing from someone lacking the substance to honestly support their assertions.

https://www.google.com/#q=define:+thug
thug
THəɡ/
noun
1.a violent person, especially a criminal.
synonyms: ruffian, hooligan, vandal, hoodlum, gangster, villain, criminal;

syn·o·nym
ˈsinəˌnim/
noun
a word or phrase that means exactly or nearly the same as another word or phrase in the same language
Evidence:
Skipping school to the point of suspension.
Suspension from school for drugs and vandalism
Circumstantial evidence of stealing jewelry.
Videos of being involved in fights.
Texts regarding fights, including references to opponent not bleeding enough.
Being kicked out of his mothers home for unknown reasons.
Described himself as a "gangsta"
Discussed illegally purchasing/owning a handgun
Illegal drug use

He clearly engages in criminal and violent behaviors. The sum total of all that adds up to me as thuggish behavior. And all that behavior has been previously discussed in the thread.

What I called him a juvenile delinquent, or vandal or hoodlum, would you disagree? Those are synonyms for thug.
But somehow thug crosses some line I am not aware of.

Perhaps that is too harsh. Perhaps he was just a "thug-in-training" ? A wannabe-thug ?

I have two teenagers. I know where I believe the line to be between "merely skipping school" and "superficially associating yourself with a lifestyle." I can only imagine what kind of behaviors it would take for me to kick my own child out of my house. IMO, and based on my parenting experience with teenagers, TM crossed that line from "not an angel" to thug.

I can see your point if you don't believe that all adds up to being a thug, and we can agree to disagree. I'm not sure why it's all that important. I simply don't see where you have made a compelling argument that I should say " you know what, I was wrong, I don't actually think he meets the actual standards for being a thug"

 

[Unabogie]

Videos of being involved in fights.

You're well aware that no such videos exist. You mustn't confuse the garbage you read on those white supremacist sites with actual evidence.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

You're well aware that no such videos exist. You mustn't confuse the garbage you read on those white supremacist sites with actual evidence.

white supremacist sites like the orlando sentinel ?

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...2_1_trayvon-martin-tuesday-o-mara-mark-o-mara

O'Mara has unearthed a good bit of evidence that he says shows that Trayvon took part in organized fights. Two weeks ago, he released text messages from Trayvon's cell phone. In one, the Miami Gardens teenager wrote that in one fight he got pummeled in the first round because his opponent got him on the ground.

Also in court Tuesday O'Mara said he had found video of Trayvon refereeing a fight.

 

[Unabogie]

white supremacist sites like the orlando sentinel ?

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...2_1_trayvon-martin-tuesday-o-mara-mark-o-mara

O'Mara has unearthed a good bit of evidence that he says shows that Trayvon took part in organized fights. Two weeks ago, he released text messages from Trayvon's cell phone. In one, the Miami Gardens teenager wrote that in one fight he got pummeled in the first round because his opponent got him on the ground.

Also in court Tuesday O'Mara said he had found video of Trayvon refereeing a fight.

"O'Mara said". I presume you also know that he has a history of lying. But please, present us with this video. Surely as a skeptic you know better than to take the unsubstantiated word of a defense attorney defending a known violent person from a murder charge.

 

[Upchurch]

white supremacist sites like the orlando sentinel ?

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...2_1_trayvon-martin-tuesday-o-mara-mark-o-mara

O'Mara has unearthed a good bit of evidence that he says shows that Trayvon took part in organized fights. Two weeks ago, he released text messages from Trayvon's cell phone. In one, the Miami Gardens teenager wrote that in one fight he got pummeled in the first round because his opponent got him on the ground.

Also in court Tuesday O'Mara said he had found video of Trayvon refereeing a fight.

Also from the article:

George Zimmerman's attorneys on Sunday released a statement, backtracking on what they say a video of a fight found on Trayvon Martin's cell phone shows.

In court Tuesday, defense attorney Mark O'Mara described it as Trayvon video-recording two friends beating up a homeless man.

But in Sunday's statement, O'Mara apologized and said it really shows Trayvon video-recording two homeless men fighting over a bicycle.

Trayvon, along with a friend, had come upon the fight and Trayvon had merely recorded it, according to the statement.

Not a real credibility booster. Maybe it would more useful to see the video in question?

 

[Unabogie]

Also from the article:

​

Not a real credibility booster. Maybe it would more useful to see the video in question?

Also, please note that he originally said there was video of Trayvon fighting.

Videos of being involved in fights.

I guess "being involved" is a slippery weasel word. Maybe he'll backtrack and say that Trayvon Martin was merely "there" at a fight or was "refereeing" a fight between two other people. But remember that TheL8Elvis is supposed to be supporting the contention that Martin was a violent person. Watching fights involving other people doesn't make you violent, especially the kind of fights that get the benefit of a "referee". In fact, George Zimmerman proposed that he engage in a public fight with some rapper. So again, the connection to the "rap" culture, and a desire to engage in a fight are all on the side of the grown man with the history of violence.

But TheL8Elvis also attempted to slip in "text messages" when he was originally challenged on the existence of a "fight video". The challenge arose because that video was first "found" by a known white supremacist site called "The Conservative Treehouse". The person in that video was never confirmed as even being anyone in particular, and TheL8Elvis knows this. I'm not sure why he'd use that as evidence of anything.

 

[Belz...]

While we can never know if Zimmerman assaulted Martin, I don't think it matters, because at the very least, we can establish Martin was legally defending himself from Zimmerman.

I don't think we can establish that.

I agree it wasn't enough to convict him of murder. But I think had the prosecution done a better job and not put all their eggs in the "murder" basket, they could have gotten a manslaughter conviction.

I don't see how, given the evidence we have.

 

[Unabogie]

I don't think we can establish that.

I don't see how, given the evidence we have.

I think the prosecution did a pretty poor job of connecting the dots, and could have done more with the evidence we have. For instance, they could have really hammered on the missing minutes and the impossibility of Zimmerman's story of walking to look for an address. There's about four missing minutes, and during one interview, Zimmerman claims that by the time he hung up with NEN, he was already halfway to his truck. Based on this, they could have cemented in the jury's mind that not only did Zimmerman lie about what he was doing, that he most certainly did continue his hunt for the "suspect". Placing more of the blame on Zimmerman for any confrontation they had, they could have then peppered the police with questions about whether or not Zimmerman identified himself, which he didn't. Then they could have informed the jury of Martin's right to self-defense under Florida law. This would have correctly placed the blame on Zimmerman for any scuffle the two had. Then they could have shown how Zimmerman exaggerated his injuries and shot in either anger or panic, when his life was never in danger, and Martin was exercising legal self-defense against an unknown stalker. And for godsake, I assumed they had a reason for playing all of Zimmerman's self-serving story but they didn't. And the Sanford PD were completely in the tank for the defense. They should have known this and planned accordingly. They were one of the worst prepared prosecutors I can recall.

 

[Belz...]

Are holes in the story enough to convict ? I'm not very familiar with court procedings.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

"O'Mara said". I presume you also know that he has a history of lying. But please, present us with this video. Surely as a skeptic you know better than to take the unsubstantiated word of a defense attorney defending a known violent person from a murder charge.

He says mistake, you say history of lying. I recall when I suggested he (O'mara) might have been lying about knowing about GZ finances, I was roundly scoffed at.

At any rate, I assume he meant this video:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d7d_1333382598

You can deny it's TM. In fact, you probably will. When they yell "trayvon" I am sure you will believe it's a totally different trayvon. Even though it was originally on his youtube channel.

Regardless, remove the video from the list. My argument still stands.