Merged Continuation Part 2: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[johnny karate]

While not undeniable proof, there are slme things I certainly find to be compelling reasons to believe Trayon did assault Zimmerman:

That's terrific.

And I for one was riveted by The Story of What Skeptic Tank Believed Happened.

It's not what I asked for, but compelling nonetheless.

Of course, any of us can write our own fanfic version of what we believed happened, but it doesn't really address the issue of proving Martin assaulted Zimmerman, does it?

Maybe the best thing for us critical-thinking skeptics to do is admit we don't really know who started the altercation instead of making unsubstantiated claims and concocting fantasy scenarios.

 

[mgidm86]

Regarding the notion of whether it is reasonable or not to believe that Martin might have been acting in self-defense when he punched Zimmerman, I'll just leave this here.

An excerpt from one of Detective Serino's interviews with Zimmerman:

Serino: 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...
Zimmerman: [inaudible]
Serino: … 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.

So tell me, WildCat, is this law enforcement officer from Florida just experiencing "confusion over self-defense law"?

First of all, I don't know for sure who did what first, I'm reading this thread because I'm bored and there are no "good" new threads for me.

Is this quote the only evidence on which you are basing your claim that Zimmerman's actions constituted a threat toward Martin worthy of self defense, particularly the action of "reaching into the pocket"?

I don't think the quote is conclusive. He may have been trying to elicit some kind of response from Martin with this statement. Also, if that is a direct quote, the detective is speaking in broken sentences and fumbling for words while trying to get his thoughts together. He may be saying, "Martin perceives you as a threat, therefore reaching into your pocket adds to his fear of that." He may not mean to imply that reaching into his pocket in this situation warrants self defense. I guess what the law itself states would have more bearing on what a cop says during an interrogation or interview.

I would think to use physical force on someone for your stated scenario of being followed at night, not identifying yourself, and reaching into a pocket, is not justified. In fact, Zimmerman was indeed reaching for his phone and not a weapon.

By the way, I noticed a few pages back that you said "reached into his pocket", but since then have added "quickly" into the sentence. Did Zimmerman say he reached "quickly" into his pocket or did you add that yourself?

ETA: not sure if my point was clear. His statement that "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." doesn't necessarily mean that he believes self defense was warranted. He is trying to get into the mind of Martin. That quote doesn't prove anyhting.

 

[12AX7]

And no, a stranger following you with his hand in his pocket is not a license to attack them in Florida or any other state.

Leaving out a few things, but yeah.

ZimmerMan can be afraid for his life, Martin cannot.

OK.

First of all, I don't know for sure who did what first, I'm reading this thread because I'm bored and there are no "good" new threads for me.

Nonsense. I started a good one here.

 

[Upchurch]

Is this quote the only evidence on which you are basing your claim that Zimmerman's actions constituted a threat toward Martin worthy of self defense, particularly the action of "reaching into the pocket"?

If you read carefully, you'll see that he is using the quote to support the notion that it is reasonable to believe that Martin might have been acting in self-defense. He is not using it as evidence that Martin was doing so.

 

[KatieG]

No indication Martin was hit by anything but the fatal shot, meanwhile Martin had bruising on his knuckles and Zimmerman had bruises and cuts on his face.

There's lots of evidence that Martin assaulted Zimmerman, none whatsoever that Zimmerman assaulted Martin.

Nice lie there. Martin had a single mark on one knuckle. Damn powerful knuckle TM had! Able to inflict all that damage.

 

[johnny karate]

First of all, I don't know for sure who did what first, I'm reading this thread because I'm bored and there are no "good" new threads for me.

Is this quote the only evidence on which you are basing your claim that Zimmerman's actions constituted a threat toward Martin worthy of self defense, particularly the action of "reaching into the pocket"?

I’m not providing it as evidence. I’m providing is as an alternate scenario to counter those who assert (without evidence of their own) that Martin assaulted Zimmerman.

And it’s really not even a matter of evidence. It’s a matter of looking at the encounter from Martin’s point of view and seeing if his behavior aligns with Florida’s self-defense statute. I’ve argued that is does, and aside from some hand-waving, no one has successfully countered that argument.

And to bolster my argument I have also provided the opinion of a Florida law enforcement officer.

I don't think the quote is conclusive. He may have been trying to elicit some kind of response from Martin with this statement. Also, if that is a direct quote, the detective is speaking in broken sentences and fumbling for words while trying to get his thoughts together. He may be saying, "Martin perceives you as a threat, therefore reaching into your pocket adds to his fear of that." He may not mean to imply that reaching into his pocket in this situation warrants self defense. I guess what the law itself states would have more bearing on what a cop says during an interrogation or interview.

Your point is noted.

But you might also want to keep in mind that Serino then recommended Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter after interviewing him. So I think’s it’s fair to assume he wasn’t just making that argument as an interrogation tactic.

I would think to use physical force on someone for your stated scenario of being followed at night, not identifying yourself, and reaching into a pocket, is not justified. In fact, Zimmerman was indeed reaching for his phone and not a weapon.

Martin had no way to know that. And Florida law explicitly states that he does not have to wait to find out.

By the way, I noticed a few pages back that you said "reached into his pocket", but since then have added "quickly" into the sentence. Did Zimmerman say he reached "quickly" into his pocket or did you add that yourself?

From Zimmerman’s interview with Sean Hannity:

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.

ETA: not sure if my point was clear. His statement that "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." doesn't necessarily mean that he believes self defense was warranted. He is trying to get into the mind of Martin. That quote doesn't prove anyhting.

Again, I’m not trying to prove anything. Nor do I need to. I’m not the one making the assertions. It’s people claiming as a fact that Martin assaulted Zimmerman who are, and upon whom the burden of proving something falls.

However, the quote from Serino does at least establish that a law enforcement officer offered the same assessment. And if the best counterargument people can come up with is “Well, he probably didn’t mean it” – especially considering that Serino recommended Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter – I would call that nothing but more hand-waving.

 

[Giz]

Leaving out a few things, but yeah.

ZimmerMan can be afraid for his life, Martin cannot.

So close but it's actually:

The guy who has been taken down, mounted and is being pounded into the sidewalk has a valid fear. The guy who sees someone reach into a pocket, doesn't.

 

[johnny karate]

So close but it's actually:

The guy who has been taken down, mounted and is being pounded into the sidewalk has a valid fear. The guy who sees someone reach into a pocket, doesn't.

Neither medical evidence nor witness testimony established that Zimmerman was being "pounded into the sidewalk".

You should really stop parroting conservative memes, and actually take a look at the evidence presented during the trial and maybe think for yourself.

 

[Giz]

You should really stop parroting ... memes, and actually take a look at the evidence presented during the trial and maybe think for yourself.

This is very good advice. Would that every SJW on this thread would follow it.

 

[johnny karate]

This is very good advice. Would that every SJW on this thread would follow it.

I'm not sure what "SJW" is supposed to be, but whatever.

As for me, I don't parrot memes. I actually educate myself on the topic being discussed. I am very familiar with the trial and the evidence presented, and that's how I know it was never established by either the medical evidence or witness testimony that Zimmerman was being "pounded into the sidewalk".

I'm guessing you got your information from what other likeminded people told you and maybe skimming the occasional news article.

And I would bet money that you heard the term "ground and pound" and drew an uninformed conclusion without ever really knowing the context in which that term was used during the trial.

 

[Mumbles]

Neither medical evidence nor witness testimony established that Zimmerman was being "pounded into the sidewalk".

In fact, Zimmerman himself claimed that he had "squirmed" away from the sidewalk, when Martin spotted the the black gun at his back, in the dark, in the grass, while Zimmerman was lying on his back, and sort-of reached for it while shouting "You gonna die tonight!"

 

[Giz]

I'm not sure what "SJW" is supposed to be, but whatever.

As for me, I don't parrot memes. I actually educate myself on the topic being discussed. I am very familiar with the trial and the evidence presented, and that's how I know it was never established by either the medical evidence or witness testimony that Zimmerman was being "pounded into the sidewalk".

I'm guessing you got your information from what other likeminded people told you and maybe skimming the occasional news article.

And I would bet money that you heard the term "ground and pound" and drew an uninformed conclusion without ever really knowing the context in which that term was used during the trial.

Completely and laughably incorrect. You appear to be describing yourself.

 

[johnny karate]

Completely and laughably incorrect.

Then it's strange that you would come into this thread and proclaim the same unsubstantiated claptrap that gets feverishly passed around by Zimmerman fanboys.

Dazzle us all and provide your evidence that Zimmerman was being "pounded into the sidewalk".

Something tells me that won't be forthcoming.

 

[Mumbles]

When I originally heard the recording of Zimmerman's phone call to the police, it sounded to me like Zimmerman wasn't initially sure that Martin was black when asked whether the guy in question was white, black or Hispanic. He answered that the guy "looked" black, but a little later in the conversation after he seemingly got a better look he then just voluntarily confirmed that Martin was indeed black.

So, just when would mere common sense say that Zimmerman racially profiled Martin - before, during or after that phone conversation?

http://www.soundevidence.com/index.php?link=zimmerman

The audio is at that site also.

It sounded to me like Zimmerman just answered the question he was asked the best he could at the time and then confirmed that he had answered correctly once he got a better look. So, I'm really not sure that race was much of an issue until others decided to make it so.

Here's Zimmerman's reenactment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qfkRTC5gF4

And his NEN call:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9A-gp8mrdw

Now, Zimmerman in his reenactment, claims that he drove by Martin, saw his face, and that he was a stranger to him. Then he parked at the clubhouse, and called NEN there, and that Martin walked past while still looking around. And this is reasonable to believe - after all, the address he claimed to have parked was the clubhouse he gave the address to in his call, and of course, Martin would need to walk towards him in order to go home. And Martin...well, he has eyes.

Now, to the problems.

First, there are a couple hundred houses in the community, so there's little to no chance that Zimmerman would recognize everyone there. So why was he flipping out over some kid who we know was walking home?

Second, if you can't actually identify the skin color of a person, and you have normal sight, why would you say they're "real suspicious" for "walking around, looking about" and that "[you]'d never seen them before"? In my complex, we get kids like that every day. So what? Zimmerman's description in his reenactment exactly resembles a person watching a car passing by and waiting to cross the street - which makes sense, since the only sidewalk was on the other side of the street.

Third, and this has yet to be explained...We use the word "follow", since the dispatcher used it, but at that point it was a chase. We've heard theories before - like that Martin ran home, sat on his porch, and then got up and ran back to attack Zimmerman (who he last saw sitting in a car), while Zimmerman, who left his car to run after an unarmed teenager, just decided to give up and go back to his car, despite refusing to give the dispatcher any real clue to where he would be.

As to the claims of assault...of course, any person who had someone jump out of their car and "follow" them, had strong reason to suspect that that person intended harm. And of course, you never want to lead a stalker like that directly to your house, which explains why he stopped well enough. What we've never been given are: Why would Zimmerman would go out of his way to "follow" Martin", and what Martin was doing that would require this.

 

[Dan O.]

Odd that Trayvon never mentioned running anywhere to Rachel Jeantel, isn't it?

Odd? Why?! It is a fact accepted by everybody discussing this case in good faith that Trayvon did run. George says "****** he's running" and "he ran". Doesn't Rachel describes Trayvon as being out of breath?

Once again we have an illustration of how the "Zimmerman is a murderer" side has to rely on speculation and facts not in evidence to support their near-religious beliefs, while ignoring the facts that are in evidence.

Attack the arguments please.

 

[johnny karate]

Odd? Why?! It is a fact accepted by everybody discussing this case in good faith that Trayvon did run. George says "****** he's running" and "he ran".

Odd how some of the most strongly opinionated posters have at best a loose grasp of the facts.

 

[Upchurch]

Odd how some of the most strongly opinionated posters have at best a loose grasp of the facts.

Would that be like questioning and demanding evidence for whether a fatal gunshot to abdomen would have even caused external bleeding rather than admit that police officers might done something wrong?

Might be time to brush up on the basics of critical thinking around here.

[/slight aside]

eta: and now, we're even questioning whether fatally shooting someone is assault, even if it was done in self-defense. I'm starting to remember why I abandoned this thread as a lost cause.

 

[12AX7]

Mild-mannered, humble hero victimized by Obama administration

Oh, and:

George Zimmerman: Killing Trayvon was God’s plan, and wishing he lived is ‘almost blasphemous’

A fine specimen of fecal matter upstanding citizen he is.

 

[Checkmite]

Bwahahahahaha.

 

[Butter!]

Oh, and:

George Zimmerman: Killing Trayvon was God’s plan, and wishing he lived is ‘almost blasphemous’

A fine specimen of fecal matter upstanding citizen he is.

WOW. Spin doctor? No, this guy's a spin surgeon.