Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[Natural Born Skeptic]

I haven't seen any reference to TM being an innocent child in a long time. Not sure why that still keeps being brought up.

You actually just typed that when a few posts above you've still got people trying to play games about the stolen jewelry and screwdriver ? Why do you think they want to deny the obvious? Because they want to keep this about "GZ bad bad man, TM innocent iced tea and skittles kid". Anything less is unacceptable because it doesn't fit the narrative.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

What does that have to do with this case?

GWCarver is a screwdriver aficionado, he couldn't help himself.

 

[Unabogie]

Actually, now that all of the evidence has come out, can someone confirm if GZ ever told the police that TM said he was going to kill him (as was claimed in some newspapers early on)? What precisely did GZ sat TM said?

300 pages in and you think we think TM was "deranged"?

Yeah, it was in his own statements, linked repeatedly.

Look on the New York Times site for links.

"You're gonna die tonight, ************".

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Yeah, it was in his own statements, linked repeatedly.

Look on the New York Times site for links.

"You're gonna die tonight, ************".

Thanks.

 

[GWCarver]

What does that have to do with this case?

Someone was rolling his eyes at the idea a screwdriver could be seen as a burglary tool. I pointed out an example in which the police found a screwdriver, suspected it could have been used as a burglary tool, and followed up by matching it up with tool marks on doors of three different dwellings which had been pried open by Rolling on his way to slaughtering those inside.

Look at my post as a kind of case law for this particular screwdriver argument.

 

[KatieG]

You actually just typed that when a few posts above you've still got people trying to play games about the stolen jewelry and screwdriver ? Why do you think they want to deny the obvious? Because they want to keep this about "GZ bad bad man, TM innocent iced tea and skittles kid". Anything less is unacceptable because it doesn't fit the narrative.

I didn't see anyone saying TM was an innocent child. Whatever the circumstances surrounding the jewelry and the screwdriver, the school handled it and it's a non issue. Once his problems at school became public, the innocent angel was gone. The question is what relevance those issues will be in this case. If we can all just hang on until Thursday, there will be all kinds of new info for us to discuss instead of beating the same dead horses.

 

[marplots]

Ok reading that Miami Herald piece its clear he was no angel but we have no hard evidence that TM was up to anything when he was killed by Zimmerman

Did they include "beating up George Zimmerman" as part of the not up to anything? I think that's the matter in dispute here.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Here's George's other calls reporting "suspicious black youths".

http://axiomamnesia.com/2012/03/20/...ivolous-calls-murdering-trayvon-martin-audio/

Wow, it's almost the same call, over and over again. In the first one, same "I don't want to hand out my address", and "there's been a break in in my neighborhood" and it's always near the "back gate".

Unreal.

Yep, unreal . If numerous calls in which he never physically involves himself doesn't prove that this time he's a murderer, I don't know what does!

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Did they include "beating up George Zimmerman" as part of the not up to anything? I think that's the matter in dispute here.

lol, that's been pointed out about 200 times now in this thread, good luck getting it through to some. It ranks up there with "he got out of his car" as if everything is GZ's fault from that moment on, because he got out of his car.

 

[triforcharity]

Typical game playing. NO ONE, not one person has asserted that TM should have been prosecuted for being caught with a screwdriver. I also love how you mention the screwdriver and ignore the woman's jewelry. What people have asserted is that a teenage boy that gets caught with a bunch of woman's jewelry that he can't explain along with a screwdriver is likely involved with burglary or stolen goods.

But when that simple statement of fact is made, what do we get? Endless game playing, obfuscation and straw men arguments. Anything to deny the obvious.

And the strange thing is, why deny? If a person is interested in the truth, why deny it? Does it suddenly mean GZ had a right to shoot TM? NO. But it might mean TM isn't the innocent child he's been made out to be and I guess we can't have that under any circumstances.

p.s. Please respond civilly and remember rule 12 .

Really? I responded factually, and with citations to back up my assertions. The claim was that people have been charged with POBT for carrying a screwdriver. I showed how that was grossly incorrect. Sorry that you're not following along with the discussion. Not my problem.

Also, you claim I made no mention of the jewelry. Do you not see in my post the word JEWELRY? Do I need to hilite it for you? Also, do you see the part right after that? How did I completely ignore the jewelry?

It seems that your own blind hatred of anything I post is causing you not to see things. Imagine that. Your argument with me has no merits.

The whole comparison of the screwdriver V GZ was simple.

It's plainly obvious that Martin had some kind of suspicious activity, what it was we don't know. But, according to people like yourself, he was absolutely guilty of something.

But yet, when others like myself and Judge Lester believe that Zimmerman was involved in suspicious activity WRT: hidden money and passports, and our conclusion was he wanted to flee, it's challenged as evidence free.

Well, that's the problem, and if YOU can't understand the comparison and double standard, that's your own problem, and nobody else's. Feel free to fix the problem whenever you're ready. Let me know if you need assistance.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Of course there is! The evidence that he took an offensive role is that the fight occurred in a place inconsistent with his story, that he lied about the severity of the fight, and that he lied about material facts leading up to the fight All of those lies are circumstantial evidence that he started the fight, since Trayvon had absolutely zero motive to attack George! Zero!

Just so I am clear, you are claiming that being followed by a creepy guy (ETA and having him appear to walk toward you after following you) don't amount to motive to attack said creepy guy ? Absolutely zero motive ?

According to George, he never said a word to Trayvon. Not one comment. Not one question. Trayvon just decided to viciously attempt to murder him with no cause.

Well, we've cleared up that he did speak to TM. After TM confronted him as he was walking back to his truck, right ?

But the evidence shows that to be a lie.

I think you are making a giant leap in interpreting your 'circumstantial evidence'

George was following him, cussing that "these ******** always get away". DeeDee heard him angrily ask "WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE" (which he left out of his story).

So it's only possible that GZ was lying, not that DeeDee was lying or mistaken 3 weeks later ?

He claimed he never followed him. He claimed he was hit once, immediately hit the ground,

I thought one of the problems was the inconsistency in his stories. Are there versions where he didn't immediately hit the ground ? For that matter, I don't recall him actually using the word immediately ? Are you paraphrasing ?

then was pummeled in the face 30 times and had his head hit repeatedly against concrete. He has two small cuts and a "likely broken" nose.

He has a broken nose. That's how it is diagnosed. There have been multiple links explaining that any doctor will be fine with diagnosing a broken nose without requiring an x-ray to prove it beyond some reasonable doubt.

Trayvon has no blood on his hands and no bruising or cuts on them. The body is some 55 feet from where George claims he hit the ground. The NEN call shows he had ample time to return to his truck, but didn't do so.

Likewise, TM had ample time to make it home, but didn't do so.

His story about "circling" his car is impossible when you match that to his walkthrough. The timeline doesn't match up at all. George outweighed him by almost 50 pounds and was 11 years older.

I thought the 'official' weight difference was 44 lbs ? 44 is not really almost 50 , is it ? Wasn't GZ classified as obese ? An obese, older short guy has some kind of huge advantage over an athletic almost 20 year old with a much longer reach ?

His lies are going to do him in.

I know you won't ever agree, but that's ok. The bond hearing shenanigans are just icing on the cake for those who don't find him credible. We got to see first hand how he's perfectly willing to lie in order to cover himself.

It doesn't change the fact that, in theory, the SA will need to put forth a narrative that accounts for all the evidence and convinces people that GZ murdered TM beyond a reasonable doubt.

I am not stating that the SA will actually have to do that in order to get a jury to convict, just that they should. You may be correct that a jury will find GZ dishonest and convict him based on that.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Of course there is! The evidence that he took an offensive role is that the fight occurred in a place inconsistent with his story, that he lied about the severity of the fight, and that he lied about material facts leading up to the fight All of those lies are circumstantial evidence that he started the fight, since Trayvon had absolutely zero motive to attack George! Zero!

1. BOTH of these individuals could have had reason to start the fight. That you and others utterly refuse to acknowledge that is typical of your desire to bias every element in one direct.

2. Not a single one of the inconsistencies you keep harping on in any way shape or form relate to GZ starting a fight. Let's say GZ lied as you keep insisting and and you've identified that he's off by 55' (your claim). So what? How does 55' prove that GZ started the fight and not TM?!

Trayvon has no blood on his hands and no bruising or cuts on them.

You've been asked repeatedly to provide a link to an authoritative source showing that TM should have had those, or that they were never there. Not your supposition as a layman sleuth based on watching NCSI, but an actual source. You won't provide one because you can't.

The body is some 55 feet from where George claims he hit the ground.

Here we go with the 55' again . And in your mind if he's off by 55', that proves he attacked TM. Makes sense to me .

George outweighed him by almost 50 pounds and was 11 years older.

More bias. How about "GZ was overweight and out of shape and TM was stronger and faster". You can keep framing it however you want, but I've weighed 175 and 225 and I can assure you I could kick my own ass upside and down when I'm 175 versus an overweight 225 .

I will agree with you on one point. I find the claim that TM said "you're going to die tonight" to be suspicious, it does not seem to fit. Not impossible, but on a gut level it seems strange. If TM attacked GZ I don't think it was to kill him but to beat his ass. That sounds like something GZ might have made up when he still believed that TM was a burglar.

And I do think it's possible GZ is lying about one or more details, I'm just not willing to jump to extremes with no evidence. I hope he takes the stand in court and we get to see him cross examined.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Just so I am clear, you are claiming that being followed by a creepy guy (ETA and having him appear to walk toward you after following you) don't amount to motive to attack said creepy guy ? Absolutely zero motive ?

Great point, some of these guys can't keep their stories straight. In fact I;'d wager money that at some point in this thread Uniboogie argued TM would have been justified in "attacking the creepy guy" thinking he was defending himself. Yet now he claims he had "0" reason to do so.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

It's plainly obvious that Martin had some kind of suspicious activity, what it was we don't know. But, according to people like yourself, he was absolutely guilty of something.

Why don't you quote, from me, what I said he is "absolutely guilty of" and tell me how it differs from what you finally just admitted, which is that he has some kind of suspicious activity?

 

[Unabogie]

Just so I am clear, you are claiming that being followed by a creepy guy (ETA and having him appear to walk toward you after following you) don't amount to motive to attack said creepy guy ? Absolutely zero motive ?

But according to George, he never following him, right? I'm showing how in George's tale, Trayvon did this all unrprovoked.

Well, we've cleared up that he did speak to TM. After TM confronted him as he was walking back to his truck, right ?

Well, no, the walking back to his truck part is George's version, not cleared up or accepted as truth.

I think you are making a giant leap in interpreting your 'circumstantial evidence'

No, the lies are provable. So the question becomes "why did he lie, if not to cover up what he really did?" That's the circumstantial case.

So it's only possible that GZ was lying, not that DeeDee was lying or mistaken 3 weeks later ?

I'd say the proven liar with a murder charge has a far bigger motive to lie than DeeDee does, wouldn't you agree?

I thought one of the problems was the inconsistency in his stories. Are there versions where he didn't immediately hit the ground ? For that matter, I don't recall him actually using the word immediately ? Are you paraphrasing ?

Nope. He said "immediately".

He has a broken nose. That's how it is diagnosed. There have been multiple links explaining that any doctor will be fine with diagnosing a broken nose without requiring an x-ray to prove it beyond some reasonable doubt.

The doctor said "likely".

Likewise, TM had ample time to make it home, but didn't do so.

This is if you accept George's version of where the pursuit started and I think that his version of events is next to impossible. I'm open to rethinking this, though.

I thought the 'official' weight difference was 44 lbs ? 44 is not really almost 50 , is it ? Wasn't GZ classified as obese ? An obese, older short guy has some kind of huge advantage over an athletic almost 20 year old with a much longer reach ?

George is 204, Trayvon 158. That's 46 pounds. 46 pounds is cerainly "almost 50" in my book. And why was Trayvon "athletic" when DeeDee says he stopped running because he got tired? There goes those stereotypes again.

It doesn't change the fact that, in theory, the SA will need to put forth a narrative that accounts for all the evidence and convinces people that GZ murdered TM beyond a reasonable doubt.

Right. And the narrative of George the liar, the serial 9/11 caller, and the wannabe cop who chased the "suspect" is plenty to show George's version of events is fabricated.

I am not stating that the SA will actually have to do that in order to get a jury to convict, just that they should. You may be correct that a jury will find GZ dishonest and convict him based on that.

I think it's likely. I have said repeatedly that I started out thinking conviction was unlikely. But then I heard George's interviews and he's just not going to be able to convince a jury of this, no matter how much he bled from his two little cuts. You can't fabricate a story after you shoot someone. You tell the truth, and George seems to be completely unable to do this.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

But according to George, he never following him, right? I'm showing how in George's tale, Trayvon did this all unprovoked.

That's a false dichotomy. In GZ's tale he didn't follow him (i.e. chase him down), but that doesn't mean TM wasn't pissed because he knew he was watching him and/or thought he was trying to follow him.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Right. And the narrative of George the liar, the serial 9/11 caller, and the wannabe cop who chased the "suspect" is plenty to show George's version of events is fabricated.

You forgot racist and criminal with a history of violence. Please be thorough in your bias and distortions. BTW, your brand of "logic" is absolutely fascinating. Now I know that if someone is a "liar" and a "serial 911 caller" and a "wannabe cop" it is "plenty to show their version of events is fabricated". No actual evidence needed! (other than the 55' of course).

BTW, I notice you now identify him as a serial 9/11 caller. Are you now suggesting GZ was somehow behind the twin towers? You never know, he is a liar and wannabe cop after all!

 

[Unabogie]

You forgot racist and criminal with a history of violence. Please be thorough in your bias and distortions. BTW, your brand of "logic" is absolutely fascinating. Now I know that if someone is a "liar" and a "serial 911 caller" and a "wannabe cop" that it proves their version of events is fabricated. No actual evidence needed! (other than the 55' of course).

The actual evidence is that the timeline, injuries, and locations contradict everything he said. I'm not sure what more you need since those have been linked to extensively, and I think it'd be a waste of time to go over it again if you didn't bother to read them the first time.

BTW, I notice you now identify him as a serial 9/11 caller. Are you now suggesting GZ was somehow behind the twin towers? You never know, he is a liar and wannabe cop after all!

Wow, you caught me in a typo. Congratulations.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

But according to George, he never following him, right? I'm showing how in George's tale, Trayvon did this all unrprovoked.

GZ did follow him from the cut-through to the clubhouse to the side-walk, at least in his car. But yes, from GZ perspective, he was attacked unprovoked.
Which makes it more frightening from GZ perspective, doesn't it ?

I'm unclear as to why the 'unprovoked' distinction is important.

Well, no, the walking back to his truck part is George's version, not cleared up or accepted as truth.

Can you give me some idea how you believe the SA will prove beyond a reasonable doubt he was not returning to his truck ?

No, the lies are provable. So the question becomes "why did he lie, if not to cover up what he really did?" That's the circumstantial case.

You anticipate the SA will be able to demonstrate he intentionally lied, as opposed to mis-remembered details over the course of multiple tellings?

I'd say the proven liar with a murder charge has a far bigger motive to lie than DeeDee does, wouldn't you agree?

Yes, but that does not automatically exonerate DeeDee and indict GZ, does it ? It could still be the case he is telling the truth about this, and she is lying.

Nope. He said "immediately".

And in others, he did not. The defense will need to reconcile these versions.

The doctor said "likely".

So if the doctor thinks it is likely it was broken, we can't just call it broken because .... ?

This is if you accept George's version of where the pursuit started and I think that his version of events is next to impossible. I'm open to rethinking this, though.
George is 204, Trayvon 158. That's 46 pounds. 46 pounds is cerainly "almost 50" in my book. And why was Trayvon "athletic" when DeeDee says he stopped running because he got tired? There goes those stereotypes again.

Sorry, I thought it was 44 - I didn't check. Fine, TM is not athletic and GZ is obese. None of this is really going to sway anyone opinion.

DeeDee describing TM as tired and breathing heavy a few minutes after he ran all of 50 feet (?) strikes me as ludicrous and self serving.

Right. And the narrative of George the liar, the serial 9/11 caller, and the wannabe cop who chased the "suspect" is plenty to show George's version of events is fabricated.

I'm still uncler how all those calls where he didn't chase or attempt to arrest anyone do anything but prove he has a history of not getting into altercations. His record of arrests proves he has a history of violence, and his record of calling and not confronting people proves he assaulted TM ..

I think it's likely. I have said repeatedly that I started out thinking conviction was unlikely. But then I heard George's interviews and he's just not going to be able to convince a jury of this, no matter how much he bled from his two little cuts. You can't fabricate a story after you shoot someone. You tell the truth, and George seems to be completely unable to do this.

 

[Aber]

He's made the assertion that Martin was going to get his gun.

When did he first make that assertion?

IIRC GZ told a witness at the scene that TM was beating him up and he had to shoot him, without mentioning a grab for the gun.