Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[Natural Born Skeptic]

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 ..

Don't forget, there is even one call where he specifically mentions to the operator that he can't give them some piece of information because he does not want to have to get close to the guy. I'm paraphrasing, but it was brought up much earlier in this thread.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

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.

Is it really necessary to play the "you didn't bother to read it" game when you know we just disagree? I've read your points repeatedly, I just happen to find almost all of them specious and they don't prove what you claim they prove.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

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.

witness 13

Zimmerman: "Man, I got blood on my face?"
Witness: "Yeah, you got blood all over, man. I looked over and he’s got blood on the back of his head. You alright man?"
Zimmerman: "Ah, man this guy he was beating up on me so I had to shoot him."
Witness: "Did you use a 9 or a 40?"
Zimmerman: "I used a 9."
Witness: "Did you call 911, yet?"
Zimmerman: "No, I already called. Can you just call my wife?"

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

But Elvis, Aber is asking when/to who GZ first said TM reached for his gun?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

But Elvis, Aber is asking when/to who GZ first said TM reached for his gun?

I assume his first interview with police was when he said it. He did not make that assertion to witness 13 - just "this guy he was beating up on me so I had to shoot him"

I guess the implied question is why didn't he tell witness 13 ' holy crap the guy went for my weapon' or ' the guy was trying to kill me'

It's a legit question.

 

[BenBurch]

I assume his first interview with police was when he said it. He did not make that assertion to witness 13 - just "this guy he was beating up on me so I had to shoot him"

I guess the implied question is why didn't he tell witness 13 ' holy crap the guy went for my weapon' or ' the guy was trying to kill me'

It's a legit question.

Yeah it is.

 

[crimresearch]

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.

He also didn't tell that witness what he had for dinner 3 weeks earlier...
All of Zimmerman's statements, including the one where he says he felt Martin's hand going down toward the gun, and he became afraid, have been posted here, and are easily available with a simple search.

All the medical documentation has been posted and is easily available with a simple search.

The relevant laws have been posted, explained, and are easily available with a simple search.

You asked this same stuff the last time you showed up, the facts are documented, so what is your point?

 

[crimresearch]

I assume his first interview with police was when he said it. He did not make that assertion to witness 13 - just "this guy he was beating up on me so I had to shoot him"

I guess the implied question is why didn't he tell witness 13 ' holy crap the guy went for my weapon' or ' the guy was trying to kill me'

It's a legit question.

I asked before what is the science behind the repeated assumption that GZ's memories and observations at that moment would be be accurate, and match perfectly every subsequent iteration?
And that's without getting into the issue of how many of his statements were made in response to leading or even false questions from the cops.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I asked before what is the science behind the repeated assumption that GZ's memories and observations at that moment would be be accurate, and match perfectly every subsequent iteration?
And that's without getting into the issue of how many of his statements were made in response to leading or even false questions from the cops.

I have no idea what you are going on about.

In response to the question "are you alright ?" GZ chose to respond that "this guy he was beating up on me so I had to shoot him." It was not a leading or false question, nor was it asked by the police.

I think it is a legitimate inquiry to wonder why described it as getting beat up on and not a more dire situation, like 'i thought he was going to kill me'.

If you think there is some hidden assumption and some science that is relevant, do tell ?

 

[crimresearch]

I have no idea what you are going on about.

In response to the question "are you alright ?" GZ chose to respond that "this guy he was beating up on me so I had to shoot him." It was not a leading or false question, nor was it asked by the police.

I think it is a legitimate inquiry to wonder why described it as getting beat up on and not a more dire situation, like 'i thought he was going to kill me'.

If you think there is some hidden assumption and some science that is relevant, do tell ?

The question was 'when did Zimmerman claim that he thought Martin was going for the gun'?

That question has been answered definitively, I asked what is the point in re-asking it.
GZ made the claim when he made the claim, it's on the record.

Now *you* brought up the 'implied question' hidden assumption that there is some significance in Zimmerman's excited utterances at the scene, and specifically what he forgot to add..

Give the scientific body of research on memory, and the negative effect of stress and trauma on accuracy(as already gone over), what is legitimate to ask, is 'Where's the support that there is anything signficant about it?'.

 

[Unabogie]

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.

Because it's the least believable scenario? Serino kept asking him why Trayvon would have attacked him, for a reason.

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

Because he lied about not following, he lied about being out of breath from running, he lied about where he confronted Trayvon, and there was too much time from when he told the dispatcher "OK" till the end of the call to believe he was walking back.

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

Of course they will. Since all of his "misremembering" just magically absolves him of all blame, it's a pretty logical deduction.

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.

Well, since he is a known liar on trial for murder, why would we take his word over hers or anyone else's again?

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

Right. They contradict each other. Not usually a good thing for a defendant.

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

Because likely isn't a diagnosis?

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.

A 50 pound weight difference won't sway anyone that it's unlikely George got completely manhandled by a kid?

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.

Where do you get 50 feet from?

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 ..

He has certainly gotten into altercations. That's a fact, isn't it?

But he was fed up because "those ******** always get away [....] out the back gate".

This time, he had had enough and went after the kid and tried to stop him.

Did you listen to those other calls? He called the cops on kids in the street, playing. He's a weird dude, with some serious issues.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

The question was 'when did Zimmerman claim that he thought Martin was going for the gun'?

That question has been answered definitively, I asked what is the point in re-asking it.
GZ made the claim when he made the claim, it's on the record.

Right, so we can forget this part.

Now *you* brought up the 'implied question' hidden assumption that there is some significance in Zimmerman's excited utterances at the scene, and specifically what he forgot to add..

Yes I did. But not what he forgot to add .. how he chose to say what happened.

Give the scientific body of research on memory, and the negative effect of stress and trauma on accuracy(as already gone over), what is legitimate to ask, is 'Where's the support that there is anything signficant about it?'.

So, you mean GZ forgot or was too traumatized to remember he was fearing for his life in his answer ? Go on, pull the other one !

It's not a test, and it's not a comparison to his other answers. I don't think there is any science (no matter what you continually claim has been 'gone over' in the thread) that allows you to complete discount a reasonable answer to an innocuous question simply because the person answering was exposed to a stressful event.

 

[This is The End]

I'm still trying to document all the points of corroboration, but this serves as a good example against the repeated claim that only Zimmerman and Martin know what happened and one is dead.

I'm not sure why you are trying to "document all the points of corroboration".

It was pointed out pages ago that Z could be guilty having only to change one minor detail in the events of that night.

So obviously there are going to be points that match up. If there weren't this wouldn't be a 20,000 post thread.

We can only assume why you would be "documenting all the points of corroboration"....

Now, on the other hand, if you were documenting all the points that don't match up, it would make a little more sense. If he is caught in a huge lie that directly relates to the events of that night, it will be very bad for Z in the eyes of the jury.

 

[This is The End]

I'm not too familiar with the Florida area but perhaps there is some destination close to Florida that is a place where fugitives go to escape US justice and has a name similar to "Heaven".

Havana, Cuba?

"His only defense against criminal charges is that he was in fear for his life, and that his fear was reasonable under the circumstances."
That's all he needs to assert, and that's all the prosecution has to overcome beyond a reasonable doubt.

That's odd. I seem to remember NBS insisting that you never made that claim dozens of times. And here you are still making it.

AFAIK,if Z is shown to be lying about major events of that night, then the prosecution will not have to have evidence that specifically shows M did not go for the gun.

And here it is again:

The prosecution pretty much has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Martin *wasn't* doing something that Zimmerman construed as reaching for the gun.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

He has certainly gotten into altercations. That's a fact, isn't it?

You mean the one 6 years ago when he was 22 in a bar and pushed someone? That "altercation"? Man you are a funny guy.

But he was fed up because "those ******** always get away [....] out the back gate".

This time, he had had enough and went after the kid and tried to stop him.

Yes, we all get the specious reasoning involved, we reject it as being evidence of anything. My past 8 girlfriends say I was a wonderful kind guy who if anything allowed himself to be taken advantage of. If that doesn't prove I'm beating GF9 I don't know what does. Obviously I was fed up at the 8 who took advantage of me. Proof!

Did you listen to those other calls? He called the cops on kids in the street, playing. He's a weird dude, with some serious issues.

I agree, he's a weird dude. I don't know what that has to do with proving he's a murderer, but he's definitely a weird dude.

 

[This is The End]

crimresearch, let's make this simple with a direct question.

Is it your claim that even if the prosecution proves with solid evidence Z was lying about huge, key, important details in the events of that night (not minor inconsistencies or normal and expected memory problems mind you) that it won't matter at all because "the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Martin *wasn't* doing something that Zimmerman construed as reaching for the gun"?​

Just a yes or no will suffice. If you insist, feel free to make it a "it depends" and add clarifying comments. Though, I am pretty sure I made the question quite air tight in regards to your claim.

 

[This is The End]

You mean the one 6 years ago when he was 22 in a bar and pushed someone? That "altercation"? Man you are a funny guy.

So is the judge also a "funny guy" when he references it in his bail order? Oh and don't think we don't notice that you say "pushed someone" and not "pushed a cop, and Z knew it was a cop".

We can only assume why you leave out key details that are not favorable to Z.

Also, I'm still waiting for responses to previous questions I asked you:

<snip>

fact that TM, a teenager, was caught with a bag full of woman's jewelry that he couldn't explain

<snip>

Bag full of jewelry??? Was there really that much? Why do I not remember that?


BTW, could you please respond to my post #1686?

 

[This is The End]

I personally do not want an innocent man to be convicted.

I also do not want a murderer to go free.

As it stands, there is some evidence of both.

It really seems that some of you are sticking to one or the other and forgetting about the alternative.

 

[crimresearch]

crimresearch, let's make this simple with a direct question.

Is it your claim that even if the prosecution proves with solid evidence Z was lying about huge, key, important details in the events of that night (not minor inconsistencies or normal and expected memory problems mind you) that it won't matter at all because "the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Martin *wasn't* doing something that Zimmerman construed as reaching for the gun"?​

Just a yes or no will suffice. If you insist, feel free to make it a "it depends" and add clarifying comments. Though, I am pretty sure I made the question quite air tight in regards to your claim.

Of course you made the question 'airtight'.... and fabricated 'my claim' for me.... again.
As others have asked, how is any of that on topic, civil, or not a waste of people's time? Some people come here to have a discussion, not to play debate club, or spin zone.

The game you played in posts above is a prime example. The law came up with 'beyond a reasonable doubt'and the elements of the crime, and the available defenses. I did not create that, and it isn't a 'claim', it is a fact. Your assertion to the contrary is pure fantasy..

If you really were interested, you would have read the exact laws on that point the dozens of times they've been posted here, including by myself. You would have addressed what is actually posted, instead of fabricating meanings or falsifying context. You would admit to what I've said over and over, about the credibility of Zimmerman's story... going back to the earliest part of these threads.

Here's my positionm which has not changed. George Zimmerman, and anyone else, be they fat, be they 'gangbangers', be they 'inconsistent', be they holster sniffers, or whatever... is entitled to due process under the law.

If the prosecution follows due process, what the law says they must prove is spelled out quite clearly, and none of your strawmen or sophist challenges can change that.

My quoting the law verbatim, isn't 'taking a side'.

In the real world of what a jury is going to believe, Zimmerman's story sound like something coached and reherased in a gun forum. It also sounds like what someone would say if it really happened to them.

None of this is news to you, you've been given the facts, links to facts, repeated citations of facts, and straightforward explanations many times here, by several people... and you you continue to argue against dealing in facts, calling debunking myths 'uncivil', and basicall (judging by sheer volume), railing against the objective/logical position while projecting that others are 'forgetting' neutrality.

Whatever you think you are achieving is your issue, not mine, to take care of.

When you put up correct and useful dialogue, I'll be glad to reply. If you don't, I will have no reason to keep feeding this.

 

[Unabogie]

You mean the one 6 years ago when he was 22 in a bar and pushed someone? That "altercation"? Man you are a funny guy.

What about when he pushed his ex-girlfriend and had a restraining order put on him? Oh, you believe his version of events over hers, right? And she also called the police to inform them that George is racist. So I guess she has told us two things about George that we can ignore.