Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[AlBell]

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.

I'll point out that has no bearing on proof beyond a reasonable doubt to M2.

 

[crimresearch]

Right, so we can forget this part.



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



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.

Please provide a link to where I used the words 'completely discount' on this... or better yet, stop making up things I never said.

I asked where was the support for assertions of significance, plain and simple.

If you don't believe in the research on witness unreliability, that's your issue, not mine.

 

[triforcharity]

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.

Does it not count because it was 6 years ago? Whew! Glad to hear that!

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!

Strawman. Nobody ever claimed that. Your own imagination did.

Also, you know who else claims that because it had NEVER happened before, it COULDN'T have happened? Idiotic truthers.

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.

Strawman. Nobody claimed it did.

 

[Unabogie]

I'll point out that has no bearing on proof beyond a reasonable doubt to M2.

We're not talking about admissibility. I was responding to Elvis, who said that George had no history of altercations, which is a false statement.

Then NBS said that his assault on a LEO was 6 years ago, so I pointed out that he also assaulted his ex-girlfriend. And she is on the official witness list as Witness 9. She says George is racist.

Now, they may not let her tell that to a jury, but we're not a jury. So we can come to our own conclusions about George and his history of violence.

Have you ever gotten a restraining order placed on you by a spouse? I sure haven't. I've never attacked a LEO either. Nor have I conspired to deceive a court. Nor have I shot anyone. These are things George did. You don't get to ignore them just because they make him look like a sociopath.

 

[johnny karate]

DeeDee's claim that Martin initiated the confrontation. The lack of evidence that Zimmerman took any offensive role in the altercation.

According to DeeDee, Martin asked Zimmerman "Why are you following me?". I'm not sure why you think that makes Martin the instigator.

Furthermore, I asked for evidence that Martin initiated the altercation.

Asking someone a question is not initiating an altercation.

Multiple injury sites to Zimmerman's face.

Zimmerman had a broken nose and a forehead abrasion not significant enough to be noted by a doctor the next day.

How is this evidence he was punched multiple times?

Injury to Martin's hand.

Martin had a single, tiny abrasion on one knuckle.

How is this evidence he punched Zimmerman multiple times?

W6's statement that Martin was either hitting of forcibly restraining Zimmerman. W1's statement that she observed "flailing arms" at the same time she saw W6, who said it looked like Martin was hitting Zimmerman.

"And that's why I made the statement that he was hitting him on top-- Because, I mean, that's what it looked like from where I was standing. It could have been him just trying to forcefully hold the guy down, or it could be hitting him."

How is someone not sure about what they saw evidence that Martin was punching Zimmerman?

W6's statement that Martin had Zimmerman on the concrete sidewalk and was either hitting Zimmerman or forcefully restraining him.

As the quote you provided demonstrates, Witness 6 reports that he is not sure what he saw.

How is someone not sure about what they saw evidence that Martin was bashing Zimmerman's head on the concrete?

The multiple injury sites to the back and top of Zimmerman's head.

Zimmerman had two small cuts on the back of his head (.5 cm and 2 cm) and no other head trauma.

How is that evidence that Martin was bashing Zimmerman's head on the concrete?

Other than W6's description of Martin's posture at that point in the altercation, I can't find anything.

So do you just take Zimmerman's word that Martin reached for his gun?

If so, why?

 

[johnny karate]

Someone was rolling his eyes at the idea a screwdriver could be seen as a burglary tool.

You are mistaken.

I was rolling my eyes at the notion that someone who said "I practice 'innocent until proven guilty' and thus do not look at info in the worst light for the accused" in defense of Zimmerman would so readily believe the worst about Martin.

I was simply - once again - pointing out the glaring double standard in how some people view this case.

 

[johnny karate]

Lying about how much money they had and having an extra passport does not suggest someone was planning to flee the country, there are plenty of other dishonest reasons that could have motivated them.

Name one.

Bump for Natural Born Skeptic.

I can only imagine this request will be ignored because the original claim is so laughably fallacious.

 

[johnny karate]

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

What evidence can you provide that Martin was "beating up George Zimmerman"?

 

[marplots]

What evidence can you provide that Martin was "beating up George Zimmerman"?

George was beat up?

I'm not sure what standard of evidence will do. There's a dead body. A guy who says he shot someone to produce it. The same guy says he was being beat up. The guy has some injuries.

It might not be enough evidence to convince me. It might not be enough evidence to convince you. It might not be enough evidence to convince a jury. But surely it should count as evidence, shouldn't it?

Or does the phrase "beat up" seem inflammatory or hyped? I'll accept some other wording if that's the problem. "Gentle contact" doesn't fit. Maybe, "rough caresses"?

We could adopt the physics version of "some exchange of kinetic energy" -- I'm open to suggestions.

 

[WildCat]

George was beat up?

I'm not sure what standard of evidence will do. There's a dead body. A guy who says he shot someone to produce it. The same guy says he was being beat up. The guy has some injuries.

It might not be enough evidence to convince me. It might not be enough evidence to convince you. It might not be enough evidence to convince a jury. But surely it should count as evidence, shouldn't it?

Or does the phrase "beat up" seem inflammatory or hyped? I'll accept some other wording if that's the problem. "Gentle contact" doesn't fit. Maybe, "rough caresses"?

We could adopt the physics version of "some exchange of kinetic energy" -- I'm open to suggestions.

Maybe Zimmerman fell down and hit his head, over and over again and Martin just went to try and help him.

 

[This is The End]

<snip>

I'll take that as a no.


Please tells us if it is not a "no".

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"?​

I'll let everyone compare that to your claims and they can see whether or not I "fabricated" anything...

Because it is very weird that you basically say "no" to that claim. But you won't tell me why it is different than these claims:

"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.

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.

And that is just two of the dozens of times you have made the claim.

There are lots of things that the state can prove that would find Zimmerman guilty that have nothing at all to do with whether or not they prove M was going for the gun or that Z was in fear of his life.

But yet you keep making that claim.

As far as I can tell from your response post you are moving the goalposts from your repeated claim which is:

They have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Z was not in fear of his life and/or that M was not going for Z's gun.

To:

They just have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Z murdered M.

But your claims match the former, which I disagree with. If you claims matched the latter, which I think everyone agrees with, I wouldn't have asked you to clarify the claim the first place.

 

[johnny karate]

George was beat up?

I'm not sure what standard of evidence will do. There's a dead body. A guy who says he shot someone to produce it. The same guy says he was being beat up. The guy has some injuries.

It might not be enough evidence to convince me. It might not be enough evidence to convince you. It might not be enough evidence to convince a jury. But surely it should count as evidence, shouldn't it?

Or does the phrase "beat up" seem inflammatory or hyped? I'll accept some other wording if that's the problem. "Gentle contact" doesn't fit. Maybe, "rough caresses"?

We could adopt the physics version of "some exchange of kinetic energy" -- I'm open to suggestions.

In order to define our terms, do you believe one punch constitutes getting "beat up"?

 

[johnny karate]

Maybe Zimmerman fell down and hit his head, over and over again and Martin just went to try and help him.

The medical report indicates Zimmerman had two small cuts (.5 cm and 2 cm) on the back of his head and no significant head trauma.

What gives you the idea that he hit is head "over and over again"?

 

[crimresearch]

I'll take that as a no.


Please tells us if it is not a "no".



I'll let everyone compare that to your claims and they can see whether or not I "fabricated" anything...

Because it is very weird that you basically say "no" to that claim. But you won't tell me why it is different than these claims:





And that is just two of the dozens of times you have made the claim.

There are lots of things that the state can prove that would find Zimmerman guilty that have nothing at all to do with whether or not they prove M was going for the gun or that Z was in fear of his life.

But yet you keep making that claim.

As far as I can tell from your response post you are moving the goalposts from your repeated claim which is:

They have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Z was not in fear of his life and/or that M was not going for Z's gun.

To:

They just have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Z murdered M.

But your claims match the former, which I disagree with. If you claims matched the latter, which I think everyone agrees with, I wouldn't have asked you to clarify the claim the first place.

You and the Supreme Court (and the various statutes, jury instructions, etc. across the entire country in line with them) can agree to disagree. Who cares?

Since you continue to blatantly fabricate things I've never said, mischaracterize what was said, and pretend you can't see the repeated explanations, you've talked yourself out of any further responses.

 

[crimresearch]

George was beat up?

I'm not sure what standard of evidence will do. There's a dead body. A guy who says he shot someone to produce it. The same guy says he was being beat up. The guy has some injuries.

It might not be enough evidence to convince me. It might not be enough evidence to convince you. It might not be enough evidence to convince a jury. But surely it should count as evidence, shouldn't it?

Or does the phrase "beat up" seem inflammatory or hyped? I'll accept some other wording if that's the problem. "Gentle contact" doesn't fit. Maybe, "rough caresses"?

We could adopt the physics version of "some exchange of kinetic energy" -- I'm open to suggestions.

One of the fun things about spending time in courtrooms is waiting for some ill prepared lawyer (or even better, someone defending themselves), to try to play some of the semantic 'gotcha' games so prevalent here.

'So Dr Whatever, how do you explain the fact that you claimed in your report that Mr. Zimmerman's nose was 'fractured'? The dictionary clearly says that fractured means 'violently separated into parts '... How many parts did you count? YOU DIDN"T COUNT ANY??? Were you lying then, or are you lying now?'

I'm reminded of this gem:

An attorney, cross-examining the local coroner, queried, "Before you signed the death certificate had you taken the man's pulse?"

"No," the coroner replied.

"Well, then, did you listen for a heart beat?"

The coroner answered, "No."

"Did you check for respiration? Breathing?", asked the attorney.

Again the coroner replied, "No."

"Ah," the attorney said, "So when you signed the death certificate you had not taken any steps to make sure the man was dead, had you?"

The coroner rolled his eyes, and shot back "Counselor, at the time I signed the death certificate the man's brain was sitting in a jar on my desk. But I can see your point. For all I know he could be out there practicing law somewhere."

http://www.lawlaughs.com/trials/washedead.html

 

[WildCat]

The medical report indicates Zimmerman had two small cuts (.5 cm and 2 cm) on the back of his head and no significant head trauma.

What gives you the idea that he hit is head "over and over again"?

Were there any other injuries besides those 2 cuts?

How many times did he fall and bump his head in the fall in your scenario to account for all those injuries?

Please explain the "head trauma" part of your comment, and cite the relevant statutes where head trauma is required before a self-defense claim can be invoked.

We both know you can't do so, don't we? And the whole "head trauma" blather is just a desperate red herring, isn't it?

 

[johnny karate]

Were there any other injuries besides those 2 cuts?

Yes, but you made specific reference to Zimmerman hitting his head over and over again. His other injuries were not associated with hitting his head.

How many times did he fall and bump his head in the fall in your scenario to account for all those injuries?

Being punched once accounts for the broken nose.

Falling once and hitting and/or scraping his head accounts for the two small cuts on the back of his head.

Please explain the "head trauma" part of your comment...

Zimmerman's medical report stated: "Head: Normocephalic, atraumatic".

Feel free to Google those terms.

... and cite the relevant statutes where head trauma is required before a self-defense claim can be invoked.

Who's talking about a self-defense?

You made a specific claim about the nature of the attack Zimmerman suffered.

I asked you to support that claim.

Self-defense doesn't enter into it.

We both know you can't do so, don't we? And the whole "head trauma" blather is just a desperate red herring, isn't it?

No, actually. It's a direct refutation of your claim that Zimmerman hit his head "over and over again".

What evidence to do you have to support that claim?

 

[marplots]

In order to define our terms, do you believe one punch constitutes getting "beat up"?

I suppose it depends on who was delivering the punch, but generally I wouldn't. If I knew there was just a single punch, I'd use the more specific "single punch" instead of "beat up."

I don't think of "beat up" as more than a general description, not at all a scientifically accurate term. I couldn't, for instance, tell you the number of dings and rust spots that makes my car more beat up than yours, although I expect my car probably is.

If this point is causing difficulty, I'll certainly go with "hit" or "struck" or any of a number of less smooshy phrases. But it still seems like an open question as to exactly how many blows were delivered or returned. Somewhere between a single blow and a thousand I expect. I can very well imagine seeing GZ right after the incident and thinking he'd been in a fight. Knowing nothing else, if he said he was beat up, I'd believe him.

Do we at least agree that the evidence is strong that Martin hit Zimmerman at least once? Or is that in dispute as well? We could just say the evidence shows they were involved in a fight and leave the rest out.

 

[WildCat]

Yes, but you made specific reference to Zimmerman hitting his head over and over again. His other injuries were not associated with hitting his head.

What were they associated with?

Being punched once accounts for the broken nose.

The what? How did that happen?

Falling once and hitting and/or scraping his head accounts for the two small cuts on the back of his head.

He fell down twice and hit his head?

Zimmerman's medical report stated: "Head: Normocephalic, atraumatic".

Feel free to Google those terms.

Relevance?

Who's talking about a self-defense?

The defense, or do you think he plead guilty?

You made a specific claim about the nature of the attack Zimmerman suffered.

I asked you to support that claim.

Self-defense doesn't enter into it.

Zimmerman isn't claiming self-defense?

No, actually. It's a direct refutation of your claim that Zimmerman hit his head "over and over again".

So all those injuries and marks happened from a single fall? Was there a flight of stairs he fell down that isn't visible in any of the photos?

What evidence to do you have to support that claim?

You just proved you are unable to answer the questions. Sadly this feat, like predicting sunrise tomorrow, doesn't win me the $1 million.

 

[johnny karate]

I suppose it depends on who was delivering the punch, but generally I wouldn't. If I knew there was just a single punch, I'd use the more specific "single punch" instead of "beat up."

I don't think of "beat up" as more than a general description, not at all a scientifically accurate term. I couldn't, for instance, tell you the number of dings and rust spots that makes my car more beat up than yours, although I expect my car probably is.

If this point is causing difficulty, I'll certainly go with "hit" or "struck" or any of a number of less smooshy phrases. But it still seems like an open question as to exactly how many blows were delivered or returned. Somewhere between a single blow and a thousand I expect. I can very well imagine seeing GZ right after the incident and thinking he'd been in a fight. Knowing nothing else, if he said he was beat up, I'd believe him.

Do we at least agree that the evidence is strong that Martin hit Zimmerman at least once? Or is that in dispute as well? We could just say the evidence shows they were involved in a fight and leave the rest out.

I'll certainly acknowledge Martin punched Zimmerman once. I don't think that's in question.

So since you make a distinction between being punched once and being beat up, what evidence do you have to support the claim that Zimmerman was "beat up" as opposed to being punched once?