• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

Status
Not open for further replies.
I disagree...

Cylinder said:
Because there is no evidence to support premeditation?
Click to expand...

With all due respect, Cylinder, I disagree with you on that statement, because on the 911 call, Zimmerman was talking about "these {expletive deleted} punks" and "******** getting away" implying premeditation and showing contempt for the police by confronting Martin.
To crimresearch, I had said as far as I know meaning I am not 100% sure of it.

Edited by LashL: 
Edited to properly mask profanity; please see Rule 10 re: the auto-censor.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dcdrac said:
I must have missed the black eyes GZ surely would have got if he had been repeatedly punched in the face.......
Click to expand...

Yes, you must have.

http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/docu..._exhibits/george_zimmerman_medical_report.pdf

"The swelling and black eyes are typical of this injury"

ETA: also, I don't think it requires more than getting punched once in the nose to give him those black eyes. If black eyes were evidence of repeated punching, some of the conversations going on now would not be.
 
Last edited:
skepteen314 said:
<SNIP>
To crimresearch, I had said as far as I know meaning I am not 100% sure of it.

Edited by LashL: 
Edited to properly mask profanity; please see Rule 10 re: the auto-censor.
Click to expand...
Well this thread has posted all the documents, all the relevant laws, and explained each and every element in great detail, along with links to court rulings,and lawyers explanations, so even though there is a lot of 'what iffery' around, the basics are pretty well beaten to a pulp.

Premeditation/1st degree/death penalty has a specific test of forming the intent to do a murder... not just an expression of frustration over events prior to the killing. Consider how many people say angry words versus how few actually kill.

Had the shooter said (as in 'I'm going to make sure this one never gets away again') or acted differently, there would have been a different charge.
 
Last edited:
skepteen314 said:
I disagree, Cylinder, as Zimmerman had stated in the 911 call about "punks" and (I am paraphrasing due to censorship) "people always getting away". That implies premeditation. Crimresearch, I had said "as far as I know," implying a certain degree of uncertainty in my statement. He showed contempt for the police during the 911 call and during the act itself. As far as "Stand Your Ground", that went out the window as soon as he went against 911's recommendation NOT to follow him.
Click to expand...
What 911 call?
 
johnny karate said:
Your sophistry and sarcastic hyperbole are noted.
Click to expand...

Thank you. It's nice to be appreciated. I was shooting for hyperbole while keeping the snark at an acceptable level.

But thanks for being honest about the lack of evidence for the very specific claims that Zimmerman made.
Click to expand...

How could I be otherwise? I think it may be a matter of how much force we put on his statements as "claims" rather than something he's riffing off the cuff, partly to make himself look better to the cops and partly in the same way we all construct narratives to make sense of the world.

I'd even go so far as to say his story is probably heavily colored by GZ seeing himself as the hero. The situation sounds like what many who support self defense (and concealed weapons) construct as a justification. But that doesn't tell me much. Did he inject fanciful notions of good vs. evil? Maybe.

I find reactions like this to my request for that evidence quite bemusing because I was under the impression this was a place in which evidence is demanded before a claim will be accepted.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the difficulty comes because we can't really rewind history and record things any more accurately. We are left with poor/conflicting evidence and a lot of speculation. The facts that we agree on can be construed to mean different things. This is often the case with evidence -- we weigh it differently and come to different conclusions.

I would be perfectly willing to come to a different conclusion (and may very well do so) after we see what comes out at trial. Anything I seem to be advocating here is just provisional, "how it seems to me" stuff. I really don't know what happened with a high degree of certainty and am willing to admit it.

I'm operating under a "has to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" standard and right now, that comes down on the side of not enough evidence to convict. Enough evidence to question at least part of GZ's story? Certainly. How much that matters? I'm not sure.

My best guess right now is that GZ had a kind of wannabe hero complex, empowered by the fact he knows he is carrying a gun. This leads to the cop-like behavior, a confrontation and a fight. I've seen both kinds of fights. The one where there's a fair degree of yelling and pushing first, and the one where someone gets sucker-punched.

Did GZ go for his gun too soon? I don't know. I've felt bolder when I carried a gun, but I also felt quite a bit of responsibility. I've never had cause to shoot anyone, even when there was a struggle. I just can't say what was going on in George's mind at the time. I do believe he was hit, maybe repeatedly. That's hard to reconcile with an innocent TM.

Love the conversation though. The way this thread has shaken out.
 
skepteen314 said:
When I made this post, I had to remove the link from the above quote. Here is my response:

I am familliar with the case. What I need is the charging document, someone to explain to me how he only got SECOND Degree murder and if not, manslaughter. He was advised NOT to follow Martin. They were both confronting each other, Martin for being followed, Zimmerman asking him "what are you doing here?" The rest is unclear to me because there has been so much going on in the media, I don't know where to start without eventually casting my vote after everything is said and done.
Click to expand...

skepteen314 said:
The inital 911 call, the one that started the incident, the one that has Zimmerman saying Martin looks "suspicious".
Click to expand...

Not to be rude, but not knowing what crime the defendant is charged with and "The rest is unclear" appear to be good evidence that you are not familiar with the case.

The point being made above is that GZ called the non-emergency number, not 911. He was not legally or otherwise obligated to follow any instructions, such as 'we don't need you to do that'.
 
marplots said:
.... My best guess right now is that GZ had a kind of wannabe hero complex, empowered by the fact he knows he is carrying a gun. This leads to the cop-like behavior, a confrontation and a fight. .....
Click to expand...

Do we know how long before the event GZ received his CWP? If it was a recent acquisition, I wonder if that might have contributed to an "I'm the man now!" attitude.
 
Bob001 said:
Do we know how long before the event GZ received his CWP? If it was a recent acquisition, I wonder if that might have contributed to an "I'm the man now!" attitude.
Click to expand...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/25/us-usa-florida-shooting-zimmerman-idUSBRE83O18H20120425

Fall 2009.

"Don't use pepper spray," he told the Zimmermans, according to a friend. "It'll take two or three seconds to take effect, but a quarter second for the dog to jump you," he said.

"Get a gun."

That November, the Zimmermans completed firearms training at a local lodge and received concealed-weapons gun permits. In early December, another source close to them told Reuters, the couple bought a pair of guns. George picked a Kel-Tec PF-9 9mm handgun, a popular, lightweight weapon.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Not to be rude, but not knowing what crime the defendant is charged with and "The rest is unclear" appear to be good evidence that you are not familiar with the case.

The point being made above is that GZ called the non-emergency number, not 911. He was not legally or otherwise obligated to follow any instructions, such as 'we don't need you to do that'.
Click to expand...

I Should have made myself clearer. I know of the case. I just haven't been following it so closely.
 
You'll have to forgive some others here. Apparently you are required to be 100% up to date on this case, or else you'll be ridiculed and lambasted.

See my links to the Florida state statutes for further explanation.
 
triforcharity said:
You'll have to forgive some others here. Apparently you are required to be 100% up to date on this case, or else you'll be ridiculed and lambasted.

See my links to the Florida state statutes for further explanation.
Click to expand...

Thank you. I saw the link. I still disagree with Murder 2. There was implied premeditation when Zimmerman called whomever saying stuff about people.
 
Unabogie said:
.... I think the more likely scenario is George tried to detain Trayvon, a scuffle ensued, then George made up details to absolve himself of any blame.....
Click to expand...

Just an observation: Before he obtained his CWP, GZ had to take a course that covered firearms laws, particularly the use of deadly force. He was also a student in a criminal justice program, the son of a magistrate and an apparent cop wannabe. He very likely had more information about the subject than most people, and once he decided to carry a gun it would be surprising if he hadn't carefully considered what he would need to say and how he would need to behave if he ever shot anybody. Many people in a similar situation might have been spluttering "I'm not sure what happened, it was so fast, I'm hurt, this is terrible...." GZ apparently met the first officer with his hands on his head and said essentially "My weapon is holstered on my belt. I shot the subject because I was afraid for my life." It might all have happened just the way GZ says, or it might have happened just the way he remembered his script.
 
Last edited:
Bob001 said:
Just an observation: Before he obtained his CWP, GZ had to take a course that covered firearms laws, particularly the use of deadly force. He was also a student in a criminal justice program, the son of a magistrate and an apparent cop wannabe. He very likely had more information about the subject than most people, and once he decided to carry a gun it would be surprising if he hadn't carefully considered what he would need to say and how he would need to behave if he ever shot anybody. Many people in a similar situation might have been spluttering "I'm not sure what happened, it was so fast, I'm hurt, this is terrible...." GZ apparently met the first officer with his hands on his head and said essentially "My weapon is holstered on my belt. I shot the subject because I was afraid for my life." It might all have happened just the way GZ says, or it might have happened just the way he remembered his script.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with this. Along with the "knowing what to say" part, I only want to add that attached to that is the "knowing what to do" part. So, for example, he knows going in what circumstances would allow him to shoot or not. There's just no way for me to tell if those circumstances actually happened or if he shaded his story -- or by how much.

We can't just say that everyone who knows the rules won't follow them and instead rely on falsifying testimony to get out of trouble. I have the same reluctance in labeling GZ a willing killer as I have of labeling TM a hoodlum who attacks without provocation. Does GZ carry a gun because he thinks he might need it or because he wants to use it?

The question before the jury will come down to what they think is reasonable.
 
Bob001 said:
Just an observation: Before he obtained his CWP, GZ had to take a course that covered firearms laws, particularly the use of deadly force. He was also a student in a criminal justice program, the son of a magistrate and an apparent cop wannabe. He very likely had more information about the subject than most people, and once he decided to carry a gun it would be surprising if he hadn't carefully considered what he would need to say and how he would need to behave if he ever shot anybody. Many people in a similar situation might have been spluttering "I'm not sure what happened, it was so fast, I'm hurt, this is terrible...." GZ apparently met the first officer with his hands on his head and said essentially "My weapon is holstered on my belt. I shot the subject because I was afraid for my life." It might all have happened just the way GZ says, or it might have happened just the way he remembered his script.
Click to expand...

Well, yeah, but I would guess it was more in the middle somewhere. I do believe that George tried to detain Trayvon. I think he did not attempt to return to his truck. I do think they scuffled. I don't know why he shot Trayvon, but it wasn't because he was punched with a "brick" 30 times and had his head bashed against concrete, nor do I think Trayvon went for the gun. I think the straddling position makes George's story impossible. In the end, I think that George lost his cool or overreacted. I think when it was all over, he lied to cover his tracks. I think he lied to make himself appear to be an innocent victim.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom