Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[triforcharity]

ok. Now I get it. My interpretation of his comments during the initial phone call led me to believe he was going to kill Martin then and there. What is stopping this from being a conviction?

I don't understand the hilited? Can you explain it differently?

 

[triforcharity]

I'd like to see a statement from a DOJ/FBI rep to back up that time frame, out of curiosity.

Not that I disbelieve they could drag it out that long, but it seems to be a ridiculous amount of time to take. It almost seems like they coud continually say' we're still invesitgating ... we don't know what we'll find tomorrow.'

You would think either they have something of not in the first few weeks, much less months.

I'll look, but IIRC, even the New Orleans incident took quite some time to investigate, and that had much more evidence than the GZ case. I will try to find it.

 

[Unabogie]

So if it went down like the following, could anyone disprove it ? Is it just as likely as GZ version of events ?

GZ wasn't really on his way to the store. He was home, and his best friend in the community, Mr. Frank Taaffe called him at home, and let George know there was an 'undesireable' roaming the neighborhood, by his house. That's why GZ hopped in his truck.The whole 'going grocery shopping' was a lie. He couldn't have been going to the store, because he only had 50 cents on him !

Then GZ followed TM in his truck. Once TM ran, GZ got out of his truck, pulled out his gun and ran after him and chased him around behind the townhouses. That's why you have those witnesses who saw all the shadows running around. And TM was screaming for help becuase GZ was brandishing his firearm.

Then, GZ tripped while he was chasing TM, and fell into the bushes. One of the witnesses heard that too. That's how GZ cut his head. While near the bushes, thats when TM briefly got on top of GZ. But becuase GZ is so heavy, he was able to get the advantage on TM and stand up. That's when TM was about to get away, but GZ shot him from a few feet away, as they stood there. When he shot, the gun kicked back and broke his nose. TM fell forward on his face, and GZ quickly jumped on top of TM to finish him off.

Fits all the facts, yes ?

Except it falls into the same trap as the Zimmermanistas do. They assume a fantastical scenario in which innocent old George was just looking for that address, the wind was making it sound like he was running, and Trayvon attacked him out of the bushes for looking at him funny.

Your new scenario paints George as a gun totin' wild west vigilante.

How about George was an overzealous guy who decided to exercise horrible judgment and tried to detain a kid he thought was a criminal, which resulted in an altercation in which he lost control and shot the kid?

No conspiracies, no James Bond, no grand coincidences.

He profiled an innocent kid, scare him, the kid ran, he chased him, he tried to grab him, they fought, he grabbed his gun in fear or anger and killed him. Then he told a story that fell apart with an ounce of scrutiny.

That fits the known facts best of all.

 

[This is The End]

No matter how much evidence is presented, truthers demand more.

WildCat your posts like these are confusing me?

Do you realize we are discussing a case where we have yet to see all of the facts? We do not know yet if Z is innocent or a murderer.

People comparing it to bigfoot or other easily debunkable CT only makes themselves look like the person that has formed a decision without solid evidence, not the people you are accusing of being "truthers"?

Perhaps you spent too much time in a conspiracy theory thread where the evidence was solid and you have mistakenly applied it to this thread?

Compare your one liners to one of my recent posts:

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.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I'll look, but IIRC, even the New Orleans incident took quite some time to investigate, and that had much more evidence than the GZ case. I will try to find it.

I'll look too. I'm sure I don't understand all that such an investigation requires ... it just seems prima facie excessive.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Except it falls into the same trap as the Zimmermanistas do. They assume a fantastical scenario in which innocent old George was just looking for that address, the wind was making it sound like he was running, and Trayvon attacked him out of the bushes for looking at him funny.

I must be a zimmermanista, as I pretty much believe 2 out of 3 of those things.

Your new scenario paints George as a gun totin' wild west vigilante.

That seems to be a very popular opinion of him on the interwebs. Frank Taaffe is some sort of co-conspirator according to twitter lately.

How about George was an overzealous guy who decided to exercise horrible judgment and tried to detain a kid he thought was a criminal, which resulted in an altercation in which he lost control and shot the kid?

No conspiracies, no James Bond, no grand coincidences.

Because that still involves you making up stuff that there is no proof or evidence for. If you are gonna make it up, go big.
What's the difference. You can't prove your scenario any more than mine, can you ?

He profiled an innocent kid, scare him, the kid ran, he chased him, he tried to grab him, they fought, he grabbed his gun in fear or anger and killed him. Then he told a story that fell apart with an ounce of scrutiny.

That fits the known facts best of all.

ETA: Why is my scenario fantastical. I have seen all those things argued for. Maybe not all at the same time, but each one separately. Is there any physical evidence that disproves my scenario ? Any witnesses ?

 

[This is The End]

The legal standard for self defense is the thing that would stop a conviction...

It basically requires the prosecution to prove a negative (that the killer *wasn't* in fear at the moment he began to draw and shoot) beyond a reasonable doubt.

And it's pretty hard to prove a negative, never mind the mind reading.

Unless they come up with some unknown hard evidence, the best guess is that they will try to attack Zimmerman's credibility... and even there, they will be restricted by the legal system.

Wow, less than 24 hours later and you are back to making this claim after denying it...

AFAIK, they can come up with evidence that does not have anything at all to do with the moment where Z says M went for his gun and/or Z being in fear of his life; and prove that Z committed 2nd degree murder with it.

If, in fact, they can produce evidence that does not disprove that specific moment in time, it makes no sense for you to repeatedly state that they do.

AFAIK, the only time your statement would possibly make sense is at an immunity hearing which is likely not going to happen.

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.

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.

If I am fabricating what you say, then clarify the claim! If you do not clarify the claim I can only assume I read it correctly.

crim, this isn't hard, if this does not match your claims quoted above, please tell us why!! Please just point out what exactly is wrong with the below without hundreds of words of unrelated lambasting.

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 does NOT relate to the moment where M went for the gun and/or when Z was in fear of his life; 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"?​

 

[This is The End]

Except it falls into the same trap as the Zimmermanistas do. They assume a fantastical scenario in which innocent old George was just looking for that address, the wind was making it sound like he was running, and Trayvon attacked him out of the bushes for looking at him funny.

I must be a zimmermanista, as I pretty much believe 2 out of 3 of those things.

Since, unless I am mistaken, you are agreeing that you believe that "George was just looking for that address, the wind was making it sound like he was running" I am wondering if you watched the relative 2 minutes of that video yet?

Watch for 2 minutes starting at this link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k07wZIU1siM#t=10m8s

That part of Z's story is not something I would be saying that I "pretty much believe".

 

[crimresearch]

maybe Zimmerman went Cartman

25March2012


Hmmm... I wonder if I can collect royalties...

 

[johnny karate]

I must be a zimmermanista, as I pretty much believe 2 out of 3 of those things.

That seems to be a very popular opinion of him on the interwebs. Frank Taaffe is some sort of co-conspirator according to twitter lately.

Because that still involves you making up stuff that there is no proof or evidence for. If you are gonna make it up, go big.
What's the difference. You can't prove your scenario any more than mine, can you ?

ETA: Why is my scenario fantastical. I have seen all those things argued for. Maybe not all at the same time, but each one separately. Is there any physical evidence that disproves my scenario ? Any witnesses ?

So do you feel what is happening here is a contest to see who can come up with the wildest theory possible or an honest search for the truth through an examination of the facts?

 

[Unabogie]

I must be a zimmermanista, as I pretty much believe 2 out of 3 of those things.



That seems to be a very popular opinion of him on the interwebs. Frank Taaffe is some sort of co-conspirator according to twitter lately.



Because that still involves you making up stuff that there is no proof or evidence for. If you are gonna make it up, go big.
What's the difference. You can't prove your scenario any more than mine, can you ?



ETA: Why is my scenario fantastical. I have seen all those things argued for. Maybe not all at the same time, but each one separately. Is there any physical evidence that disproves my scenario ? Any witnesses ?

Yes, there is DeeDee who said Trayvon was walking, not running, at the time George accosted him, and then George's NEN call, in which we can hear him stopping his sprint. I think that neither of them were running. I think George approached Trayvon just like DeeDee said, he barked at him just like DeeDee said, and he then tried to detain him so he wouldn't get away like all the other ********.

I didn't "make up" a thing. The only way we get to supporting George is by believing his story. And his story is ridiculous.

Your attempts at straw manning are noted, by the way. Let's be better than that.

 

[triforcharity]

I'll look too. I'm sure I don't understand all that such an investigation requires ... it just seems prima facie excessive.

Well, the NOPD investigation while immensely more complex, took from 2005 till 2011. So, roughly 6 years.

Here's a list of different cases the DOJ has handled.
http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/crm/selcases.php

If you'll notice, most of the cases took years to prosecute.

But, I can't seem to find anything with a cursory look. Maybe that was a specific comment from a news caster.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Yes, there is DeeDee who said Trayvon was walking, not running, at the time George accosted him, and then George's NEN call, in which we can hear him stopping his sprint. I think that neither of them were running. I think George approached Trayvon just like DeeDee said, he barked at him just like DeeDee said, and he then tried to detain him so he wouldn't get away like all the other ********.

I didn't "make up" a thing. The only way we get to supporting George is by believing his story. And his story is ridiculous.

Your attempts at straw manning are noted, by the way. Let's be better than that.

You made up a scenario that you believe the evidence supports circumstantially, but not directly. You have no evidence GZ attempted to detain TM, for example- you made that up. If you would like to word it differently , go for it.

 

[crimresearch]

Well, the NOPD investigation while immensely more complex, took from 2005 till 2011. So, roughly 6 years.

Here's a list of different cases the DOJ has handled.
http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/crm/selcases.php

If you'll notice, most of the cases took years to prosecute.

But, I can't seem to find anything with a cursory look. Maybe that was a specific comment from a news caster.

Depending on the circumstances, the FBI has been known to proceed with 'all deliberate speed'. They aren't supposed to give a rip about the DA's next election, or the Governor's desire to make things go away quickly.

In this case, I wouldn't be surprised if they aren't finding that much to report.

 

[Unabogie]

You made up a scenario that you believe the evidence supports circumstantially, but not directly. You have no evidence GZ attempted to detain TM, for example- you made that up. If you would like to word it differently , go for it.

DeeDee says Trayvon said "get off me". Though you will dismiss that, it's evidence Trayvon was grabbed at that point.

 

[Bob001]

.... because he only had 50 cents on him ....

Do we know whether GZ was carrying credit or debit cards? Quite a few people are paving the road to a cashless society.

It would be more interesting to know if he drove somewhere other than a straight route from his house to the gate out of the community, or if a neighbor saw him parked near Taaffe's house just before the event, or if he or Taaffe called each other before GZ left his house, or how long before the event Taaffe left his own house, apparently leaving his doors and windows open.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

The only way we get to supporting George is by believing his story. And his story is ridiculous.

You say that again and again and again as if it's a fact, one that you are dead certain of, and evidently think should be obvious to everyone else. But it's not a fact, which is what makes this case so challenging to know what really happened. Most of his story is not remarkable nor unbelievable.

Here are the details that I find unusual and or concern me, but none would be great enough for me to vote guilty for murder 2 based on the evidence I've seen so far.

1. TM telling him "you're going to die tonight".
2. GZ saying he thought TM was going for his gun. My suspicion is that TM never knew he had a gun.
3, GZ telling the neighbor he was beating me, as opposed to "he was trying to kill me".
4. Whether the wounds are bad enough to justify a claim of self-defense is a tough one and I'd say we are right on the grey area. If this was a fist fight in a bar they weren't enough. But what if GZ had actually had this fight with a criminal who attacked him outside in the dark? After all, that's what GZ believed at that moment. That's how we have to think about it and in that instance I think it's border line. (I'm talking about how we have to evaluate it legally if we believe his story)
5. His willingness to allow the court to be mislead makes me think he'd be OK with adding some embellishments or lying to the police to strengthen his self-defense claim.
6. Minor concerns about how DeeDee's testimony conflicts, minor because until I hear her cross examined I have serious doubts about her testimony.

Regardless of above I think that even if he is telling the truth in all regards that he acted carelessly and unwisely, especially considering that he was armed.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

DeeDee says Trayvon said "get off me". Though you will dismiss that, it's evidence Trayvon was grabbed at that point.

Well, let's be accurate. She just heard a little bit of 'get off' before she heard the grass. And she didn't hear that the the first time she told her story, because she told us everything she heard before the phone cut off in her first story, and that wasn't included. What is it you call it when the statement changes from telling to telling ?

Do you think we should all agree with you , that a little bit of 'get off' equals GZ tried to detain TM ?

 

[GWCarver]

You say that again and again and again as if it's a fact, one that you are dead certain of, and evidently think should be obvious to everyone else. But it's not a fact, which is what makes this case so challenging to know what really happened. Most of his story is not remarkable nor unbelievable.

Here are the things that I find unusual and or concern me.

1. TM telling him "you're going to die tonight".
2. GZ saying he thought TM was going for his gun. My suspicion is that TM never knew he had a gun.
3, GZ telling the neighbor he was beating me, as opposed to "he was trying to kill me".
4. Whether the wounds are bad enough to justify a claim of self-defense is a tough one and I'd say we are right on the grey area. If this was a fist fight in a bar they weren't enough. But what if GZ had actually had this fight with a criminal who attacked him outside in the dark? After all, that's what GZ believed at that moment. That's how we have to think about it and in that instance I think it's border line. (I'm talking about how we have to evaluate it legally if we believe his story)
5. His willingness to allow the court to be mislead makes me think he'd be OK with adding some embellishments or lying to the police to strengthen his self-defense claim.

Regardless of 1-5 I think that even if he is telling the truth in all regards that he acted carelessly and unwisely, especially considering that he was armed.

Wounds aren't required to justify self-defense, just fear of great bodily harm.

 

[GWCarver]

Do we know whether GZ was carrying credit or debit cards? Quite a few people are paving the road to a cashless society.

It would be more interesting to know if he drove somewhere other than a straight route from his house to the gate out of the community, or if a neighbor saw him parked near Taaffe's house just before the event, or if he or Taaffe called each other before GZ left his house, or how long before the event Taaffe left his own house, apparently leaving his doors and windows open.

What does Taaffe have to do with this?