Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[Rare Truth]

Yet, when you wipe away all the ridicule heaped on Zimmerman and subsitituted for actual evidence there is not one witness to the events who dispute Zimmerman's claims. Not the victim's girlfreind who heard the start of the altercation, not the woman who heard the altercation from start to finish, not the multiple witnesses that saw Zimmerman on bottom, not the man who watched the altercation mere seconds before the fatal shot, not the woman down the block who seeing the aftermath thought her observations proof af guilt, not the physical evidence showing Zimmerman having been attacked, his nose and the back of his head damaged...not one scrap of actual evidence.

That ridiculous paragraph would only fool someone who actually hasn't been following the case.

Nice try though.

 

[Rare Truth]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/100525084/State-s-4th-Supplemental-Discovery-7-19-12

--State's 4th-Supplemental-Discovery-7-19-12

One item: Defendant's statements on Sean Hannity Show. (Fox News) 7/18/12

When part 2 airs, I think we'll be seeing State's 5th Supplemental Discovery

 

[Noztradamus]

Yet, when you wipe away all the ridicule heaped on Zimmerman and subsitituted for actual evidence there is not one witness to the events who dispute Zimmerman's claims. Not the victim's girlfreind who heard the start of the altercation, not the woman who heard the altercation from start to finish, not the multiple witnesses that saw Zimmerman on bottom, not the man who watched the altercation mere seconds before the fatal shot, not the woman down the block who seeing the aftermath thought her observations proof af guilt, not the physical evidence showing Zimmerman having been attacked, his nose and the back of his head damaged...not one scrap of actual evidence.

A dead teenager and standing over him, a man with a gun whose story doesn't tie together. In simpler times that would have been enough.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

The manual that you're citing doesn't really seem to say anything at all about organized patrols. It basically tells everyone to look out for the neighbors and their property and report suspicious activity. Good advice, but it doesn't seem to be relevant to the question at hand.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...2Bvp4O&sig=AHIEtbSA1U4mZUYwAZ9AV_GpuS9mQC9BIg

That would probably be because their neighborhood watch never created a manual, or adopted a national manual, or anything.

That's why it seems a bit silly to go on about how GZ broke the rules.

What rules ? Officer Wendys words of wisdom rules ?

The whole neighborhood watch issue is a red herring.

Unabogie seems concerned with how GZ broke the rules ... so I justifiably ask ... what rules ?

 

[GWCarver]

Yes. He had a CWP issued by the State. He is required to know this information, and is beat into your head quite extensively during the training classes.



Nope, if that is what actually happened. I doubt his story, so....

If GZ was the attacker or aggressor, then yes, he did have every duty to retreat and break off the fight before using deadly force.

Not sure why your post sounds snippy. Was it intended that way sir?

Nope, but I was trying to wrap a few things up to meet my spouse back at the casino downstairs. I asked you for a cite that Zimmerman knew about the SYG law, and you suggested I must live outside of the U.S. to not have known about it before this case. I had heard of "no duty to retreat", but not "stand your ground". I have never attended a carry course in Florida, so I have no idea what they teach, what they emphasize, or how likely people are to remember it a year or two later.

I will say, IMO, almost everyone who is unfamiliar with local self-defense laws would stare in disbelief when informed that if someone was approaching them with a gun pointed in their direction they had to try to run away before defending themselves.

To give you an idea of how hard it is to understand the self-defense laws, at least in Florida, it would appear your statement above is in error. In Florida, the initial aggressor does have the right to use deadly force if the person he assaulted escalates the conflict with force so great that he is in fear of death or great bodily harm. For example, if a girl slaps you, then you sucker-punch her, throw her on the ground, and start beating her head on the sidewalk to the point she fears great bodily harm or death, she can legally shoot you.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Right. So you've decided you believe his story. I don't understand that, but at least you're no longer claiming to be just waiting for evidence. You've made your mind up just like many of us.

Generally speaking, I haven't seen the evidence to disprove his claim of self defense.

But yes, I have made up my mind that nothing so far convinces me GZ is guilty of murder2. Manslaughter, maybe. But that whole 'reasonable doubt' thing is still on the table.

Do I believe his whole story, word for word ? No.

 

[johnny karate]

That ridiculous paragraph would only fool someone who actually hasn't been following the case.

Nice try though.

The stranger and more untrustworthy Zimmerman reveals himself to be, this refrain of "Nanner-nanner-boo-boo you can't prove he's lying!" will become louder and more insistent.

It is, of course, a ridiculous argument because it:

A) Requires one to disprove a positive claim - a standard that would be ridiculed anywhere else on this forum.

B) Requires one to adhere to a legal standard despite the fact this is a casual conversation on an Internet forum, not a court of law.

C) Assumes anyone here is arguing that because it appears Zimmerman is lying that he should and will be convicted of murder.

Again, I have to wonder if the same people putting forth this fallacious argument would use it in regard to O.J. Simpson or Casey Anthony.

Somehow, I doubt it.

 

[Cylinder]

A) Requires one to disprove a positive claim - a standard that would be ridiculed anywhere else on this forum.

Case in point:

I post a series of phots with the injuries to Zimmerman that I find apparent.

Problem:The Articles Of Faith require the injuries not to be there.

Solution: Attack the arrows!!!!

Of course, it's left to the curiostity of the reader to go back and see what weight photos that don't seem to show injuries are given.

In this world, only psychotic killers with racial animus have a flashlight handy in the car. Wind noises cannot be caused by wind. The person standing 20 feet away is irrelevant but The Man with the Golden Ear is. An EMT report is gospel but the actual police photos are bunk.

 

[Cylinder]

A dead teenager and standing over him, a man with a gun whose story doesn't tie together. In simpler times that would have been enough.

Define simpler times. Justified homicide is a concept that predates our system of laws. Hell, it predates the system of laws we inherited from.

 

[Cylinder]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/100525084/State-s-4th-Supplemental-Discovery-7-19-12

--State's 4th-Supplemental-Discovery-7-19-12

One item: Defendant's statements on Sean Hannity Show. (Fox News) 7/18/12

When part 2 airs, I think we'll be seeing State's 5th Supplemental Discovery

Notice that they have it as Catagory C.

 

[johnny karate]

Case in point:

I post a series of phots with the injuries to Zimmerman that I find apparent.

Problem:The Articles Of Faith require the injuries not to be there.

Solution: Attack the arrows!!!!

By "Articles of Faith" do you mean the official medical documents? Because that's what I've been using as reference for the multiple times I've listed Zimmerman's injuries.

For your convenience, here is that list again:

- Broken nose

- Two small cuts on the back of the head (.5 cm and 2 cm)

- Forehead abrasion (noted by the EMT on the scene, but not the doctor the next day)

Feel free to double-check my math, but I count four injuries in total, three of which were pretty minor.

Can you explain to me why I should believe what your Picture of a Thousand Blue Arrows tells me about Zimmerman's injuries over the reports of the medical professionals who examined him?

 

[Bob001]

The whole neighborhood watch issue is a red herring.

That's probably true, in the narrow sense that it doesn't bear directly on the question of whether GZ was in fear for his life, and if so whether that fear was justified. However, the broader question is whether GZ would have followed (or just been "going in the same direction") TM -- who he believed was a suspicious criminal -- if he hadn't been carrying a gun. If GZ had just called the cops and stayed in his truck, as most unarmed citizens would have done, TM would be alive and GZ wouldn't be charged with murder.

 

[triforcharity]

Again, RATL was not registered with the National Neighborhood Watch Association.

I don't know if that matters. It's standard for pretty much every NW program.

I do remember seeing the manual for the Sanford PD's NW manual saying the same thing. I have NEVER heard of a NW program that didn't specifically forbid it. Just the same with not confronting anyone, and never becoming involved.

Observe and report. That is pretty much the standard.

 

[Unabogie]

I don't know if that matters. It's standard for pretty much every NW program.

I do remember seeing the manual for the Sanford PD's NW manual saying the same thing. I have NEVER heard of a NW program that didn't specifically forbid it. Just the same with not confronting anyone, and never becoming involved.

Observe and report. That is pretty much the standard.

So does the nature of this argument prove to everyone's satisfaction that George most likely patrolled carrying a weapon? Frank Taffe says he patrolled a few nights a week, and George has told us he carries his gun everywhere he goes except for work. So putting two and two together, we can reasonably surmise that George routinely carried a weapon on NW patrols, which by every shred of evidence we can find, is something NW tells you never to do.

But old George, he did it anyway. Because silly rules don't apply to you when you're carrying out god's plan.

 

[triforcharity]

I asked you for a cite that Zimmerman knew about the SYG law, and you suggested I must live outside of the U.S. to not have known about it before this case.

No, you've misunderstood what I asked. Almost everyone in every "gun circle" in Florida has heard of the SYG law. Everyone who has a CWP in Florida, knows about it. Even people who are outside of Florida, have heard of the SYG law here. My asking if you lived outside of the US would explain more adequately why you hadn't heard of Florida's SYG law. It just struck me as funny that you'd never heard of it. That was all.

I had heard of "no duty to retreat", but not "stand your ground".

They're basically one and the same.

Here's a basic breakdown.

Before Florida added the "SYG" law as it's known, if you were in a public place and were accosted, you had to try everything to remove yourself from the altercation before you could use deadly force.

This law removed the "must flee" portion from Florida law, and made it so if I was out in public, and someone tried to rob me, I had every right to draw and fire my weapon to defend myself. Before, I would have to run away.

This didn't apply to your house. There has always been a law in Florida called the "Castle Doctrine" which said that if I was in my house, I could shoot an intruder with no fear of prosecution. This law (SYG) extended that to include any place I am legally allowed to be.

I have never attended a carry course in Florida, so I have no idea what they teach, what they emphasize, or how likely people are to remember it a year or two later.

I can tell you from personal experience, that when you're allowed to shoot is drilled into your head over and over and over and over. They go over dozens of scenarios and explain why you're allowed to shoot or not.

I will say, IMO, almost everyone who is unfamiliar with local self-defense laws would stare in disbelief when informed that if someone was approaching them with a gun pointed in their direction they had to try to run away before defending themselves.

Correct. Before the SYG law went into effect, you were actually required to flee, if you were in a public place. Hence, why it was changed.

To give you an idea of how hard it is to understand the self-defense laws, at least in Florida, it would appear your statement above is in error. In Florida, the initial aggressor does have the right to use deadly force if the person he assaulted escalates the conflict with force so great that he is in fear of death or great bodily harm.

Nope, it's accurate. If you and I are in a bar, and we get into an argument, and I deck you straight in your snoz, you've got the right to meet me force with force. If you begin to get the upper hand, and are just pummeling me to no end, (because I was the initial aggressor) I have to make every attempt to disengage or end the fight. If I cannot, and you continue, and I am in reasonable fear for my life, I can then draw my weapon and fire.

But, I have to make EVERY effort to disengage the fight, and flee.

If I do not, I cannot claim any protection under Florida law.
(Here's the relevant section of FL law. http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2012/776.041)

For example, if a girl slaps you, then you sucker-punch her, throw her on the ground, and start beating her head on the sidewalk to the point she fears great bodily harm or death, she can legally shoot you.

See above. You have to meet force with force.

 

[Bosozoku]

This Neighborhood Watch issue seems a little irrelevant. Let's say that carrying a handgun was prohibited by the Neighborhood Watch - so what? As far as I know, he was still legally entitled to carry a gun. Carrying a gun by itself doesn't make him any more or less criminally culpable, even if it was against the Neighborhood Watch's rules. The only real consequence of breaking their rules is that he could have been "fired" by the Neighborhood Watch.

 

[Bob001]

So does the nature of this argument prove to everyone's satisfaction that George most likely patrolled carrying a weapon? .... Because silly rules don't apply to you when you're carrying out god's plan.

It might just mean that GZ saw the world as more threatening and dangerous than most people, even when he was walking along the three streets of his own neighborhood. That would explain why he saw a teenager carrying snacks as "suspicious" and "on drugs."

 

[TheL8Elvis]

This Neighborhood Watch issue seems a little irrelevant. Let's say that carrying a handgun was prohibited by the Neighborhood Watch - so what? As far as I know, he was still legally entitled to carry a gun. Carrying a gun by itself doesn't make him any more or less criminally culpable, even if it was against the Neighborhood Watch's rules. The only real consequence of breaking their rules is that he could have been "fired" by the Neighborhood Watch.

As I said, it's a red herring.

However, there will likely be a be a real consequence in the future when the HOA is sued.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Can you point me to the RATL neighborhood watch handbook and the rules against concealed carry ? TIA.

Here are some links to help:
http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/NWProgramHandbook.pdf
(gone, but google docs still has it)
http://documents.latimes.com/trayvon-martin-killing/
http://documents.latimes.com/trayvon-martin-killing-neighorhood-watch-2/
http://documents.latimes.com/trayvon-martin-killing-neighorhood-watch-3/

eta: google docs:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...2Bvp4O&sig=AHIEtbSA1U4mZUYwAZ9AV_GpuS9mQC9BIg

So does the nature of this argument prove to everyone's satisfaction that George most likely patrolled carrying a weapon? Frank Taffe says he patrolled a few nights a week, and George has told us he carries his gun everywhere he goes except for work. So putting two and two together, we can reasonably surmise that George routinely carried a weapon on NW patrols, which by every shred of evidence we can find, is something NW tells you never to do.

But old George, he did it anyway. Because silly rules don't apply to you when you're carrying out god's plan.

What rules ? I am still waiting on your evidence regarding the rules for the Retreat at Twin Lakes Neighborhood Watch Association.

And by patrols, do you mean when he walked his dog ? Because I believe that was his 'patrol' consisted of.

 

[Dancing David]

This Neighborhood Watch issue seems a little irrelevant. Let's say that carrying a handgun was prohibited by the Neighborhood Watch - so what? As far as I know, he was still legally entitled to carry a gun. Carrying a gun by itself doesn't make him any more or less criminally culpable, even if it was against the Neighborhood Watch's rules. The only real consequence of breaking their rules is that he could have been "fired" by the Neighborhood Watch.

If you are engaging in a neighborhood watch program, it would indicate a lack of judgement.