Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[TheL8Elvis]

The semantic battle to differentiate "follow" and "pursue" was long and hard-fought. And I believe we all eventually agreed "follow" was the acceptable term.

But now that Zimmerman has decided to walk that admission back after the fact, his faithful defenders have decided "follow" isn't good enough. We must parse even further to retroactively exonerate Zimmerman of any wrongdoing.

Either Zimmerman followed Martin, or he didn't.

Zimmerman wants to claim both depending on the circumstance.

It's sad to see people tie themselves in knots trying to defend a blatant contradiction.

For GZ to say "I did not follow him" sounds silly and untruthful, especially when he answered yes to the NEN call taker question 'are you following him?' I think GZ followed TM.

In real life, people rarely pick and choose their words with the thought that one day they might be picked apart and analyzed word by word. At the time, GZ response of YES to the NEN call takers question is perfectly reasonable answer, but doesn't really tell us a thing about GZ intent, does it ?

Some have used GZ statement of ' these ******** always get away' to divine GZ intent in following TM to be to capture him. But GZ explicitly says " I followed him to see where he was going'.

I understand that GZ saying " I didn't follow him I just wanted to see where he was going" is simply his attempt to clarify his intention, without having only part of the exchange come back and bite him in the ass. i.e - "did you follow him, yes or no" "yes" "thank you , no further questions" rather than a 'blatant contradiction.

 

[johnny karate]

For GZ to say "I did not follow him" sounds silly and untruthful, especially when he answered yes to the NEN call taker question 'are you following him?' I think GZ followed TM.

Great. Then we're in agreement. So maybe we can stick to arguing the facts instead of working so hard to prove Zimmerman's case independent of the facts.

 

[triforcharity]

It doesn't seem as if both of you can be correct ...

Well, it's pretty simple to click on the link and judge for yourself.

 

[triforcharity]

But more than one person who is basing their legal opinions on TV and Google, could be wrong simultaneously...

Is there something wrong or incorrect in what I said?

$10 to the JREF in your honor if you can.

Good luck. (BTW, I cited an exact link to the relevant law)

 

[crimresearch]

Actually, I'm not sure that there's a conflict. The law refers to what someone "reasonably" believes and his "reasonable" actions (emphasis added):



So what's "reasonable" is undefined. It's left to the authorities, and ultimately a jury, to decide. I personally don't think GZ's life was in danger or that it was reasonable for him to think it was (or that it was reasonable for him to be following TM in the first place). He might be able to persuade a jury otherwise.

'Reasonable' in a courtroom cannot be separated from the totality of the circumstances.

I don't think we can sustain the notion that *if* a person who has been punching us suddenly acquires a gun and pulls the trigger, that we are reasonably in 'no danger'.

Is it possible that an attacker might take your gun from you and *not* shoot you with it? Yes.

Is it possible that they would take your gun away and never shoot you with it? No. There cannot be any such 100% guarantee in real life.

So a reasonable juror should follow logical dictates (and the jury instructions), and answer that question in the latter mode.

Likewise for each of the other questions raised at trial

 

[Cylinder]

'Reasonable' in a courtroom cannot be separated from the totality of the circumstances.

...and that's how the reasonable jury intruction reads - how one would expect a prudent/cautious person to act or feel given the circumstances and what is known at the time of the question of fact.

ETA: The question in this case will be if a reasonable person would fear death or great bodily injury.

 

[Rare Truth]

A prudent/cautious person doesn't go following a person they think is on drugs, a criminal and armed.

 

[tsig]

I think it is more likely he meant God decided he would live and Trayvon would die.
Reading the MSM, one would think GZ in the only person in the country who thinks God has a plan.

Z made that decision and he ain't god.

 

[This is The End]

The evidence is clear that Martin attacked Zimmerman

Sort of.

The evidence is clear that Martin did not relent in his attack until the point that Zimmerman was forced to act.

No.

 

[tsig]

'Reasonable' in a courtroom cannot be separated from the totality of the circumstances.

I don't think we can sustain the notion that *if* a person who has been punching us suddenly acquires a gun and pulls the trigger, that we are reasonably in 'no danger'.

Is it possible that an attacker might take your gun from you and *not* shoot you with it? Yes.

Is it possible that they would take your gun away and never shoot you with it? No. There cannot be any such 100% guarantee in real life.

So a reasonable juror should follow logical dictates (and the jury instructions), and answer that question in the latter mode.

Likewise for each of the other questions raised at trial

There's no proof TM was reaching for Z's gun.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

There's no proof TM was reaching for Z's gun.

Did he say there was??

 

[This is The End]

Did he say there was??

Did tsig say that crim said there was??

 

[WildCat]

You've got to think that Angela Corey spent the evening sipping champagne. Wow, what a disaster for George.

First, he actually says that he wears his gun all the time, every time he goes out, except for work. Really? You mean all those times you went on "patrol" for the neighborhood watch, you carried your gun, George? Against the explicit rules of NW? So even if he claims that THIS time, he was just "on his way to Target", what does he answer to the obvious question...


But Mr. Zimmerman, on those times when you were out on patrol, were you armed then?
Yes sir.
Didn't you know it was forbidden?

I think I lose IQ points every time someone cites the NW rules nonsense as if it has any legal meaning at all.

 

[WildCat]

Upon reading the transcript of the interview, it looks like I misheard some of what Zimmerman said.

I also hadn't heard the part about God wanting Zimmerman to kill Martin.

If you believe in god, isn't everything that happens god's will?

If not, then god isn't nearly as powerful as advertised.

 

[WildCat]

It came straight from the person who (btw is on the witness list) helped George start the NW group, Wendy Dorival.



Trayvon Martin's killing shatters safety within Retreat at Twin Lakes in Sanford - Tampa Bay Times

What? You mean NW doesn't go on patrol?

To hear some peoplke in this thread NW is one step shy of real police, they have strict rules and go on patrol and everything!

 

[Unabogie]

I think I lose IQ points every time someone cites the NW rules nonsense as if it has any legal meaning at all.

Then you better hop off this thread since you're starting from a deficit.

 

[This is The End]

What? You mean NW doesn't go on patrol?

To hear some peoplke in this thread NW is one step shy of real police, they have strict rules and go on patrol and everything!

WildCat, do you realize that you knowing of a NW group that does not go on patrols does not mean that all NW groups do not patrol?

 

[Unabogie]

What? You mean NW doesn't go on patrol?

To hear some peoplke in this thread NW is one step shy of real police, they have strict rules and go on patrol and everything!

George did, in fact, go on patrol. That's been cited several times. And now we know that he did so armed.

Do you support non-police going on armed patrols?

 

[WildCat]

Also from national manual (page 26) (emphasis added):
http://www.usaonwatch.org/assets/publications/WatchManual.pdf

And your evidence that Zimmerman ever went on "patrol"?

You don't have any, do you?

 

[WildCat]

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.

Pffffft, who needs evidence when you have speculation, conjecture, and innuendo?