Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[TheL8Elvis]

So that particular development had shiny new NW signs, and had been through the liason organizational meetings with SPD, so what is the significance that they were not 'members' of NW?

Who is the 'they' in this case ? I think I missed the point ...

 

[tsig]

I think "evidence" means something else in your universe.

It doesn't bother you that an armed man shot an unarmed one? Is this just some sort of one up game to you?

 

[tsig]

The ones about how GZ broke all the rules ... what rules ?

The rules about shooting unarmed people.

 

[tsig]

So what? The legal citations that make your comments irrelevant have been posted repeatedly.

Too right, I'm wrong because someone said something that you can't be bothered to cite.

 

[Cylinder]

It doesn't bother you that an armed man shot an unarmed one? Is this just some sort of one up game to you?

Martin's lack of a firearm and the possibility that Zimmerman was armed is a fact Martin himself should have contemplated before assaulting Zimmerman. His death was of his own doing.

 

[tsig]

Well hell ... I patrol all the time too, then, if you simply mean pay attention to what is going on while out and about in my neighborhood.

Is that what patrolling is ? Doing something else but looking out for people acting odd ? But you say patrolling is not allowed ?

Even your straw men are growing thin.

 

[tsig]

Martin's lack of a firearm and the possibility that Zimmerman was armed is a fact Martin himself should have contemplated before assaulting Zimmerman. His death was of his own doing.

Do you have any proof that Martin assaulted Zimmerman?

 

[crimresearch]

Too right, I'm wrong because someone said something that you can't be bothered to cite.

You are wrong because you are ignoring the cites... and the facts... and logic... and the multiple requests for you to back up your posts with evidence..

Clearly, the death of this particular human being is a game opportunity for you.

 

[Bob001]

Martin's lack of a firearm and the possibility that Zimmerman was armed is a fact Martin himself should have contemplated before assaulting Zimmerman. His death was of his own doing.

We don't have any evidence except GZ's own claims about what TM was doing or why. If TM attacked GZ -- a big "if" -- it's certainly a real possibility that TM thought he was being stalked in the dark by a mugger, and that he needed to defend himself. If a mugger had shot and killed TM, there wouldn't be any question about his guilt. Should GZ get a free pass just because he appointed himself a neighborhood watch "captain?"

 

[triforcharity]

You are wrong because you are ignoring the cites... and the facts... and logic... and the multiple requests for you to back up your posts with evidence..

Clearly, the death of this particular human being is a game opportunity for you.

So, WildCat and L8Elvis' posts are......hummm......something else?

Never did get that SCUS case yet did you?

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

It doesn't bother you that an armed man shot an unarmed one? Is this just some sort of one up game to you?

Even your straw men are growing thin.

Gotta congratulate you on your chutzpa of directing a strawman comment at someone right after your first gem above directed at wildcat.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

We don't have any evidence except GZ's own claims about what TM was doing or why.

But we have quite a bit about what happened, as cylinder has pointed out many times.

If TM attacked GZ -- a big "if" -- it's certainly a real possibility that TM thought he was being stalked in the dark by a mugger, and that he needed to defend himself. If a mugger had shot and killed TM, there wouldn't be any question about his guilt. Should GZ get a free pass just because he appointed himself a neighborhood watch "captain?"

No, he should get a free pass because he was attacked and beaten and shot TM in self-defense. He should get a free pass because in our system you are innocent until proven guilty, and there is nothing that disproves that he was attacked and shot in self defense, nor anything that proves him guilty, a fact that perturbs a lot of people in this thread that clearly would like to see us move to a guilty until proven innocent system - at least for cases where they don't like the defendant.

Whether TM thought GZ was stalking him is utterly irrelevant legally. IF that is what TM thought it's tragic, but doesn't change GZ's guilt or innocence.

 

[This is The End]

Martin's lack of a firearm and the possibility that Zimmerman was armed is a fact Martin himself should have contemplated before assaulting Zimmerman. His death was of his own doing.

Do you have any proof that Martin assaulted Zimmerman?

Before Cylinder responds with something like Cylinder posted earlier:

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.

...let me re-post a post that, as far as I can tell, states the situation exactly as we know it.

The distinctions pointed out below are key, and easily confused, but yet very important:

Is there any actual evedence that Trayvon assaulted George Zimmerman?

Like I said in an earlier post* I believe you are leaving off an implied qualifier.

The answer to your question:

Is there any actual evidence that Trayvon assaulted George Zimmerman?

Is yes, we can be almost 100% sure of that. There is very solid evidence that M assaulted Z.

On the other hand if you meant:

Is there any actual evidence that Trayvon assaulted George Zimmerman first?

The answer is basically no. No solid evidence has been released so far that shows who initiated the fight.

*

Well, if it is to be relevant, your question should read: What evidence is consistent with Zimmerman attacking Martin first?

The answer would be none.

As you word it: "What evidence is consistent with Zimmerman attacking Martin?"

The answer would be not much. Martin was very nearly unscathed in the fight until a weapon was used.

Likewise if you asked: "What evidence is consistent with Martin attacking Zimmerman?"

The answer would be plenty. Zimmerman is quite beat up.

But if again, and most relevant to the case, if you word it with the important qualifying word at the end: "What evidence is consistent with Martin attacking Zimmerman first?"

The answer would be: All we have is Zimmerman's word, which has been shown to be quite unreliable, especially on Friday.

Aside from Zimmerman's word there isn't relay any solid evidence of who attacked whom first.

Since, as far as we know, there were no witnesses to that crucial minute or so, there may never be any evidence towards who attacked whom first.

 

[Mumbles]

Martin's lack of a firearm and the possibility that Zimmerman was armed is a fact Martin himself should have contemplated before assaulting Zimmerman. His death was of his own doing.

Yes, and by running away from Zimmerman, Martin clearly indicated that he wanted to fight.

I like how Zimmerman's story changed, yet again, from Martin running away from him, to Martin "skipping". After he came back and circled his car like an insurance agent. By the time this goes to trial, Zimmerman will be swearing that Martin crip walked away while rapping "Ante Up" by MOP. Zimmerman's one of the silliest people I've ever seen.

 

[Dancing David]

I, Wildcat, believe no one has provided any evidence whatsoever that Zimmerman went on patrol as part of the NW program.

Taking the dog out to do his business is the patrol, right OTT?

I think the whole point to Corey including the new letters from the complex will be to establish what might have been 'reasonable' in terms of behavior. It depends on why they were included in possible evidence. But from my brief reading of them, I don't recall any reference to guidelines.

But until the trial we won't know. It may not even be brought up by the prosecution.

 

[Dancing David]

No. You sign up & go to meetings to become a member.

George'll help ya.

[qimg]http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y221/who007/GZCaptain1-1.jpg[/qimg]

And again, that indicates that a NW program was established, what might matter is if actual guidelines for what to do on 'patrol', were discussed. Then that might be used to establish an idea of 'reasonable' behavior.

Now this would go towards being 'rash' or something not towards self defense.

 

[Dancing David]

These:

[qimg]http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y221/who007/nw3.jpg[/qimg]

and these:

[qimg]http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y221/who007/nw.jpg[/qimg]

And this will be subject to some more hair splitting. It might be used by the prosecution to establish if GZ's behavior was reasonable or rash/reckless .

Not legal language, nor am I a lawyer.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

But we have quite a bit about what happened, as cylinder has pointed out many times.

No, he should get a free pass because he was attacked and beaten and shot TM in self-defense. He should get a free pass because in our system you are innocent until proven guilty, and there is nothing that disproves that he was attacked and shot in self defense, nor anything that proves him guilty, a fact that perturbs a lot of people in this thread that clearly would like to see us move to a guilty until proven innocent system - at least for cases where they don't like the defendant.

Whether TM thought GZ was stalking him is utterly irrelevant legally. IF that is what TM thought it's tragic, but doesn't change GZ's guilt or innocence.

Bolded part seems to sum up much of this thread.

 

[Bob001]

..... He should get a free pass because in our system you are innocent until proven guilty, ....

You're absolutely right: "Innocent until proven guilty" is a core foundation of our legal system. Let's look at the facts: We know that TM is dead. We know that TM was unarmed. We know that GZ deliberately shot him causing his death. There is no question of TM staging his own disappearance, or of someone other than GZ shooting TM, or the gun going off by accident, or GZ aiming at someone else for good reason and hitting TM accidentally. It is not acceptable behavior in our society for one person to deliberately kill another. The society has a right to say "You are guilty of a crime when you kill another person unless you had an exceptionally good reason." The burden of proof now shifts to GZ; we know he killed TM, it's up to him to prove he was justified. Self-defense is a legitimate justification, but GZ has to prove it. Our society doesn't say "It's OK to kill people unless we can prove that you shouldn't have; our presumption is that you shouldn't be killing people." GZ might still get away with this, but it shouldn't be easy, especially if GZ initiated the incident by following TM, confronting him, and attempting to restrain him, which is every bit as likely as GZ's story that TM jumped him from behind while he was walking away.

 

[Cylinder]

Once again, there is no ear and eyewitness that disputes Zimmerman's version of events. The only people that are claiming Zimmerman's narrative is the sole version of events are those that are trying to handwave the boatload of independant evidence that supports Zimmerman's version. The whole event was heard or seen - from the moment Martin confronted Zimmerman to point Zimmerman was released early the next morning - with the exception of some time Zimmerman spent in the SPD men's room before his interview with Det. Singleton.

DeeDee agrees with Zimmerman that Martin confornted him. W11 - around 15 feet away and with her doors and windows open- agrees with Zimmerman that the altercation started near the top of the T, agrees with Zimmerman and DeeDee about the duration of the verbal altercation and when the physical altercation started. Everyone agrees that Zimmerman was on the ground - at least 2 witnesses from the RVC side of the complex and a 14-year-old boy walking his dog on that block. Because of the lighting conditions, they did not notice Martin in his black hoodie, though one of them saw a person in a white T shirt.. Two of these witnesses saw "arms flailing" and W6 step out to issue a warning. W6 - less than 20 feet away - saw Martin either "hitting" Zimmerman or "forcibly" restraining him on the concrete sidewalk. W6 agrees with Zimmerman that the altercation moved between concrete and grass, though each describe the opposite direction. Either one was mistaken or they saw a different part of the altercation. Both agree that Zimmerman pleaded for help from W6. Both agree that Martin was mounted on Zimmerman and at very close proximity. W6 witnessed the altercation seconds before the fatal shot.