Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[Cylinder]

It is not acceptable behavior in our society for one person to deliberately kill another.

It is a core freedom in our society that one person can deliberatly kill other.

The burden of proof now shifts to GZ; we know he killed TM, it's up to him to prove he was justified.

No- the burden remians with the state. All Zimmerman need do is provide a claim and some evidence - no matter how slight or self-serving.

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.

Except fo the fact that there is no evidence for that version and a DeeDee's statement against. Did Zimmerman and DeeDee conspire? Maybe she's freinds with Frank Taffe. Maybe she used an ATM in Sanford on Feb. 26. Did DeeDee meet with the SAO before Zimmerman was released?

 

[johnny karate]

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.

The bolded is so far from the truth, it's laughable.

No one saw Martin attack Zimmerman.

No one saw Martin repeatedly punch Zimmerman.

No one saw Martin repeatedly slam Zimmerman's head on the concrete.

No one saw Martin reach for Zimmerman's gun.

In short, no one saw the life-or-death struggle Zimmerman claims he was in.

DeeDee agrees with Zimmerman that Martin confornted him.

DeeDee uses the word confront? I thought DeeDee said Martin asked Zimmerman a question. Please cite where DeeDee says Martin confronted Zimmerman.

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.

But who can back up Zimmerman's claim that Martin started the altercation?

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.

Was the fact that an altercation took place ever in question? Who can provide us the details of the altercation that corroborate Zimmerman's account of repeatedly being punched and having his head slammed on the concrete? What evidece is there to support that claim at all?

W6 - less than 20 feet away - saw Martin either "hitting" Zimmerman or "forcibly" restraining him on the concrete sidewalk.

This one is real hoot. Someone saw Martin either hitting Zimmerman or not hitting Zimmerman, and this is of course evidence that Martin was hitting Zimmerman. Classic.

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.

Can anyone corroborate that Martin repeatedly punched Zimmerman or repeatedly slammed his head on the concrete? Can anyone corroborate that Martin reach for Zimmerman's gun?

Because all I see are witnesses reporting that a couple of guys were wrestling around on the ground, and that one of them was on top of the other at one point, and the one on the bottom screamed for help.

I don't see where any witnesses report seeing a life-or-death struggle in which one guy was being mercilessly beaten and was forced to shoot the other guy to save his own life. Not even close.

Then again - along with the medical professionals who examined him - I don't see several dozen injuries to Zimmerman's head and face, even when someone helpfully uses blue arrows to point them out.

 

[johnny karate]

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.

Well hey, as long as were throwing around a bunch of straw...

It seems to me a lot of people in this thread aren't interesting in finding out the truth since the person who got shot was just some black kid.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

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.

I think what matters more than possible guidelines that may have been discussed is what guidelines were actually established.

What defines 'being on NW patrol' ?
Is there a schedule ?
Where are the rules for what one may and may not do while on patrol ?
Who are members of the NW ? (According to the HOA, every resident is a member.)

I don't understand how you can discuss what acts constitute reasonable behavior until the above questions are answered.

And this all despite the fact there is no evidence GZ was out 'on patrol' (exact meaning to be determined) that night.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Well hey, as long as were throwing around a bunch of straw...

It seems to me a lot of people in this thread aren't interesting in finding out the truth since the person who got shot was just some black kid.

Strawman ? No. For my part, it is simply an observation. I get the impression many people would like GZ to prove himself innocent, and don't appear to suscribe to innocent until proven guilty (at least in this case)

ETA: Just read mumbles post below mine. It is a prime example of my point.

 

[Mumbles]

Once again, there is no ear and eyewitness that disputes Zimmerman's version of events.

That's obviously wrong. Zimmerman's own police call conflicts with his reported version of events, in many ways. It's clear that Zimmerman didn't park near the clubhouse, that he didn't drive to follow Martin, and that Martin never ran back to Ziimmerman's car to do somecreepydance and then crip walk off. I reality,it's obvious that Zimmerman saw Martin near the clubhouse, profiled him, and the chased him after Martin tried to escape.

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. Singlet

In reality, there's nothing that points to Zimmerman being honest, and a raft of evidence pointing to him lying.

DeeDee agrees with Zimmerman that Martin confornted him.

False. Sorry, asking someone why they are chasing you is not "confrontational" , by any means

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.

That doesn't see to be true either, butI don't see the point in arguing it. George Zimmerman getting punched by someone he decided to chase around seems about right to me.

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.

this is a bunch of nonsense. Sorry, Martin hit a guy that was chasing him around T night, and therefor he's guilty. Take it to that conservative treehouse place, or somewhere else where they hate black people.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

That's a good point. Because according to the geniuses in this thread, if you are accompanied by a dog, you are officially and only "Walking the dog" and all other simultaneous activities are rendered nonexistent. Unless, of course, you are also chewing gum, at which point you are just "Chewing gum".

So to recap:

A person is only "On patrol" if they are patrolling and doing absolutely nothing else.

A person on patrol and walking the dog is only "Walking the dog" and no longer considered to be "On Patrol", because that would be impossible.

And a person on patrol, walking the dog, and chewing gum is only "Chewing Gum", because again, it is utterly impossible for a person to engage in two or more simultaneous activities.

So what defines 'being on patrol' ? Where is this information available for members of the RATL NW ? Where is the patrol schedule located ?

 

[johnny karate]

Strawman ?

Yes, when you manufacture an argument and then assign it to people who didn't actually make that argument as a means of attacking them, that's called a "straw man".

No. For my part, it is simply an observation. I get the impression many people would like GZ to prove himself innocent, and don't appear to suscribe to innocent until proven guilty (at least in this case)

Zimmerman isn't innocent until proven guilty in this forum.

That's a standard reserved for the courtroom.

People in this forum are entitled to hold the opinion that Zimmerman unlawfully killed Martin without being required to adhere to a legal standard that has no bearing on casual discussion. And it certainly doesn't mean any of those people think Zimmerman should and will be convicted of murder.

That you an others consistently and constantly conflate those things indicates a lack of desire for actual, honest discussion. It's apparently just easier to brand those who disagree with you with completely ridiculous nonsense.

ETA: Just read mumbles post below mine. It is a prime example of my point.

I read it. And I don't see the part where Mumbles claims to want a guilty until proven innocent system for defendants we don't like. Could you point it out for me?

 

[johnny karate]

So what defines 'being on patrol' ? Where is this information available for members of the RATL NW ? Where is the patrol schedule located ?

You'll have to ask Frank Taffe.

He's the one claiming Zimmerman patrolled the neighborhood, which serves as the evidence that Zimmerman patrolled the neighborhood, which is what was in dispute.

I was only mocking the asinine assertion that it's somehow impossible to both be on patrol and walk your dog.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

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.

lol, I like the way you did that . That could apply to the zombie face eater. We know he is dead. We know he was unarmed. We know the police officer purposely shot him causing his death.

It is not acceptable behavior in our society for one person to deliberately kill another.

You forgot to add the part "except in self-defense in fear of their own life".

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."

Yep, and our society says that.

The burden of proof now shifts to GZ;

NO. As I alluded to above, you are clearly another person who believes in guilty until proven innocent, but in our country's criminal justice system the burden does NOT "shift", just because it's one type of crime versus another, it's the same burden as in EVERY criminal case, guilty until proven innocent, with the prosecution responsibly to prove guilty. Not with GZ responsible to prove he's innocent. But you and many others don't like that, we get that.

..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."

Addresses and answered above and many other times in this thread.

GZ might still get away with this..

Again, our system has always erred in favor of the guilty, so yep, he might "get away with it", or he might be innocent.

but it shouldn't be easy

Does this look "easy" to you?

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.

You and several others have said this. Even IF we accept that's true, and I don't, "every bit as likely" means 50% in my book. So you want to put someone in jail for the rest of their life on a 50/50 chance.

 

[Cylinder]

So you want to put someone in jail for the rest of their life on a 50/50 chance.

Only if it fits their political narrarative. Remember - Martin is justified beating someone on his mere suspicion.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

I am really amazed by the reasoning repeatedly put forth by so many who believe GZ should be convicted. These arguments seem to be made again and again:

1. The burden of proof should "shift" in cases of self-defense. Now let's think about how utterly bizarre and irrational this reasoning is. That means that a person accused or murder who claims they were never there, let's say a home invader who is accused rape and murder and says it wasn't him, that guy should be guilty until proven innocent and the prosecution should have to prove it's case. But the person who kills someone in self-defense, that person should have to prove they are innocent!

2. Repeated suggestions that it's "easy" to kill someone and claim self-defense and get off. No evidence to back it up other than the fact that evidently people are angry this isn't a slam dunk case because they think it should be.

3. Repeated suggestions that GZ should be found guilty because "it's just as likely that he attacked TM". I guess we are supposed to put people in jail on 50/50 chances.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Only if it fits their political narrarative. Remember - Martin is justified beating someone on his mere suspicion.

Of course he is, very good point . In fact, in that case according to many of them it would have been a legitimate use of SYG!!!

 

[Unabogie]

Only if it fits their political narrarative. Remember - Martin is justified beating someone on his mere suspicion.

Knowing everything you now know about that night:

1. George wrongfully assumed Martin was on drugs.
2. George wrongfully assumed Martin was "up to no good"
3. George called Trayvon a *********** punk.
4. George said that Trayvon was one of those ******** who always get away.
5. George followed Trayvon for what Google Maps says is a four minute walk.
6. George angrily demanded "WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE?"

Wouldn't Trayvon be justified in his "suspicions" that George had ill will towards him?

Contrast that to George's suspicions, which were based on stereotypes and gun nut paranoia.

I'd say that Trayvon had every reason to fear the creep who stalked and eventually killed him.

 

[Moss]

Only if it fits their political narrarative. Remember - Martin is justified beating someone on his mere suspicion.

Depends on how reasonable the suspicion is. What if he suspects someone of drawing a weapon on him? Not reasonably in fear of his life?
GZ repeatedly stated that he went for his phone. Is it reasonable for the other party to come to the conclusion that he is going for a weapon of some kind? Especially after GZ followed him for an unstated reason?
How reasonable would it be for the other party to forcibly restrain or try to disable him then?

 

[Moss]

Of course he is, very good point . In fact, in that case according to many of them it would have been a legitimate use of SYG!!!

You will surely present the evidence that contradicts that alternate scenario.

 

[Unabogie]

I am really amazed by the reasoning repeatedly put forth by so many who believe GZ should be convicted. These arguments seem to be made again and again:

1. The burden of proof should "shift" in cases of self-defense. Now let's think about how utterly bizarre and irrational this reasoning is. That means that a person accused or murder who claims they were never there, let's say a home invader who is accused rape and murder and says it wasn't him, that guy should be guilty until proven innocent and the prosecution should have to prove it's case. But the person who kills someone in self-defense, that person should have to prove they are innocent!

So you still don't understand the concept of an affirmative defense? Self-defense is the classic example of this. However, from what I understand, Florida has indeed removed the concept of self-defense as affirmative defense. But that's not the way it's been traditionally viewed, and in most states self-defense is still an affirmative defense.

2. Repeated suggestions that it's "easy" to kill someone and claim self-defense and get off. No evidence to back it up other than the fact that evidently people are angry this isn't a slam dunk case because they think it should be.

Who said this?

3. Repeated suggestions that GZ should be found guilty because "it's just as likely that he attacked TM". I guess we are supposed to put people in jail on 50/50 chances.

Who said this?

 

[Cylinder]

Screw it - we've been playing around this too long. Let's see who's honest here.

We all (should) know that walking around a neighboorhood and observing suspicous behavior - in the normal world - isn't grounds to beat someone. You can't pummel someone in a common area because you think they are watching you.

Why should Zimmerman assume that Martin is hyper-violent and has anger control issues? What is it about Martin exactly that should have made Zimmerman draw that conclusion?

 

[johnny karate]

Who said this?

Straw man arguments are the last resort for those who are fresh out of facts to argue.

 

[Unabogie]

Screw it - we've been playing around this too long. Let's see who's honest here.

We all (should) know that walking around a neighboorhood and observing suspicous behavior - in the normal world - isn't grounds to beat someone. You can't pummel someone in a common area because you think they are watching you.

Why should Zimmerman assume that Martin is hyper-violent and has anger control issues? What is it about Martin exactly that should have made Zimmerman draw that conclusion?

Screw it is right. You've just completely made that up with absolutely no evidence beyond the word of a proven liar.