Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[Moss]

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?

I agree with your first paragraph.
The second paragraph does not make sense to me unless you suspect some of us hold the idea that GZ was somehow goading TM into an attack so he could shoot him. Not a belief I hold and nothing that makes sense to me.
I've always been of the opinion the whole episode was a *************** where both sides suspected the other to be up to nothing good and therefore each in their own mind was justified in their reaction.

 

[Unabogie]

I agree with your first paragraph.
The second paragraph does not make sense to me unless you suspect some of us hold the idea that GZ was somehow goading TM into an attack so he could shoot him. Not a belief I hold and nothing that makes sense to me.
I've always been of the opinion the whole episode was a *************** where both sides suspected the other to be up to nothing good and therefore each in their own mind was justified in their reaction.

And had George not angrily demanded "WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE?!?" and instead had smiled and introduced himself, this all could have been avoided.

"Hi, I'm George, and I'm with the neighborhood watch. Sorry if I startled you. Do you live in the area?"

But how can you expect something like that from a guy who runs after a kid yelling "*********** punks" at a dispatcher? In his mind, he'd already decided that Trayvon didn't live in the area and didn't belong there and was a criminal. So he had no interest in asking the same questions he would have asked on a white kid.

It was this assumption, the *********** punks, the ******** who always get away, that escalated the situation, not some fantasy in which Trayvon was "hyper violent", again, based on the word of a proven liar and someone who has engaged in a conspiracy to defraud the court.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

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

No I won't, because I'm intellectually consistent (or at least try to be) and don't argue out of both sides of my mouth. I've said since the beginning of this thread that it's possible TM thought he was going to be attacked and acted in self-defense, and that GZ then acted in self-defense, and that this is one big tragedy.

 

[Moss]

And had George not angrily demanded "WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE?!?" and instead had smiled and introduced himself, this all could have been avoided.

"Hi, I'm George, and I'm with the neighborhood watch. Sorry if I startled you. Do you live in the area?"

But how can you expect something like that from a guy who runs after a kid yelling "*********** punks" at a dispatcher? In his mind, he'd already decided that Trayvon didn't live in the area and didn't belong there and was a criminal. So he had no interest in asking the same questions he would have asked on a white kid.

It was this assumption, the *********** punks, the ******** who always get away, that escalated the situation, not some fantasy in which Trayvon was "hyper violent", again, based on the word of a proven liar and someone who has engaged in a conspiracy to defraud the court.

You are making some assumptions here which I'm not exactly sure are warranted. He was certainly biased against Trayvon as that statements about those that get away show, but I'm not sure what category those actually belong to. For all we know it could be young males in hoodies, regardless of skin colour. So I'm not sure if he wouldn't be biased against a young white male in the same situation. Bit of a nonstarter that.
Same applies to whether he was in any official capacity as part of the neighborhood watch. I'm not sure if that tells us anything about the encounter at all.

 

[Moss]

No I won't, because I'm intellectually consistent (or at least try to be) and don't argue out of both sides of my mouth. I've said since the beginning of this thread that it's possible TM thought he was going to be attacked and acted in self-defense, and that GZ then acted in self-defense, and that this is one big tragedy.

Why then the three exclamation marks? I read that as ridiculing that scenario. I seem to be unable to make sense of what you actually meant by that if it was not that, so could you elaborate?

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Why then the three exclamation marks? I read that as ridiculing that scenario. I seem to be unable to make sense of what you actually meant by that if it was not that, so could you elaborate?

I am ridiculing the intellectual inconsistency of it. According to some, it was entirely legitimate for TM to attack GZ for almost any slight - even just following him is enough for some, and it would be self-defense. On the other hand even if GZ was getting beaten and he acted in self-defense, well that's not legitimate under ANY circumstances.

 

[johnny karate]

I am ridiculing the intellectual inconsistency of it. According to some, it was entirely legitimate for TM to attack GZ for almost any slight - even just following him is enough for some, and it would be self-defense. On the other hand even if GZ was getting beaten and he acted in self-defense, well that's not legitimate under ANY circumstances.

Wow... the amount of straw in this thread is becoming a fire hazard.

No one has said that if Zimmerman was getting beaten he didn't have the right to defend himself.

The argument is that Zimmerman wasn't actually getting beaten - specifically in the way in which Zimmerman describes - or otherwise legitimately in fear for his life.

The "intellectual inconsistency" you rail against exists entirely in your imagination.

 

[Moss]

Wow... the amount of straw in this thread is becoming a fire hazard.

No one has said that if Zimmerman was getting beaten he didn't have the right to defend himself.

The argument is that Zimmerman wasn't actually getting beaten, or otherwise legitimately in fear for his life.

I think not getting beaten is an untenable position. There is clear evidence that he received one or more blows by TM.
What I think is a valid point to discuss is whether the injuries GZ received are consistent with his testimony. (Whether his recollection of events is consistent with the events themselves is what makes this a real mess.)

To make my position on that clear: I think that the force TM used against GZ was less than GZ claims it was. Leads to the question of whether he was justified in using deadly force. But I think this is a tough one where both sides will be able to make a decent argument.

 

[johnny karate]

I think not getting beaten is an untenable position. There is clear evidence that he received one or more blows by TM.
What I think is a valid point to discuss is whether the injuries GZ received are consistent with his testimony. (Whether his recollection of events is consistent with the events themselves is what makes this a real mess.)

See the edit to my post previous to your response that makes that clarification.

Again, no one is claiming a person being assaulted in the manner in which Zimmerman describes doesn't have the right to defend himself as certain people so moronically and dishonestly claim.

The question is whether Zimmerman was actually being assaulted in the manner in which he describes.

So far, I haven't seen any evidence that he was.

Zimmerman had a broken nose, two small cuts on the back of his head, and a forehead abrasion.

Martin had one tiny abrasion on his knuckle.

I anxiously await anyone to provide evidence that those injuries are consistent with Zimmerman being punched more than a dozen times and repeatedly having his head slammed on the concrete.

To make my position on that clear: I think that the force TM used against GZ was less than GZ claims it was. Leads to the question of whether he was justified in using deadly force. But I think this is a tough one where both sides will be able to make a decent argument.

I fail to see where the "decent argument" lies that Zimmerman was repeatedly punched and repeatedly had his head slammed onto concrete.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

[...]

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

That's a standard reserved for the courtroom.

Meh. I am getting tired of you trotting this out.

There is no question GZ shot TM. The question is the legality of it.

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.

Since unlawfully is a legal standard, I have no idea what you are going on about.

And it certainly doesn't mean any of those people think Zimmerman should and will be convicted of murder.

Should I start jumping up and down and yelling 'strawman' here ? Ask you to point to where I made that claim ?

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.

If you think that's what I am doing, you know how to solve the problem.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

[...]
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.

Who said this?

Bob001.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Knowing everything you now know about that night:

1. 
   [*]George wrongfully assumed Martin was on drugs. [*]George wrongfully assumed Martin was "up to no good" [*]George called Trayvon a *********** punk. [*]George said that Trayvon was one of those ******** who always get away.
2. George followed Trayvon for what Google Maps says is a four minute walk.
3. 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.

I hilited the stuff TM could not possibly know.

Now I will add
George angrily demanded "WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE?"
after Trayvon angrily barked "WHY ARE YOU FOLLOWING ME"

 

[Unabogie]

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.

Bob001.

Bob said we should put people in jail on 50/50 chances? Or does Bob think there is other evidence involved? Or does Bob think George is guilty, but that he should still be afforded the benefits of a fair trial?

Can you quote that part?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

And had George not angrily demanded "WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE?!?" and instead had smiled and introduced himself, this all could have been avoided.

"Hi, I'm George, and I'm with the neighborhood watch. Sorry if I startled you. Do you live in the area?"

Or if he had just stayed in the truck. Or if TM hadn't been suspended from school. Or.....

But how can you expect something like that from a guy who runs after a kid yelling "*********** punks" at a dispatcher?

So now the story is he yelled it while running ?

In his mind, he'd already decided that Trayvon didn't live in the area and didn't belong there and was a criminal. So he had no interest in asking the same questions he would have asked on a white kid.

Randi called, he has some money if you explain how you knew those things...

It was this assumption, the *********** punks, the ******** who always get away, that escalated the situation, not some fantasy in which Trayvon was "hyper violent", again, based on the word of a proven liar and someone who has engaged in a conspiracy to defraud the court.

I really don't understand how you claim to know all that.

 

[Dancing David]

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.

"what might matter is if actual guidelines for what to do on 'patrol', were discussed"

reasonable is reasonable, regardless of if there was a 'patrol', take your attitude someplace else, I am not one of your pissing contest buddies.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

"what might matter is if actual guidelines for what to do on 'patrol', were discussed"

reasonable is reasonable, regardless of if there was a 'patrol', take your attitude someplace else, I am not one of your pissing contest buddies.

I didn't realize disagreeing with you was 'attitude'.

 

[johnny karate]

Meh. I am getting tired of you trotting this out.

There is no question GZ shot TM. The question is the legality of it.

So what... no one can express their disbelief of Zimmerman's story unless it meets the legal standards you and others have arbitrarily decided to apply to this discussion?

Again, I don't see a whole lot of people claiming Zimmerman should be thrown in prison for the rest of his life because they believe he's lying.

I see people simply expressing a belief that Zimmerman is lying.

Then some occasional knucklehead will jump in with the tired refrain of "You can't prove he's lying!" in what comes across as nothing more than an effort to stifle debate.

The belief "Zimmerman is lying but we'll have to wait and see how that plays out during the trial" might be a bit more of nuanced position than you seem to want to allow, but I guess that's just too damn bad.

Since unlawfully is a legal standard, I have no idea what you are going on about.

"Unlawful" in the sense of his justification being a load of crap.

That might mean manslaughter. That might even mean murder.

I personally don't know.

That's why we have trials.

Should I start jumping up and down and yelling 'strawman' here ? Ask you to point to where I made that claim ?

" ...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."

Natural Born Skeptic posted it, and you couldn't agree fast enough.

Is there some other way to interpret that assertion other than it being a claim that "a lot of people in this thread" think Zimmerman should be convicted of murder?

If you think that's what I am doing, you know how to solve the problem.

I've always found calling out nonsense to be a suitable solution to the problem of nonsense.

 

[johnny karate]

Now I will add
George angrily demanded "WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE?"
after Trayvon angrily barked "WHY ARE YOU FOLLOWING ME"

... after Zimmerman was chasing him.

At least according to the narrative you're citing.

Or do you only want to use the parts of DeeDee's testimony that suit your needs and discard the rest?

 

[Cylinder]

... after Zimmerman was chasing him.

At least according to the narrative you're citing.

Or do you only want to use the parts of DeeDee's testimony that suit your needs and discard the rest?

We also have a witness that claims Zimmerman shot Martin after the paramedics arrive.

Both Zimmerman and DeeDee describe Martin as running. DeeDee's version has Martin running away from Zimmerman for minutes - long enough for a healthy somewhat athletic 17-year-old to be winded to the point of stopping. We know that can't be the case because of the timing of Zimmerman's call to SPD - at the same time he's supposed to be chasing down Martin to the point of exhaustion, he's also calmly talking to the SPD dispatcher.

That might make sense to some people, but in the real world it really doesn't.

 

[johnny karate]

We also have a witness that claims Zimmerman shot Martin after the paramedics arrive.

Both Zimmerman and DeeDee describe Martin as running. DeeDee's version has Martin running away from Zimmerman for minutes - long enough for a healthy somewhat athletic 17-year-old to be winded to the point of stopping. We know that can't be the case because of the timing of Zimmerman's call to SPD - at the same time he's supposed to be chasing down Martin to the point of exhaustion, he's also calmly talking to the SPD dispatcher.

That might make sense to some people, but in the real world it really doesn't.

Super. I'll put you down for "Only wants to use the parts of DeeDee's testimony that suit my needs and discards the rest" then.