Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[This is The End]

Are you now back to denying that Martin assaulted Zimmerman?

You wouldn't be implying the word "first" in that question would you?

Let's not forget:

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.

 

[This is The End]

It's legal to break someone's nose because you don't like the way they're looking at you or you think they're following you? And it's not assault?

Do cite the case law on this, I'm sure you'll dazzle us with your legal knowledge!

I highlighted the part you believe without evidence.

There's no evidence of whom assaulted whom first.

 

[This is The End]

How do you rack the slide with one hand? What exactly was done to the police call audio that resulted in the cliped peaks seen in the wave form? How did the supposed PF9 chamber check audio go from mono 16-bit 8Hz to srereo 16-bit 8Hz in the side-by-side comparison? How far away, in the comparison recording, was the microphone from the gun?

I'm going to put you down as "also doesn't think it sounds the same"....

 

[This is The End]

Yes, because Judge Lester has never been wrong in a ruling before ...

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/4/18/205418/108

Here's a sampling from Google. It's not intended to be a complete analysis, it's just what the first five or six pages of Google had. The search words I used if anyone wants to do more research, are "kenneth lester jr + florida 5th dca."

In 2004, he granted a defendant a downward departure at sentencing and was reversed by the appeals court.

In 2004, he refused to suppress drugs seized during a traffic stop. The appeals court reversed, finding the traffic stop unlawful.

In 2005, Judge Lester refused to suppress evidence in a case where the defendant said he had been unlawfully detained and searched. The appeals court reversed his ruling, stating "A stop without a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity occurred and [defendant] Oslin's consent to the search of his person was invalid as a product of an illegal stop."

Etc...

So 7 years ago Judge Lester was wrong about something.... And this means what?

Since you don't want to leave this specific topic, you are welcome to answer the questions JK asked:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8503695#post8503695

 

[This is The End]

<snip>

I believe it happens around 2:10 in this YT of the not911 call:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aVwPqXc-bk

There are 5 files in the below .zip.

http://wikisend.com/download/327374/chambercheck.zip

01 is Z's supposed "chamber check" from the not911 video

02 is a supposed Kel-Tec demo vido with a "chamber check" at the very end of the clip (after he says "see how they do").

03 is the Z "chamber check" isolated

04 is the Kel-Tec demo video "chamber check" isolated

05 is 03 and 04 ran back to back for 10 seconds


<huge snip>

I notice that file will expire soon so I have re-uploaded it here:

http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=40801228811959657777&gk=leasing

 

[WildCat]

The evidence that this is how it happened is... ?

The broken nose, cuts on head, eyewitness accounts, etc.

Also, you keep dodging my question. What evidence is there that Zimmerman sustained more injuries than what the medical reports indicated?

I really don;t see how that's relevant to this point. I see no reason to respond to your red herring which has been discussed to death earlier.

Feel free to present your evidence that it didn't go down just like Zimmerman said.

 

[WildCat]

You wouldn't be implying the word "first" in that question would you?

Of course I would. I can't for the life of me find a plausible scenario in which Zimmerman assaults Martin first. But we do know Martin was annoyed with Zimmerman, and that he didn't head home.

Let's not forget:

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

Let's also not forget where the burden of proof lies.

 

[This is The End]

You wouldn't be implying the word "first" in that question would you?

Of course I would. I can't for the life of me find a plausible scenario in which Zimmerman assaults Martin first.

Seriously??

Do you realize that that speaks volumes?

 

[This is The End]

Let's also not forget where the burden of proof lies.

So if M's family charges Z with assault then you would assume that Z assaulted M first?? Simply because of which side has the burden of proof?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Are you a Judge and using reasonable in a legal sense? Or are you using reasonable like a normal person?

Why don't you differentiate what those two terms mean for me ? How can I tell when what a judge writes is a legal opinion, or when it's just a normal opinion ?

How does the legal term 'reasonable' differ from our mundane use of the word in this instance ?

ETA: If you are a Judge and using reasonable in a legal sense, then yes.

If you are just a normal poster on an internet forum, then no.

At least this explains why you repeatedly claimed that the Judge said it was a sure thing.

Again for everyone wondering this was explained in post #3674

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.p...89#post8503689

Here is where TheL8Elvis continued to claim the Judge said it was a sure thing several posts after that post:

He did - he claimed that GZ would have fled if not for the monitoring.

You're going to have to explain to me how prefacing that statement with 'it's reasonable to believe' somehow makes that statement mean GZ may or may not have actually fled.

 

[johnny karate]

And I never set out to prove him 'wrong'.

I disagree with his conclusion about fleeing- I don't find it reasonable, and I have explained why.

And I've explained how convincing the personal incredulity of random Internet non-lawyers is.

I think you are 0-1 for the only claim you have made in this thread.

What claim would that be?

Everything else you are very careful to not actually make a positive claim about.

Why would I make a positive claim about something I either know nothing about (e.g. the law) or lack full knowledge of (e.g. the events of the night Zimmerman shot Martin)?

 

[johnny karate]

The broken nose, cuts on head, eyewitness accounts, etc.

Please explain how Zimmerman's broken nose and cuts are evidence that Martin punched him either because he didn't the way Zimmerman was looking at him, or because Zimmerman was following him.

Please cite the witnesses who report that Martin punched Zimmerman either because he didn't the way Zimmerman was looking at him, or because Zimmerman was following him.

I really don;t see how that's relevant to this point. I see no reason to respond to your red herring which has been discussed to death earlier.

I think you mean dodged to death.

Let's review.

Here's you making a claim about "multiple injuries and abrasions and marks" from "multiple punches":

It seems clear to me there's multiple injuries and abrasions and marks, indicating multiple punches.

Here's me challenging you on that claim:

What evidence can you cite that Zimmerman had more than the four injuries documented in the medical reports?

You dodged.

Here's you again making reference to injuries other than those in the medical reports:

The photos and reports are quite clear.

Here's me again challenging you on that claim:

The reports are clear, the photos are not. You don't have the ability or expertise to disinguish what is or isn't an injury simply by looking at a photograph.

...

And if you think those marks are injuries, you have to provide evidence. Or does that standard only apply to other people?

You dodged. Again.

And here I am once again challenging you on this claim:

Remind me again, what's the evidence Zimmerman had more injuries than indicated in the medical reports?

And this is where it gets funny...

You've seen medical reports?

After it was pointed out to you that the medcial reports had actually been released a while ago, you promptly ran away.

And now you're back claiming the issue you repeatedly dodged and ran away from has been "discussed to death", apparently under the impression that people couldn't simply scroll back through the thread to see for themselves.

But I'll take this most recent dodge as an admission that you have no evidence to support your belief, and would rather be left alone with your unsubstantiated fantasy-version of events.

Hmm... someone who clings to a belief while ignoring any challenges to substantiiate it...

Who does that remind me of?

Feel free to present your evidence that it didn't go down just like Zimmerman said.

And now you want me to prove a negative. Skeptical thought at its finest.

 

[This is The End]

Why don't you differentiate what those two terms mean for me ?

Well I assume you missed it when the difference between the legal definition of reasonable and the common use definitition of legal was explained multiple times in the thread?

Whether or not you understand what the word reasonable means in law is not going to change the fact that the judge did not say it was a sure thing, as per your claim.

But the judge stated conclusively that he would have fled.

Your claim was that the Judge said it was a sure thing. Just think about that claim for a few seconds. Do you seriously believe that the Judge thought it was a sure thing??

Clearly people not familiar with legal terms would interpret it as such. Is that the Judges problem?

The Judge said that it was "reasonable" to conclude. Reasonable in the legal sense of the word. Which, in case you haven't caught on, does not mean the same thing as the word "conclusively".

Let me guess, you plan on nitpicking any lesson on what the word reasonable means legally in hopes of making your claim true?

Either way, I think that has been clearly debunked.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8503689#post8503689

 

[This is The End]

Also, feel free to address this:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8503695#post8503695


ETA: One of the relative posts has a broken link to the pdf, and they almost all reference it, so here is a good link:

http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/SKMBT_363-V12070510360.pdf

 

[Cylinder]

Team Zimmerman to assert immunity under SYG statute

Now that the State has released the majority of their discovery, the defense asserts that there is clear support for a strong claim of self-defense. Consistent with this claim of self-defense, there will be a “Stand Your Ground” hearing.

 

[This is The End]

Team Zimmerman to assert immunity under SYG statute

I saw that earlier but I am waiting for definitive confirmation.

AFAIK that is the donations site.

This website is operated by the Mark O'Mara PA on behalf of the George Zimmerman Legal Defense Fund.

It's been over 12 hours and, as far as I can tell, no media have picked it up yet.

So the rumor going around is that they they posted that for a spike in donations.

Though, just to be clear, IIRC weeks I said the odds of an immunity hearing are probably 10%. Now I put that up to at least 80%.

 

[This is The End]

And after checking again after that post I see one.

Posted 9 minutes ago by baynews9.com

http://www.baynews9.com/content/new...ticles/cfn/2012/8/9/zimmerman_stand_your.html

Though it appears the legal defense fund article is still the only source.

Let's see if the major media picks it up during the day Friday...

 

[This is The End]

From the press release on the defense fund site:

It will take time to collect and submit reciprocal discovery, depose witnesses and experts, and identify evidence to be submitted during the hearing. We anticipate this will still take several months.

I'm lowering my opinion back down to 70% or so.

 

[This is The End]

I don't think anyone has posted this yet:

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...ath-of-unarmed-teenager-george-zimmerman-case

Prosecutors on Wednesday released several pieces of evidence — some new and some previously made public — to the defense in the George Zimmerman case.

<snip>

•An audio statement to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement by "Witness 31."

•Emails from the Sanford Police Department.

•Zimmerman's records from Seminole State College.

•Photos taken by "Witness 13" of the back of Zimmerman's head and Trayvon on the ground.

•Zimmerman's application to theSeminole County Sheriff's Officecivilian academy.

I assume it will take awhile for us to see any of the new stuff...

Also:

Also released Wednesday was an order from Seminole Circuit Judge Kenneth Lester ordering Zimmerman to appear at a court hearing Oct. 3.

 

[Dan O.]

It's legal to break someone's nose because you don't like the way they're looking at you or you think they're following you? And it's not assault?

Do cite the case law on this, I'm sure you'll dazzle us with your legal knowledge!

I'm going to institute a "no free ride" pollicy on cite requests. If you want someone else to do research for you, you will need to put up something in exchange. Either clearly take the opposite position so we can knock you down a notch or two by countering your argument with facts. Or put up a pledge to make a donation to JREF if the information you request is delivered.