Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[leftysergeant]

In the latest action, the judge denied the defense motion to modify Z's bond by removing the anklebraclet and allowing him to travel at will.

What was O'Mara smoking to think that any reasonable judge would do that?

O'Mara and the defendant claim that the conditions of bond are making him fat and that he lives in constant fear that he will be killed by some crazed Martin supporter.

My heart bleeds. Maybe fat boy and his brother should just stop making the talk show circuit.

 

[This is The End]

USA Today has a new, fairly long, article on the Trayvon Martin killing. It seems to at least try and be fair, but it is more a biography of Trayvon Martin that it is a summary of all the facts of the case.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/11/trayvon-martin-profile/1761373/


I note that it is yet another news article that contradicts Cylinder's claim that the trial will be pushed back to 2014 even if the defense loses the "stand your ground" hearing in April.

At a self-defense hearing that will take place on or before April 26, Zimmerman's attorney will present their picture of the young man and evidence to support their claims. If the defense team succeeds, a judge could throw out the charges.
If not, the trial would begin on June 10.

Please note, I would not be surprised if the trial is delayed if they lose, or if the hearing/appeal takes longer than 1 month, but it just seems odd that every single news article gets this "wrong"...

Just to be fair, and to make sure that I am not representing it incorrectly, here is Cylinder's claim, which is contradictory of several news articles that have been published after the trial date and self defense hearing announcement. Cylinder has made this claim a few times, this is just one example:

I didn't see the "years" quote but you might want to look at the timeline of past immunity hearings and their appeal. The immunity appeal itself would take around a year to be heard - which gets you to April/May 2014. Then you have to get the trial back on the docket which is probably another 6 months which around October 2014. So yea, two years from now is probably a reasonable timeframe. There will not be a trial in June 2013 - or really anytime in 2013 for that matter.

 

[leftysergeant]

I think that O'Mara will try to introduce the fake Martin as the real deal, but will get slapped down on the spot. He is still stuck with a nasty mean sociopath client who seems to have no friends other than nasty mean sociopaths.

Even a bone thug has the right to fight back when some little pervert starts chasing him in the dark for no apparent reason.

Then there is the utter lack of a mark on Z's face to support having been punched or of having had his nose broken. Not a bruise, aside from one that aligns with a bunch of scratches that could not have been made by any sort of hand smaller than a grizzly bear's paw.

There just isn't any way to support that Martin attacked him unprovoked.

 

[bookworm]

I think that O'Mara will try to introduce the fake Martin as the real deal, but will get slapped down on the spot. He is still stuck with a nasty mean sociopath client who seems to have no friends other than nasty mean sociopaths.

Even a bone thug has the right to fight back when some little pervert starts chasing him in the dark for no apparent reason.

Then there is the utter lack of a mark on Z's face to support having been punched or of having had his nose broken. Not a bruise, aside from one that aligns with a bunch of scratches that could not have been made by any sort of hand smaller than a grizzly bear's paw.

There just isn't any way to support that Martin attacked him unprovoked.

http://gzlegalcase.com/index.php/press-releases/67-george-zimmerman-photograph

 

[This is The End]

There just isn't any way to support that Martin attacked him unprovoked.

That is key. We don't have any more evidence now than we did 6 months ago of who attacked whom first.

There may never be any evidence of who attacked whom first.

Ironically, in Z's own story about who attacked whom first, Z gives M a solid reason for throwing the first punch. Z claims it happened right when Z reached for his pocket. M would have no idea that Z was just going for a phone (that wasn't there).

ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir. And I was wearing a rain jacket, and I had put my cell phone in my jacket pocket, as opposed to my jeans pocket where I normally keep it. And I immediately went to grab my phone to this time call 911 instead of a non-emergency, and when I reached into my pants pocket -- because that's where I keep it out of habit -- it wasn't there, and I was shocked. I looked up and he punched me and broke my nose.

Me pointing that out was followed by this exchange:

So, how often do you punch someone in the nose when he puts his hand in his pocket?

Why are you asking me that??

Also you left out a tiny part of your question:

So, how often do you punch someone in the nose when they have been following you at night for no apparent reason with no one else around and then they reach into their pocket right after you ask them if they have a problem?

Why did you leave that part out?

The evidence for the highlighted is also straight from Z. Ironically it was from what he said immediately before the other part:

HANNITY: What happened next?

ZIMMERMAN: He asked me what my problem was.
HANNITY: Expletive problem?

ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir. And I was wearing a rain jacket, and I had put my cell phone in my jacket pocket, as opposed to my jeans pocket where I normally keep it. And I immediately went to grab my phone to this time call 911 instead of a non-emergency, and when I reached into my pants pocket -- because that's where I keep it out of habit -- it wasn't there, and I was shocked. I looked up and he punched me and broke my nose.

Note how Hannity asks the leading question (in bold) to make sure Z adds the part where Z claims it contained an expletive, though to be fair, Z had made that claim before.

Now read the immediately following line of questions where Hannity makes sure that Z says he responded and did not just "immediately reached into my pants pocket" as Z first put it. Note also that Z leaves out the expletive again when asked what exactly did M say.

HANNITY: One shot?

ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir.

HANNITY: One shot?

ZIMMERMAN: Yes.

HANNITY: So he said to you, you have expletive, you have a problem. Those are the exact words used. You remember it?

ZIMMERMAN: "Do you have a problem? What's your problem?"

HANNITY: What's your problem.

And you said to him, "I don't have a problem."

ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir.

HANNITY: You reached for your phone?

ZIMMERMAN: I reached for it as I was saying, "No, I don't have a problem."

So, in summary, there still is no solid evidence for who attacked whom first.

Yet, ironically, the shooters story of who attacked whom first is somewhat favorable to the the victim.

The below is all directly from the shooters story:

1)M is being followed, at night, by an unknown civilian.
2)M asks the unknown civilian what their problem is.
3)The unknown civilian then immediately reaches for their pocket, and may or may not have been responding to the question at the exact same time as reaching for the pocket.
4)M has no idea what is in the pocket. The only information M has is that this person was following him.



All sourced from the Hannity interview, which I may add, was added to the evidence by the prosecution:

http://nation.foxnews.com/george-zi...-zimmerman-breaks-his-silence-hannity-tonight

Oh, and the person sitting next to Z during that interview, letting Z say all that without so much of a peep? Mark O'Mara, his supposedly expert lawyer.

 

[johnny karate]

I think that O'Mara will try to introduce the fake Martin as the real deal, but will get slapped down on the spot. He is still stuck with a nasty mean sociopath client who seems to have no friends other than nasty mean sociopaths.

Even a bone thug has the right to fight back when some little pervert starts chasing him in the dark for no apparent reason.

Then there is the utter lack of a mark on Z's face to support having been punched or of having had his nose broken. Not a bruise, aside from one that aligns with a bunch of scratches that could not have been made by any sort of hand smaller than a grizzly bear's paw.

There just isn't any way to support that Martin attacked him unprovoked.

Medical records verify Zimmerman had his nose broken. And the photo from the scene certainly looks like he took a shot in the face.

But I agree - perhaps not quite so vehemently - that no independent evidence exists that proves Zimmerman was the victim of an unprovoked attack. And the casual approach he takes to honesty in service of his own agenda leads me to distrust his version of events.

 

[Cylinder]

Please note, I would not be surprised if the trial is delayed if they lose, or if the hearing/appeal takes longer than 1 month, but it just seems odd that every single news article gets this "wrong"...

They are reporting the date on the docket. Even MOM says trial in June. If you look at the backlog in the District Courts, you see the actual timeline for appeals is 6-12 months. The court isn't going to contemplate an appeal on a motion they haven't even heard yet.

 

[This is The End]

http://gzlegalcase.com/index.php/press-releases/67-george-zimmerman-photograph

I believe leftysergeant is referring to all of the pictures from an hour later and then on, after Z was cleaned up.

Read leftysergeant's quote carefully:

Then there is the utter lack of a mark on Z's face to support having been punched or of having had his nose broken.

AFAIR that is correct, there is no bruising or black eyes that would normally be associated with a severe punch to the face and/or nose.

 

[This is The End]

They are reporting the date on the docket. Even MOM says trial in June. If you look at the backlog in the District Courts, you see the actual timeline for appeals is 6-12 months. The court isn't going to contemplate an appeal on a motion they haven't even heard yet.

Did you read my post which specifically breaks down and quotes the article?

They were very clearly not just "reporting the date on the docket".

It was written very specifically as an if/then situation.

I'm not sure how you can read that post and then just say: "They are reporting the date on the docket." They are being quite clearly and specifically contradictory to your claim.

Again:

At a self-defense hearing that will take place on or before April 26, Zimmerman's attorney will present their picture of the young man and evidence to support their claims. If the defense team succeeds, a judge could throw out the charges.

If not, the trial would begin on June 10.

 

[marplots]

If the incident had stopped at the point where Zimmerman gets punched in the nose, would Martin have been guilty of battery?

Or, was Martin justified at that point in striking?

The answers will provide the basis for Zimmerman's actions being acceptable or not.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

That is key. We don't have any more evidence now than we did 6 months ago of who attacked whom first.

There may never be any evidence of who attacked whom first.

Ironically, in Z's own story about who attacked whom first, Z gives M a solid reason for throwing the first punch. Z claims it happened right when Z reached for his pocket. M would have no idea that Z was just going for a phone (that wasn't there).

I believe it has been repeatedly pointed out that someone reaching into their pocket is not a valid excuse to start beating them. Nor a 'solid reason'.

Me pointing that out was followed by this exchange:

The evidence for the highlighted is also straight from Z. Ironically it was from what he said immediately before the other part:

Note how Hannity asks the leading question (in bold) to make sure Z adds the part where Z claims it contained an expletive, though to be fair, Z had made that claim before.

Or perhaps GZ didn't know he could swear on television, therefor omitted the swear word, and Hannity clarified the question. Whatever the reason, how is it relevant ?

Now read the immediately following line of questions where Hannity makes sure that Z says he responded and did not just "immediately reached into my pants pocket" as Z first put it. Note also that Z leaves out the expletive again when asked what exactly did M say.

So, in summary, there still is no solid evidence for who attacked whom first.

Yet, ironically, the shooters story of who attacked whom first is somewhat favorable to the the victim.

I don't understand why you interpret this story as somewhat favorable to the the victim. Why is it in any way favorable to the 'victim' ? You have TM assaulting GZ for reaching into his pocket ? This is a positive for TM ?

The below is all directly from the shooters story:

1)M is being followed, at night, by an unknown civilian.
2)M asks the unknown civilian what their problem is.
3)The unknown civilian then immediately reaches for their pocket, and may or may not have been responding to the question at the exact same time as reaching for the pocket.
4)M has no idea what is in the pocket. The only information M has is that this person was following him.

1A) BDLR: OK. And could you tell the man whether his voice was real loud… screaming at
Trayvon, or was it just a normal conversation like you and I are having? When you said Trayvon said, ‘What are you following me’..or something, whatever…and the guy replied something, ‘What are you doing here?’ Was it a normal conversation, or could you tell the man was like loud?
...
5) therefore the correct action is to sucker punch unknown person ?

All sourced from the Hannity interview, which I may add, was added to the evidence by the prosecution:

http://nation.foxnews.com/george-zi...-zimmerman-breaks-his-silence-hannity-tonight

Oh, and the person sitting next to Z during that interview, letting Z say all that without so much of a peep? Mark O'Mara, his supposedly expert lawyer.

Are you trying to poison the well against O'Mara ? Isn't the more correct explanation that this expert Lawyer knows more than you, and didn't say anything precisely because GZ didn't say anything to hurt his defense, and nothing needed to be said ?

 

[johnny karate]

http://gzlegalcase.com/index.php/press-releases/67-george-zimmerman-photograph

You'll have to tell me what it is about that photo that leads you to believe Zimmerman was attacked unprovoked, because I can't see it.

 

[johnny karate]

I believe it has been repeatedly pointed out that someone reaching into their pocket is not a valid excuse to start beating them. Nor a 'solid reason'.

First of all, a "beating" is indicative of someone being hit repeatedly. We only have evidence of Zimmerman being hit exactly one time.

Secondly, you're leaving out very important context. Zimmerman wasn't simply reaching into his pocket. He was reaching into his pocket during a confrontation with a total stranger he had been following at night. Perhaps that would not be enough for you or I to punch someone in fear or self-defense, but it certainly isn't outside the realm of reasonable.

 

[bookworm]

You'll have to tell me what it is about that photo that leads you to believe Zimmerman was attacked unprovoked, because I can't see it.

That he was attacked unprovoked wasn't what I was pointing out by posting the photo. I was responding to leftysergeant's claim that there wasn't a mark on Z's face.

 

[Rare Truth]

Medical records verify Zimmerman had his nose broken. And the photo from the scene certainly looks like he took a shot in the face.

But I agree - perhaps not quite so vehemently - that no independent evidence exists that proves Zimmerman was the victim of an unprovoked attack. And the casual approach he takes to honesty in service of his own agenda leads me to distrust his version of events.

Likely Broken. No verification.

“Medical report; Altamonte Family Practice,; Zimmerman, George Mon 02/27/2012
one superficial scalp wound 10.5cm (3/16″)_____
one superficial scalp wound 12.0cm (3/4″)__________
neither required sutures or covering
“likely” broken nose, based on observation. No xrays
Suffers from IBS, a chronic condition
suffers from “sacaroillitis” (inflamation of jpoints in lower spine) a chronic condition
5′ 71/2″ 204 lbs (obese)

This was brought up again at the most recent hearing. BDLR said again there is no verification of a broken nose.
Z refused medical treatment or ability to further document the injuries for his nose.

He very well could have, but just adding there was no verification.

 

[leftysergeant]

If the incident had stopped at the point where Zimmerman gets punched in the nose, would Martin have been guilty of battery?

Or, was Martin justified at that point in striking?

The answers will provide the basis for Zimmerman's actions being acceptable or not.

At that point, Martin would have been justified in stomping the little sociopath into the mud.

 

[leftysergeant]

http://gzlegalcase.com/index.php/press-releases/67-george-zimmerman-photograph

Crappy photo taken at absurdly close range and wierd lighting. Nothing about it supports a broken nose or a punch inthe face. Looks more like fat boy ran into a tree branch.

The bruise and the divot line up with the scratch way up on his forehead and had to have been inflicted about simultaneously.

His nose is not swollen. It is photographed from an agnle that makes it look that way. Notice how thin his face looks? That picture is so distorted as to be worthless other than to show that the smug SOB is smiling, probably because he is satisfied that he has accomplished a mission that would show the world just who the stud bull is in these parts.

 

[This is The End]

I believe it has been repeatedly pointed out that someone reaching into their pocket is not a valid excuse to start beating them. Nor a 'solid reason'.

I literally can't believe you do the exact same thing that I point out that GWCarver did in the very post you are responding to.

That is absolutely unbelievable.

So, how often do you punch someone in the nose when he puts his hand in his pocket?

Why are you asking me that??

Also you left out a tiny part of your question:

So, how often do you punch someone in the nose when they have been following you at night for no apparent reason with no one else around and then they reach into their pocket right after you ask them if they have a problem?

After me posting that GWCarver leaves out the other details, that M was being followed at night for no reason and that they were all alone, and tries to act like M just punched anyone old person for reaching into their pocket, TheL8Elvis does the exact same thing in responding to that very post!!

They both try to imply that M just punched some random person on the street for reaching into their pocket. Because the key details were left out repeatedly, I can only assume it is intentional.


They are all alone.
It is dark.
Z is following M.
M has no idea why this person is following him.
M asks him what he wants.
The unknown person reaches into his pocket.


Yet we have people here trying to equate this with being at a populated mall or something! It is quite telling.

 

[This is The End]

That he was attacked unprovoked wasn't what I was pointing out by posting the photo. I was responding to leftysergeant's claim that there wasn't a mark on Z's face.

And I pointed out already to you that that is not true at all.

leftysergent did not make a claim that there "wasn't a mark on Z's face". You are leaving out the important qualifiers. You have done it twice now.

Then there is the utter lack of a mark on Z's face to support having been punched or of having had his nose broken.

I seriously do not know how you can read that quote and think that it saying that there is no mark on Z's face, unless of course you stop reading after the word "face".

 

[johnny karate]

That he was attacked unprovoked wasn't what I was pointing out by posting the photo. I was responding to leftysergeant's claim that there wasn't a mark on Z's face.

From your previous post:

It's interesting how people STILL say that Zimmerman was told not to follow Martin but did it anyway. That's not the way it happened. Zimmerman was ALREADY following when it was SUGGESTED he should not. He then stopped and started to return to his vehicle.

The last line from lefty's post that you quoted:

There just isn't any way to support that Martin attacked him unprovoked.

It certainly seems you're assuming as a fact that Zimmerman was attacked unprovoked. You'll forgive my confusion.