Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[johnny karate]

Likely Broken. No verification.

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.

Granted, but at this point I am willing to accept that Martin punched Zimmerman in the nose, and that subsequently, Zimmerman's nose was broken. I just don't see what's to be gained by quibbling over that particular issue.

 

[Bob001]

....
In the status conference, they were talking about charging one of the 911 callers which captured Zimmerman's screams .....

What??? I haven't been following this closely, but on what possible basis would the cops charge someone who called 911 to report a fight/shooting? This can't be right.

 

[leftysergeant]

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.

I said there was none consistant with having been punched. The owie on his nose was made with a very narror object with an abrasive surface, like a tree branch. You are not going to make that kind of impression on a concave surface of somebody's face without also leaving knuckle marks on other surfaces, and there are none in any of the later photos.

And I come back to the question, why is that turd smiling at the camera after having just killed somebody who turned out not to have been armed?

 

[leftysergeant]

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.

More importantly, he was reaching into his pocket while acting like a gang banger defending turf.

 

[Mumbles]

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).

This is not solid, since Zimmerman's accounts are inconsistent with his own police recording, but we also have no reason to think that Zimmerman was merely reaching for his phone. Recall, according to Zimmerman's own statement, he just put his phone away seconds seconds beforehand, and yet we are to believe that he both put his phone in the wrong pocket, and then immediately forgot this. Also, why would you reach for a phone when being confronted by a very angry person, who you had already identified as "up to no good or on drugs or something"? This person will not simply stand by while you dial the phone and discuss the situation with the police.

However, reaching for a gun would make much more sense in this situation. Also, Zimmerman has no real idea at this point that nobody actually witnessed any of this, so if he were reaching for his gun, he'd have good reason to come up with an alibi.

 

[bookworm]

From your previous post:


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



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

Yes, I forgive you

 

[marplots]

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.

Granting all that, is it still reasonable to hit someone?

I've never been in that situation, but I think I might run away before I'd strike. Is hitting a more common reaction? Is it justified?

 

[johnny karate]

Granting all that, is it still reasonable to hit someone?

I've never been in that situation, but I think I might run away before I'd strike. Is hitting a more common reaction? Is it justified?

See here's the thing, George Zimmerman shot and killed someone. Now, he has of course supplied us with a fanciful tale of a teenage boy walking home from the store transforming into a blood-thirsty murderer, but quite a few people have not questioned his right to defend himself with lethal force.

Trayvon Martin is no longer with us. He can't describe whatever fear or intimidation he might have been feeling at the time a strange man was following him in the dark. He can't tell us how threatening that situation might have been for him. Perhaps punching that perceived threat felt perfectly reasonable for him at the the time.

And what is amazing to me is that while Zimmerman is seemingly given a pass by some for killing another person out of fear or self-defense, apparently Martin had to be a pacifist on par with Mahatma Gandhi in the face of a possible threat lest we question his violent tendencies.

 

[Cylinder]

What??? I haven't been following this closely, but on what possible basis would the cops charge someone who called 911 to report a fight/shooting? This can't be right.

From the conversation, I'm guessing they were discussing something along the lines of failing to render aid. The ASA nixed the idea though and there was no further discussions.

 

[leftysergeant]

Granting all that, is it still reasonable to hit someone?

Of course it is reasonable. It would also be reasonable, if armed yourself, to just shoot the dimbulb on the assumption that, since he is a dirtbag chasing you for no good reason, and smart-mouthing you like a gang banger, that he is a gang banger and about to draw his own weapon and shoot you. This fully meets the Florida SYG law and is exactly the argument that fat boy sought from the outset to use.

I've never been in that situation, but I think I might run away before I'd strike. Is hitting a more common reaction? Is it justified?

But then, you did not grow up in a society where turning and running might get you shot in the back.

 

[This is The End]

See here's the thing, George Zimmerman shot and killed someone. Now, he has of course supplied us with a fanciful tale of a teenage boy walking home from the store transforming into a blood-thirsty murderer, but quite a few people have not questioned his right to defend himself with lethal force.

Trayvon Martin is no longer with us. He can't describe whatever fear or intimidation he might have been feeling at the time a strange man was following him in the dark. He can't tell us how threatening that situation might have been for him. Perhaps punching that perceived threat felt perfectly reasonable for him at the the time.

And what is amazing to me is that while Zimmerman is seemingly given a pass by some for killing another person out of fear or self-defense, apparently Martin had to be a pacifist on par with Mahatma Gandhi in the face of a possible threat lest we question his violent tendencies.

Great post.

We need to fairly apply logic to all parties involved.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

See here's the thing, George Zimmerman shot and killed someone. Now, he has of course supplied us with a fanciful tale of a teenage boy walking home from the store transforming into a blood-thirsty murderer, but quite a few people have not questioned his right to defend himself with lethal force.

Trayvon Martin is no longer with us. He can't describe whatever fear or intimidation he might have been feeling at the time a strange man was following him in the dark. He can't tell us how threatening that situation might have been for him. Perhaps punching that perceived threat felt perfectly reasonable for him at the the time.

And what is amazing to me is that while Zimmerman is seemingly given a pass by some for killing another person out of fear or self-defense, apparently Martin had to be a pacifist on par with Mahatma Gandhi in the face of a possible threat lest we question his violent tendencies.

Wow. Lots of hyperbole.

Do you question GZ right to defend himself ? Or do you question GZ version of the circumstances in which he defended himself ?

As far as having to be 'pacifist on par with Mahatma Gandh' to not assault someone, that's quite a laughable claim.

And after all that, you neglected to answer the question.

Granting OTT point that it was dark outside and GZ was following TM, I still don't find assaulting someone for reaching into their pocket after initiating a conversation with them to be a reasonable reaction. You ?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

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.



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.

As I already replied in another post, even granting your points, it is still not a reasonable reaction.

You negelcted to respond to any of the other points I made or questions I asked in the same post.

It is, how do you say always say it ... quite telling.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Likely Broken. No verification.

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.

I believe it has already been explained that 'verification' (i.e. X-rays) would not change the diagnosis or treatment for the injury ... so why bother ? Broken noses are commonly diagnosed without the 'verification' of an x-ray.

Regardless, is there some major point to be won by pointing out that his nose was only 'likely' broken ? Does that somehow make GZ more likely guilty in your mind or something ?

Because either way it seems to indicate that TM punched GZ in the face hard enough to break his nose ...

 

[This is The End]

Of course it is reasonable. It would also be reasonable, if armed yourself, to just shoot the dimbulb on the assumption that, since he is a dirtbag chasing you for no good reason, and smart-mouthing you like a gang banger, that he is a gang banger and about to draw his own weapon and shoot you. This fully meets the Florida SYG law and is exactly the argument that fat boy sought from the outset to use.



But then, you did not grow up in a society where turning and running might get you shot in the back.

Well, I don't know if leftysergeants reaction is the most reasonable, it would be in certain back alleys, like in parts of Chicago. But would it be in all neighborhoods at night? Perhaps not... But what if someone who grew up in those tough Chicago back alleys was suddenly transplanted to a gated Beverly Hills community, could they be forgiven for their instincts? I am not saying that last part applies directly to this case, I am just pointing out how some people and cultures have different appropriately learned behaviors than others.

I am just glad we are well past the point where some posters are trying to claim it was "just because he went for his pocket" and not all the other details that we know of from Z's own admissions.

It's fair to discuss whether or not a person has the right to react with dealing with all available information about the circumstances and the setting that led up to the pocket reach.

But to try and discuss that by leaving out key details, by focusing on only one detail, or by asking a leading question is dishonest.

Though it is actually good for us to be exposed to it! Because that is exactly what both "sides" try to do when we get to the trial.

 

[marplots]

See here's the thing, George Zimmerman shot and killed someone. Now, he has of course supplied us with a fanciful tale of a teenage boy walking home from the store transforming into a blood-thirsty murderer, but quite a few people have not questioned his right to defend himself with lethal force.

Trayvon Martin is no longer with us. He can't describe whatever fear or intimidation he might have been feeling at the time a strange man was following him in the dark. He can't tell us how threatening that situation might have been for him. Perhaps punching that perceived threat felt perfectly reasonable for him at the the time.

And what is amazing to me is that while Zimmerman is seemingly given a pass by some for killing another person out of fear or self-defense, apparently Martin had to be a pacifist on par with Mahatma Gandhi in the face of a possible threat lest we question his violent tendencies.

Of course it is reasonable. It would also be reasonable, if armed yourself, to just shoot the dimbulb on the assumption that, since he is a dirtbag chasing you for no good reason, and smart-mouthing you like a gang banger, that he is a gang banger and about to draw his own weapon and shoot you. This fully meets the Florida SYG law and is exactly the argument that fat boy sought from the outset to use.



But then, you did not grow up in a society where turning and running might get you shot in the back.

These answers clarify things for me. It sounds very much like, according to these standards, Martin would have been justified in shooting Zimmerman?

But Zimmerman is not justified in shooting Martin, because Martin didn't overreact, was reasonable, and because Zimmerman instigated the incident. Is that a good summation of the "Zimmerman's guilty" side?

To make it plain, if someone is following me, harassing or intimidating me, and they reach into a pocket, I have the right to shoot them? (Because I fear they are reaching for a gun and my life is in danger.)

What an interesting worldview that represents.

 

[Cylinder]

Kind of a unusual twist...since Judge Nelson is switching to civil court at the end of the year, she will be picking up GZ v NBC and dropping Florida v. Shellie Zimmerman. Since Florida v. George Zimmerman is already set for trial, she retains that case.

In three weeks, Circuit Judge Debra S. Nelson, who's overseeing the George Zimmerman murder case, will inherit a new one: George Zimmerman's defamation suit against NBC Universal Media LLC.

Rarely is a judge asked to preside over a man's murder case and, at the same time, his suit demanding a big payout from a major media company that he accuses of defamation.

...

Nelson, 59, is taking over the NBC case because she's swapping jobs with another Sanford judge, Marlene Alva, a 13-year court veteran. In January, Nelson will hear civil cases, those involving disputes over money and property — not crimes.

She'll hang onto the Zimmerman second-degree murder case, which she has set for trial in June, but will hand off her other pending criminal cases, including the perjury case against Zimmerman's wife, Shellie Zimmerman.

It will now be handled by Alva, 60.

 

[leftysergeant]

These answers clarify things for me. It sounds very much like, according to these standards, Martin would have been justified in shooting Zimmerman?

But Zimmerman is not justified in shooting Martin, because Martin didn't overreact, was reasonable, and because Zimmerman instigated the incident. Is that a good summation of the "Zimmerman's guilty" side?

To make it plain, if someone is following me, harassing or intimidating me, and they reach into a pocket, I have the right to shoot them? (Because I fear they are reaching for a gun and my life is in danger.)

What an interesting worldview that represents.

That would be consistant with the Florida SYG.

 

[Mumbles]

These answers clarify things for me. It sounds very much like, according to these standards, Martin would have been justified in shooting Zimmerman?

But Zimmerman is not justified in shooting Martin, because Martin didn't overreact, was reasonable, and because Zimmerman instigated the incident. Is that a good summation of the "Zimmerman's guilty" side?

To make it plain, if someone is following me, harassing or intimidating me, and they reach into a pocket, I have the right to shoot them? (Because I fear they are reaching for a gun and my life is in danger.)

What an interesting worldview that represents.

If the person is entirely unknown to you, then yes, you're justified in hitting that person. I'm not so certain that you would be justified in shooting them, however. I wouldn't be horrified by, say, an involuntary manslaughter charge, if Martin had shot and killed Zimmerman. Also, Martin was 17, so any gun he had would likely be illegally carried. But even so, I also wouldn't be horrified by the shooting.

The thing that Lefty left out is, it's not a matter of being shot in the back, just of the other person being faster than you. Even if the other guy only has a knife, who wants to get stabbed in the back?

In any case, I believe that the person who instigated the fight, should bear the penalties. This is, obviously, not to justify domestic abuse. You can't beat a girlfriend for looking at your cell phone, Chris Brown. But the Australian kid that body-slammed the smaller kid that was punching him? Or Rayon Mcintosh beating those two women that were chasing him with a metal rod? I have no problem with those. And I have no issue with someone who is being chased around, even in the daytime, turning around and punching their pursuer.

It's cute to talk about what you would have done, if you were Martin. The thing is, you really don't know what you would have done. I certainly don't. I may have run home. I may have stopped running once I went around the corner. I may have put my hands up, or I may have punched Zimmerman. You simply can't know how you would respond to a threat, because you would respond differently simply depending on what state of mind you were on.

However, I do know exactly what I would do if I were driving my car, and saw someone walking down the street. I would simply keep driving. I certainly would *not* call the cops, and then jump out of my car and chase the person.

 

[johnny karate]

Wow. Lots of hyperbole.

I assume you're alluding to Zimmerman's version of events I referred to in which at some point during a trip to the store for snacks a teenage boy became a deranged killer who set upon a perfectly innocent man doing absolutely nothing wrong or untoward.

Yes, I also find that story to be hyperbolic to the point of being unbelievable.

Do you question GZ right to defend himself ? Or do you question GZ version of the circumstances in which he defended himself ?

The latter.

Do you question Martin's right to defend himself from someone he perceived as a threat?

As far as having to be 'pacifist on par with Mahatma Gandh' to not assault someone, that's quite a laughable claim.

And after all that, you neglected to answer the question.

That's because I don't have enough information to make an informed decision, seeing as Zimmerman killed the only person who could have provided it.

Again, we don't know how threatened or fearful Martin might have felt being followed in the dark by a total stranger, and then in an encounter with that stranger, seeing him reach for something in his pocket.

This action in the context in which it happened could very easily be seen as a threatening gesture, and I'm not sure why you refuse to acknowledge that.

Granting OTT point that it was dark outside and GZ was following TM, I still don't find assaulting someone for reaching into their pocket after initiating a conversation with them to be a reasonable reaction. You ?

No, not in the sanitized version of events you're presenting, I don't.

Of course, you're making it sound like Zimmerman approached Martin in a crowded shopping mall to politely ask for the time.

I know it sounds crazy, but some people might actually find being followed by a stranger while walking home alone at night to be intimidating. And any subsequent action by that stranger might also be seen as intimidating. Including reaching into a pocket.