Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[Newtons Bit]

TM was a kid. Maybe you'd call him a menacing black male armed with Skittles?

GZ's violent and paranoid history is a matter of record, and arguably only a goofball would get a felony conviction for assault against a police officer and still think he had a shot at a career in law enforcement.

If my description of GZ is unflattering, I can only be faulted for accuracy.

You can be faulted for your lack of accuracy, that's for sure. GZ has not been convicted of a felony assault against a police officer.

 

[johnny karate]

And in a fight, no one would ever say something like 'you're dead' or 'I'm going to kill you' ?? Whether the actual intention was to murder the other person or not ?

It goes beyond words. Zimmerman described Martin's actions as murderous.

" ...the suspect covered my nose and mouth and stopped my breathing."

"At this point I felt the suspect reach for my now-exposed firearm... "

Zimmerman is clearly describing an attempt on his life.

Frankly, I don't know that I believe that TM said that. I think that is more than likely GZ thinking he needed to really justify his self defense, and saying 'oh yeah, and he said I was going to die'.

I don't think it really matters. The evidence that exists seems to me to be in agreement with the important elements of GZ story - TM was beating him and he was afraid and couldn't get away and so GZ shot him.

What evidence - aside from the word of a man you now seem to admit is probably a liar - is there that Martin was beating Zimmerman, and that Zimmerman was afraid and couldn't get away?

 

[Giz]

He was an idiot trying to be a hero.

I don't think that there is any evidence that GZ did anything more than attempt to keep TM in sight so that he could point police in the right direction.

(I don't think that looking out for your neighbors by keeping an eye on suspicious persons should be punishable by a beating.)

 

[eerok]

You can be faulted for your lack of accuracy, that's for sure. GZ has not been convicted of a felony assault against a police officer.

If he wasn't convicted, I stand corrected.

http://myclerk.myorangeclerk.com/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=5782626

 

[Mumbles]

Are you seriously suggesting that your advice to your child would be: IF someone is following you, and even though you can easily evade them,you should instead approach them and attempt to overpower them?

There's no evidence that Martin approached Zimmenrman. In fact, all known evidence points to the opposite.

(This isn't even getting into a discussion of whether a short pudgy neighborhood watch guy keeping an eye on you could be viewed as threatening in the first place - though I guess it might be unsettling if you had a guilty conscience).

Or if the "neighborhood watch" was just some guy staring at you, and chasing ou around for no apparent reason, as Zimmerman happily exlained that he did both before and after the shooting.

 

[Mumbles]

I don't think that there is any evidence that GZ did anything more than attempt to keep TM in sight so that he could point police in the right direction.

(I don't think that looking out for your neighbors by keeping an eye on suspicious persons should be punishable by a beating.)

There's still the problem that Martin had done nothing suspicious that Zimmerman had seen. Again, Zimmerman has repeatedly stated that he was suspicious of Martin, because Martin was looking around while walking down the street. Zimmerman concludes from this that Martin was "on drugs, or up to no good, or something." But this is a risible excuse. Peole walk in the ran because the rain wn't so bad, or because they figure they'll get soaked anyway, or because they like being in the rain.

Thus, Martin was not a "suspicious person" according to any reasonable person.

 

[sgtbaker]

Then it's clear that neither of you are very familiar with Zimmerman's version of events:


So not only was Martin beating Zimmerman severely, but he was also smothering him, and attempted to reach for his gun.

And if those actions don't make Martin's intent clear enough, while he was smothering Zimmerman and reaching for his gun, he announced, "You're gonna die tonight, *****f*****".

So maybe neither of you believe Martin was attempting to murder Zimmerman, but Zimmerman sure wants you to.

If you snip out everything else I said, it sure does look like I've forgotten everything about this case. However, if you read the rest of my post, I think it follows the case pretty well. Bookworm was responding to your words that Martin is being accused of attempted murder. In my personal opinion, based on the information we have, Martin's actions were not murderous, they were defensive. As it has already been pointed out, words spoken, in the heat of a physical altercation are not necessarily representative of his real intentions. Even acknowledging the possibilit that once Martin had Zimmerman on the ground, his desire was to not stop until Zimmerman was dead, it still doesn't fit your words; cold blooded murder. You are still ignoring the point of both of our posts; there is no need for one to me murderously evil, for the other to be justified in their fear.

I agree, but I think Zimmerman showed lapses of judgment serious enough that it's reasonable for him never to be allowed to touch a firearm again. You can't afford to condone stupidity of that magnitude: running around like an angry idiot while armed. If you have the right to be armed, then you have the responsibility to avoid instigating confrontations where you might use the weapon or lose control of it. It would be an utter failure to allow Zimmerman to walk away feeling that he'd done the right thing, when it's pretty clear that he didn't.

Should Zimmerman go to prison? Well, I'd be content if he got a long term of probation with mandatory therapy, and was permanently disarmed. He's not evil, but he's criminally stupid.

If you have evidence that he was instigating confrontations, I am sure the prosecution would appreciate that conribution to the case. As far as the law is concerned, getting out of his car is not illegal, nor is it automatically considered aggressive. We also have up to a three minute gap between him getting off the phone with the dispatcher and when phone calls start coming in reporting the fight that is subject to speculation, bias, and imagination, none of which make for a convictable case.

 

[Giz]

We also have up to a three minute gap between him getting off the phone with the dispatcher and when phone calls start coming in reporting the fight that is subject to speculation, bias, and imagination, none of which make for a convictable case.

This sums up the whole circus.

 

[johnny karate]

If you snip out everything else I said, it sure does look like I've forgotten everything about this case. However, if you read the rest of my post, I think it follows the case pretty well. Bookworm was responding to your words that Martin is being accused of attempted murder. In my personal opinion, based on the information we have, Martin's actions were not murderous, they were defensive. As it has already been pointed out, words spoken, in the heat of a physical altercation are not necessarily representative of his real intentions. Even acknowledging the possibilit that once Martin had Zimmerman on the ground, his desire was to not stop until Zimmerman was dead, it still doesn't fit your words; cold blooded murder. You are still ignoring the point of both of our posts; there is no need for one to me murderously evil, for the other to be justified in their fear.

I'm sorry, but you are wrong and you continue to be wrong. Zimmerman is describing a brutal attempt to kill him. There is nothing in his account that would indicate Martin was at all acting defensively. And to say Martin's murderous intentions were limited to what he said ignores Martin's actions as described by Zimmerman.

Your point about there not being a need for Martin to be "murderously evil" for Zimmerman to justifiably fear for his life is completely irrelevant in light of Zimmerman's statement.

Because he absolutely casts Martin in that role in the way he describes the altercation. I'm not sure how anyone can read what Zimmerman stated and claim otherwise.

Which brings us back around to the original point.

Zimmerman doesn't describe a fist fight with a hot-tempered teenager that got out of hand, which is easy to think might have taken place.

He describes himself as the victim of a horrific and sustained act of violence who barely escaped alive. That is a rare breed of assault and not quite so easy to pin on a relatively normal teenage boy who only minutes previous was simply walking home from the store.

But hey, I can certainly understand your unwillingness to believe that what Zimmerman claimed actually took place. It does sound ridiculous.

 

[Dan O.]

If you have evidence that he was instigating confrontations, I am sure the prosecution would appreciate that conribution to the case.

George is only being accused of initiating this one confrontation (assuming you aren't counting an attack on an undercover police officer). Eerok was making the general statement that someone arming themselves with a deadly weapon has a duty to avoid creating those situation(s) where the deadly weapon would be used.

And how can you be so sure of what the prosecution wants? Have you talked to them? Do you have the actual statement that they made? That sounds like you are just echoing a tired old line used by people that don't have an argument.




As far as the law is concerned, getting out of his car is not illegal, nor is it automatically considered aggressive. We also have up to a three minute gap between him getting off the phone with the dispatcher and when phone calls start coming in reporting the fight that is subject to speculation, bias, and imagination, none of which make for a convictable case.[/QUOTE]

 

[Dan O.]

We also have up to a three minute gap between him getting off the phone with the dispatcher and when phone calls start coming in reporting the fight that is subject to speculation, bias, and imagination, none of which make for a convictable case.

This sums up the whole circus.

Why is it that George won't say what he was doing during this gap? His story so far has him walking across to Retreat View Circle while on the recorded phone call but then skips to walking back to his truck when he encounters Trayvon. He gets very wishy-washy when questioned about the time he was on RVC and cannot explain how he got from the tee to the location south of the tee where Trayvon's body was found.

Remember the whole episode where it was claimed that Trayvon was circling George's truck? I wonder now if that was a deliberate attempt by George's defense at damage control because they new it would eventually come out that George had circled around Trayvon so he was approaching from the south, cutting off Trayvon's escape to the safety of his home.

 

[sgtbaker]

I'm sorry, but you are wrong and you continue to be wrong. Zimmerman is describing a brutal attempt to kill him. There is nothing in his account that would indicate Martin was at all acting defensively. And to say Martin's murderous intentions were limited to what he said ignores Martin's actions as described by Zimmerman.

Your point about there not being a need for Martin to be "murderously evil" for Zimmerman to justifiably fear for his life is completely irrelevant in light of Zimmerman's statement.

Because he absolutely casts Martin in that role in the way he describes the altercation. I'm not sure how anyone can read what Zimmerman stated and claim otherwise.

Which brings us back around to the original point.

Zimmerman doesn't describe a fist fight with a hot-tempered teenager that got out of hand, which is easy to think might have taken place.

He describes himself as the victim of a horrific and sustained act of violence who barely escaped alive. That is a rare breed of assault and not quite so easy to pin on a relatively normal teenage boy who only minutes previous was simply walking home from the store.

But hey, I can certainly understand your unwillingness to believe that what Zimmerman claimed actually took place. It does sound ridiculous.

Wow, where did that come from? Of Course Zimmerman would believe Martin was trying to kill him. That was the whole point of my post. We have two separate unique experiences, each individual fearing the other and not knowing the other's intent. Our opinions are going to be quite different from his because we are not experiencing the story, as it unfolds, we are reading about it from the safety of our homes. We have information that neither George nor Trayvon had, at that moment.

Your words, the one I quoted,

Or should we should just consider a cold-blooded murder attempt an act of mundane teenage stupidity as well?

We should not consider Trayvon a cold blooded murderer for two reason; the first being the meaning of a cold blooded murderer, the second being he, if he hit Zimmerman first, believed he was defending himself. You were discussing our perspective, not George's. It is unfair for you to switch the angle of the discussion and then accuse me of being wrong.

 

[sgtbaker]

Why is it that George won't say what he was doing during this gap? His story so far has him walking across to Retreat View Circle while on the recorded phone call but then skips to walking back to his truck when he encounters Trayvon. He gets very wishy-washy when questioned about the time he was on RVC and cannot explain how he got from the tee to the location south of the tee where Trayvon's body was found.

Remember the whole episode where it was claimed that Trayvon was circling George's truck? I wonder now if that was a deliberate attempt by George's defense at damage control because they new it would eventually come out that George had circled around Trayvon so he was approaching from the south, cutting off Trayvon's escape to the safety of his home.

He did not have an attorney when he gave that story, so it's not likely a cover for anything. It didn't seem to me, through the tapes or the walk through, like he was intentionally trying to be vague. It sounds like any person sounds when they are trying to recount an incident moment by moment.

 

[This is The End]

GZ has not been convicted of a felony assault against a police officer.

Yes, but he was charged with it, and he took a plea deal.

 

[This is The End]

We also have up to a three minute gap between him getting off the phone with the dispatcher and when phone calls start coming in reporting the fight that is subject to speculation, bias, and imagination, none of which make for a convictable case.

Just to be clear, as far as I remember there is between 90 and 120 seconds between Z hanging up the phone and the gun shot and only about 60 to 90 seconds between Z hanging up the phone and the first phone call reporting the fight.

 

[johnny karate]

Wow, where did that come from? Of Course Zimmerman would believe Martin was trying to kill him. That was the whole point of my post. We have two separate unique experiences, each individual fearing the other and not knowing the other's intent. Our opinions are going to be quite different from his because we are not experiencing the story, as it unfolds, we are reading about it from the safety of our homes. We have information that neither George nor Trayvon had, at that moment.

You need to read Zimmerman's statement again. He's not describing somone he thinks is trying to kill him. He's describing someone who is actually trying to kill him. There is no subjectivity in his account.

We should not consider Trayvon a cold blooded murderer for two reason; the first being the meaning of a cold blooded murderer...

I didn't use the term "cold-blooded murderer". I used the term "cold-blooded murder attempt".

For you convenience, here is the definition of "cold-blooded":
lacking in pity or warmth: showing a total lack of kindness, pity, or care for somebody's suffering.

Would you care to explain what about Zimmermans' description of his attack didn't seem cold-blooded to you?

...the second being he, if he hit Zimmerman first, believed he was defending himself. You were discussing our perspective, not George's. It is unfair for you to switch the angle of the discussion and then accuse me of being wrong.

George's perspective is all we have. It is literally the only piece of evidence we have to ascertain what took place during the altercation.

So when you say something like this:

In my personal opinion, based on the information we have, Martin's actions were not murderous, they were defensive.

What information are you talking about? What evidence have you seen that gives you a different perspective on the altercation other than the account Zimmerman provided?

 

[Dan O.]

He did not have an attorney when he gave that story, so it's not likely a cover for anything. It didn't seem to me, through the tapes or the walk through, like he was intentionally trying to be vague. It sounds like any person sounds when they are trying to recount an incident moment by moment.

A quick search for [trayvon Martin circling car] shows this story breaking on May 3rd or 4th. Do you have an earlier date for this particular embellishment?

 

[sgtbaker]

A quick search for [trayvon Martin circling car] shows this story breaking on May 3rd or 4th. Do you have an earlier date for this particular embellishment?

Wasn't that the story that Serino told Tracey Martin, the day after the shooting?

 

[sgtbaker]

You need to read Zimmerman's statement again. He's not describing somone he thinks is trying to kill him. He's describing someone who is actually trying to kill him. There is no subjectivity in his account.

I am trying to be polite but I don't understand why you refuse to address the discussion you started, with your question. You asked what WE thought, not what Zimmerman thought. I answered what I thought.

As far as cold blooded. Can I get a linky to your definition, just to see if there is anything missing from the actual definition, because I'll be darned if I can't find a single defintion that doesn't include, without feeling or emotion.

Idioms & Phrases

in cold blood

In a purposely ruthless and unfeeling manner, as in The whole family was murdered in cold blood. This expression alludes to the notion that blood is the seat of emotion and is hot in passion and cold in calm. The term therefore means not "in the heat of passion," but "in a calculated, deliberate manner." [Late 1500s]
http://dictionary.reference.com/idioms/in cold blood

George's perspective is all we have. It is literally the only piece of evidence we have to ascertain what took place during the altercation.

Let me requote your question, again:

Or should we should just consider a cold-blooded murder attempt an act of mundane teenage stupidity as well?

You were asking what we should consider. If you wanted what I think Zimmerman thinks, then ask that.

What information are you talking about? What evidence have you seen that gives you a different perspective on the altercation other than the account Zimmerman provided?

I've tried to explain this already. We know, if nothing else, Martin did not know what Zimmerman was doing because we do not believe in mind reading capabilities. Martin, in the lack of information, is only capable of filling in the blanks with his own imagination, just like Zimmerman was doing. Martin, from what we know, was walking back from the store and a man drives past him, turns around, drives past him again, and then parks on the road ahead of him. As he approaches, the man is talking on the phone and watching every move he makes. We don't need to take an eyewitness account to know that this is what Martin experienced. To know what he was thinking is an entirely different story. All we can do from that angle is imagine what we would think, feel, or do. Which is why I chose the words "my opinion". So based on my opinion, it is entirely reasonable to believe Martin was afraid. Therefor, his actions (if he hit Zimmerman first) could reasonably be considered defensive, not offensive.

 

[johnny karate]

I am trying to be polite but I don't understand why you refuse to address the discussion you started, with your question. You asked what WE thought, not what Zimmerman thought. I answered what I thought.

And on what are you are basing your opinion of what took place during the altercation, if not the only account of the altercation that we have?

As far as cold blooded. Can I get a linky to your definition, just to see if there is anything missing from the actual definition, because I'll be darned if I can't find a single defintion that doesn't include, without feeling or emotion.

Here you go.

And here's a link to various synonyms for "cold-blooded", several of which are very accurate adjectives to use to describe Zimmerman's account of the assault.

You were asking what we should consider. If you wanted what I think Zimmerman thinks, then ask that.

And exactly what are you using in order to make your consideration, if not the one and only piece of evidence available?

I've tried to explain this already. We know, if nothing else, Martin did not know what Zimmerman was doing because we do not believe in mind reading capabilities. Martin, in the lack of information, is only capable of filling in the blanks with his own imagination, just like Zimmerman was doing. Martin, from what we know, was walking back from the store and a man drives past him, turns around, drives past him again, and then parks on the road ahead of him. As he approaches, the man is talking on the phone and watching every move he makes. We don't need to take an eyewitness account to know that this is what Martin experienced. To know what he was thinking is an entirely different story. All we can do from that angle is imagine what we would think, feel, or do. Which is why I chose the words "my opinion". So based on my opinion, it is entirely reasonable to believe Martin was afraid. Therefor, his actions (if he hit Zimmerman first) could reasonably be considered defensive, not offensive.

We have exactly one source of information to derive what happened during the altercation between Zimmerman and Martin. And that's Zimmerman's statement.

There is no other evidence that gives us any specific details.

And in that statement, Zimmerman does not describe Martin as acting defensively. According to Zimmerman, Martin attacked him without provocation. And not only that, but that attack as Zimmerman describes it was brutal and merciless. It continued even though Zimmerman describes himself as defenseless and screaming for help, and culminated in Martin making two different attempts to willfully murder Zimmerman.

There is nothing in Zimmerman's version of events that implies or lends credence to the notion that Martin was at all acting defensively. It is simply and clearly an account of one person being savagely beaten and nearly killed by another.

So I'll ask you this again: If you think Martin was acting defensively, upon what piece of information or evidence are you basing that opinion?