Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[leftysergeant]

Could you attribute that quote? Because I don't see it in the discovery (maybe my page numbers are different that yours), and the only person I can find associated with it is Zimmerman's friend Mark Osterman (which would make it hearsaybalderdash).

fify

O is just as nuts as Z.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Could you attribute that quote? Because I don't see it in the discovery (maybe my page numbers are different that yours), and the only person I can find associated with it is Zimmerman's friend Mark Osterman (which would make it hearsay).

It was page 78, not 8. And since this is an Internet forum, not a court of law, I don't understand why you are discounting it as 'hearsay' - just come right out and say it - you don't believe Mark Osterman ? Otherwise, it seems to be reasonable evidence that GZ did claim to be hit multiple times.

If I have some time, I'll try to re-listen to his interviews, as I seem to recall him saying the same thing there as well.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Except that we are discussing two diffrent situations.

In one, it is claimed that Martin did not exhibit enough fear. He ran from Zimmerman (an indication that he was afraid of - or at least threatened by - him). Detractors have claimed that since he didn't sprint directly home and call the police, it shows that he wasn't really afraid at all. So the issue there is degrees of fear. Martin could have quite possibly been fearful enough of Zimmerman to run away from him, but not fearful enough to do anything more.

In Zimmerman's case, it's about him being afraid at all in accordance with his claim. He says he was afraid of Martin, but exhibited no behavior that would indicate that to be true. As the police investigator whose opinion you hold in such high regard tells us, Zimmerman's "actions are inconsistent with those of a person who has stated he was in fear of another subject". So in this case, it's a matter of contradiction.

As you say, fear is a spectrum.

It's possible, for example, for me to be afraid of bugs, yet still go squish them when necessary.

It's possible that TM was in fear of GZ, but but not so much fear that he called the police. It's possible that GZ was in fear of TM, but not so much fear that he was afraid to get out of his car. Perhaps part of the problem is that having a gun alleviated most of his fear, however much that may have been ?

You'll recall - GZ was afraid to give his address on the NEN call, because he didn't know where TM was, and he thought his address might be overheard.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I'm not sure why you think it's rational to expect other people to prove a negative. No evidence exists that Martin was doing anything suspicious to corroborate Zimmerman's claim. None. That's a fact.

And yet for some reason, you think the default position is to assume Martin was acting suspiciously until someone proves he wasn't. Very puzzling.

The default position is not 'he wasn't acting suspiciously unless proven otherwise'. The default position is we don't know how TM was acting.

He may have been acting in a manner in which would make you or I find him suspicious, maybe not. He was acting in a way which GZ found suspicious.You can argue that GZ should not have found him suspicious, but since you don't know how he was actually behaving, I am not sure how you would argue that...

That's not quite true. The manual you have repeatedly quoted cites some very specific behaviors that can be deemed as suspicious. None of which Zimmerman attributes to Martin.

Furthermore, if you feel something is odd or out of place about someone - without being able to be more specific than that - that says nothing about that person, but rather says something about you. Suspicious behavior is not defined as someone else thinking you seem odd or out of place.

The only specifics Zimmerman could offer about Martin's behavior were that he was walking around and looking at things. Two ridiculously mundane activities. Everything else was just vague tautologies.

Again with the walking and looking. In what universe does a reasonable person have cause to judge another person suspicious simply because they are walking casually and looking at things?

I gave an example of behaviors that some manuals have defined as suspicious. It was not meant to be all inclusive.

I will agree that GZ calling the NEN to report TM as suspicious is not proof that TM was acting suspiciously. But it's certainly more evidence than exists for his not acting suspiciously - which is to say, none. He didn't get permission to go to 7-eleven as mumbles claimed. He tried to buy something that required ID. TM took 40 minutes to walk half a mile, in the rain. That seems to me to be much slower than 'casually walking'. He was talking on his BT headset with his hood up - to someone that didn't know he was on the phone, that may have looked odd or out of place.

What constitutes suspicious behavior ?
http://www.lubrinco.com/articles/Informed Sources November 2003.pdf

In summary, claiming to know TM wasn't doing anything suspicious is a non-starter. And that is what mumbles was doing.

johnny karate actually answered that question.

You realize my post wasn't directed to you ? I know you answered the question.

Reaching into a waistband and reaching into a pocket can both be seen as threatening gestures for the same reason. Because it indicates the person in question is reaching for a weapon.

So if a person seen doing that from a distance is deemed threatening enough to warrant a call to the police, how is a person doing that right in front of you not threatening enough to warrant self-defense?

Because you are conflating the acts of calling the police and acting in self defense ?

 

[leftysergeant]

Just to be clear, you think it's OK to punch someone who is following you, yes?

If he is following you in a threatening manner, when you are doing absolutely NOTHING unlawful or discourteous, and the menacing sack of crap starts mouthing off like a gang banger, most state laws allow you to beat the bejeebers out of him, if that is what it takes to make him stop behaving in a threatening manner. If you are packing legally, most state laws allow you to brandish your weapon at this point. Florida certainly does. Further, if the goblin does not back off, or if the goblin tries to advance, Florida allows you to fire for effect.

 

[leftysergeant]

It was page 78, not 8. And since this is an Internet forum, not a court of law, I don't understand why you are discounting it as 'hearsay' - just come right out and say it - you don't believe Mark Osterman ? Otherwise, it seems to be reasonable evidence that GZ did claim to be hit multiple times.

If I have some time, I'll try to re-listen to his interviews, as I seem to recall him saying the same thing there as well.

Osterman has absolutely no forensic value, is a close friend to a sociopath, and may well be lying about his current occupation. He does have known ties to organized crime. Ergo, one may safely assume that O is a lying sack of crap and may even have attempted to unlawfully influence witnesses.

 

[johnny karate]

It was page 78, not 8. And since this is an Internet forum, not a court of law, I don't understand why you are discounting it as 'hearsay' - just come right out and say it - you don't believe Mark Osterman ? Otherwise, it seems to be reasonable evidence that GZ did claim to be hit multiple times.

No, it's not reasonable evidence. Not by a long shot. One person claiming something happened that the person they claimed it happened to does not themselves claim is in no way "reasonable evidence".

If I have some time, I'll try to re-listen to his interviews, as I seem to recall him saying the same thing there as well.

Good luck with that. Of course, I've already provided the entirety of Zimmerman's account of the altercation in his statement to the police. He did not claim Martin repeatedly punched him in that account.

But I actually hope you do find something. Because your rationalization for why Zimmerman provided various, differing accounts should prove to be quite entertaining.

 

[johnny karate]

As you say, fear is a spectrum.

It's possible, for example, for me to be afraid of bugs, yet still go squish them when necessary.

It's possible that TM was in fear of GZ, but but not so much fear that he called the police. It's possible that GZ was in fear of TM, but not so much fear that he was afraid to get out of his car. Perhaps part of the problem is that having a gun alleviated most of his fear, however much that may have been ?

You'll recall - GZ was afraid to give his address on the NEN call, because he didn't know where TM was, and he thought his address might be overheard.

We're not talking about a "spectrum" of fear in regards to Zimmerman.

We're talking about his behavior being "inconsistent" with his claim that he was afraid.

It's not that Zimmerman wasn't behaving fearfully enough, but that he wasn't behaving fearfully at all.

However, this isn't my claim. It's Chris Serino's claim.

Serino, if you recall, was the lead investigator on this case with whom you deemed it was laughable to disagree.

So I'm curious to know why the idea that race may have played a role in Zimmerman's suspicion of Martin is laughable because Serino concluded otherwise, but Serino's conclusion that Zimmerman behaved inconsistently with a fearful person is open to scrutiny.

 

[johnny karate]

The default position is not 'he wasn't acting suspiciously unless proven otherwise'. The default position is we don't know how TM was acting.

That's not what you previously asserted:

I didn't say he was explicitly following watch guidelines, I said his actions were in accordance with watch guidelines. And that TM was acting suspiciously, according to NW and other reasonable definitions.

So have you changed your mind on that point, or did you post in error?

He may have been acting in a manner in which would make you or I find him suspicious, maybe not. He was acting in a way which GZ found suspicious.You can argue that GZ should not have found him suspicious, but since you don't know how he was actually behaving, I am not sure how you would argue that...

I know that objectively suspicious behavior is rooted in some type of suspicious activity.

I know that the evidence points to Martin simply walking home from the store after buying snacks.

I know that the police concluded "there is no indication that Trayvon Martin was involved in any criminal activity at the time of the encounter".

I know that Zimmerman was concerned about recent break-ins in his neighborhood perpetrated by suspects who happened to bear a resemblance to Martin.

I know that Zimmerman was dissatisfied with the police response to these break-ins.

I know that Zimmerman exhibited poor judgment and overzealous behavior that night.

I don't doubt that Zimmerman found Martin suspicious.

I doubt that his suspicion was reasonable.

And based on that doubt, I roundly reject your previous assertion that Martin was acting suspiciously, an assertion which you seem to have now quietly walked back.

I will agree that GZ calling the NEN to report TM as suspicious is not proof that TM was acting suspiciously. But it's certainly more evidence than exists for his not acting suspiciously - which is to say, none.

Again, you're trying to force the discussion into the terms of proving a negative. No one needs to provide evidence Martin wasn't acting suspiciously. That's an irrational expectation.

He didn't get permission to go to 7-eleven as mumbles claimed. He tried to buy something that required ID.

I don't see what relevance any of that is.

TM took 40 minutes to walk half a mile, in the rain. That seems to me to be much slower than 'casually walking'.

"Walking casually" is Zimmerman's descriptor, so if you disagree, take it up with him.

He was talking on his BT headset with his hood up - to someone that didn't know he was on the phone, that may have looked odd or out of place.

Possibly.

However, anyone who didn't just step out of time machine from 1989, or wasn't in a big damn hurry to play cops and robbers, might have considered the possibility that Martin was talking on a hands-free device considering the prevalence of such devices.

What constitutes suspicious behavior ?
http://www.lubrinco.com/articles/Informed Sources November 2003.pdf

The internet is chocked full of all sorts of thoughts and opinions on any number of topics. Very little of it is to be taken as fact, and almost none of it has anything to do with this specific case.

In summary, claiming to know TM wasn't doing anything suspicious is a non-starter. And that is what mumbles was doing.

How is that any less of a non-starter than your claim to know that Martin was acting suspiciously?

You realize my post wasn't directed to you ? I know you answered the question.

And yet you just ignored my answer, and instead asked the question of someone else.

Because you are conflating the acts of calling the police and acting in self defense ?

There is no conflation, because it's two different scenarios.

A person making a threatening gesture from a distance affords one the opportunity to call the police.

A person making a threatening gesture right in front of you does not.

The point that Mumbles made was not about the reaction to the gesture, but rather how that gesture is interpreted.

And we all seem to agree that reaching into a waistband/pocket can be interpreted as threatening.

So if a gesture is threatening enough to warrant a call to the police when that option is available, why is not threatening enough to warrant self-defense in a situtation in which a call to the police is not an option?

 

[johnny karate]

Perhaps part of the problem is that having a gun alleviated most of his fear, however much that may have been ?

So is it your belief that Zimmerman was aware that he was armed when he got out of his vehicle to follow Martin? And that he actually intended to bring the gun with him?

 

[marplots]

I am not that familiar with the gun in question.
Could the abrasion and damage on Zimmerman's face be from the slide going back when the gun was shot? In other words, could Zimmerman have been injured when he fired the gun in an awkward position, too close to his face?

 

[Mumbles]

I agree, he went to 7-11. To buy snacks and something the clerk wouldn't sell him without ID , right ?
Why did you leave that part out ?

Because of the lack of evidence. See how that works? As Karate points out, this is irrelevant in any case, but the 7-11 tape provides no solid evidence of Martin attempting to buy anything other than what was on him after he was shot.

That is not evidence he wasn't acting suspiciously as he walked home.
And of course, it takes him almost three quarters of an hour to walk the half mile from 7-eleven.

GZ police recording clearly contains the statements about why GZ found him acting suspiciously. I have quoted those words numerous times. GZ elaborated on the statements in his police interview.

The fact that he walked in the general direction of his fathers girlfriends home is evidence he wasn't acting suspiciously ?

Which DeeDee ? The 16 year old one or the 18 year old one ? How is that GZ statements are all dismissed as self-serving, but we are to take the word of this nebulous DeeDee ? The DeeDee who tells us TM was right by his Daddy house ?[/quote]

So, to summarize, you have no reason to believe that Martin was acting suspiciously, you simply want us to believe so,because something something.

Sure, the partial piece we have seen already contains evidence of marijuana use. It hasn't been hidden, it simply hasn't been released to the public.

Evidence of distant marijuana use - which is, again, irrelevant.

So, what you are saying is TM should have found GZ suspicious and called the police ? You are probably right. Why do you think he didn't do that ? Or simply go the last 70 yards to safety instead of hiding in the bushes ? I would like to see some justification for that.

Perhaps he ran around the corner, and was shocked when Zimmerman actually got out of his car to pursue him on foot. Or perhaps, he walked towards his home, and Zimmerman cut him off.

Oh, and if you want us to believe that he was hiding behind bushes...yeah, again, evidence. There don't appear to have been any bushes for him to hide behind easily - especially not while talking on the phone.

Again, I will reiterate - suspicious activity is subjective. All the neighborhood watch manuals say to call if you see or feel something is odd , or out of place. There is no completely objective definition of suspicious behavior. The fact that TM was on a bluetooth headset, and talking on the phone ... and taking his sweet time walking ... looking around .. well that may certainly look suspicious to someone who doesn't recognize TM, who doesn't realize he is on the phone. You are right that it's possible TM wasn't doing anything you would consider suspicious. And it's also possible that I or someone else could reasonably consider those same activities suspicious.

There are pretty major limits to what's "suspicious" The guy walking slowly down the street isn't suspicious, outside of extremely limited circumstances. There guy getting out of his car in order to chase after a stranger, is extremely suspicious, outside of a few circumstances. The guy with the gun, sitting in a tree in the woods during hunting season, isn't very suspicious. The guy with the gun, running towards a major government building and shrieking about taxes is *very* suspicious.

I'll ask you the same question I asked Johnny Karate - If TM was doing nothing suspicions, why did GZ call the NEN?

Because GZ is both reckless and dumb. It's the same reason why he thought it would be a good idea to abandon his car and run after the supposedly "suspicious" person. And the same reason he thought it would be a good idea to conspire with his wife to hide a large sum of money and a passport, over a prison phone.

No, I think you are confused. People have said that putting your hand near your pocket is not justification for someone to sucker punch you.

And yet again, this is nonsense. Yes, the person near you who reaches for their pocket in response to a clear ringtone during a business meeting is no threat. But in this case, even if we do believe his walkthrough (it's not very credible given the evidence, but that's another issue), Zimmerman put his hand into his pocket, after pursuing Martin both in his car, and then on foot, and immediately after being confronted by this by Martin on his alarming behavior. And that is far mor than enough to suspect a person of being interested in a mugging, or violence, or both.

 

[Dan O.]

False claim (1 of 3): "He [Trayvon] didn't get permission to go to 7-eleven"

2012-03-24
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20581404,00.html
Trayvon Martin's Parents Recall His Last Night
By STEVE HELLING

"I wasn't that worried, because he had been spending time with my 20-year-old nephew who was a responsible young man. There wasn't a panic that he wasn't at home. I figured that they had gone to the movies, because they had said they might. So I laid down, thinking they would show up later."
​

Trayvon is almost an adult. There is no indication that he is grounded to the house or otherwise not permitted to leave. In the above quote there was a discussion of going out and no indication that this would not be permitted.


In the phone logs that have been provided for Trayvon's phone, there are many incoming calls on the family plan that night. The timing suggests that the calls from Dee-dee are unlabeled. Calls from "North Dade" where Trayvon and his father are from could be from or to his father. It is possible that there is a call between Trayvon and his father and it is further possible that the trip to the 7-11 was discussed in this call. This establishes the possibility that he did get permission for the trip.

02/26/2012 Incoming and outgoing are noted as they appear on the phone bill submitted by Crump.

11:13 Hollywood text
11:15 North Dade text
11:18 North Dade text
01:30 Miami text
02:20 Incoming 3
02:38 Incoming 103
02:45 Incoming 2
03:02 Incoming 2
03:04 Incoming 3
04:08 North Dade text
04:28 North Dade Incoming 41
05:09 North Dade Incoming 81
06:30 North Dade Incoming 13
06:41 Incoming 4
06:45 North Dade Incoming 5
06:46 North Dade Incoming 2
06:49 Incoming 4
06:53 North Dade Incoming 1
06:54 North Dade Incoming 1
06:54 Incoming 18
07:04 Incoming 1
07:12 Incoming 4
​

The claim being made that "He didn't get permission to go to 7-eleven" has not been supported and is herein demolished.

 

[Newtons Bit]

If he is following you in a threatening manner, when you are doing absolutely NOTHING unlawful or discourteous, and the menacing sack of crap starts mouthing off like a gang banger, most state laws allow you to beat the bejeebers out of him, if that is what it takes to make him stop behaving in a threatening manner. If you are packing legally, most state laws allow you to brandish your weapon at this point. Florida certainly does. Further, if the goblin does not back off, or if the goblin tries to advance, Florida allows you to fire for effect.

No they don't. You can't commit assault and battery just because someone is rude, ever. You also can't brandish a firearm, aka assault with a deadly weapon, ever. Every single concealed carry training program will tell you that. You can only shoot them with it if you have a reasonable belief that your life is in immediate danger or to stop an ongoing felony.

Stand your ground doesn't mean, "ah ha, I have a gun, I can stand here and if you advance I can shoot!" It means a person doesn't have to retreat first when someone is committing a felony against them.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

No, it's not reasonable evidence. Not by a long shot. One person claiming something happened that the person they claimed it happened to does not themselves claim is in no way "reasonable evidence". .

IOW, you think osterman was lying.

Good luck with that. Of course, I've already provided the entirety of Zimmerman's account of the altercation in his statement to the police. He did not claim Martin repeatedly punched him in that account. /QUOTE]

You really believe that his written statement is the last and only word GZ gets on describing the of events that transpired that evening ? That's an absurd notion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJzKYeX0DLI&t=1860
"and he just kept punching my face and my head..."

But I actually hope you do find something. Because your rationalization for why Zimmerman provided various, differing accounts should prove to be quite entertaining.

Yes, it's hilarious that there are minor discrepancies in his accounts.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

That's not what you previously asserted:
So have you changed your mind on that point, or did you post in error?

To clarify, According to G (using NW and other reasonable definitions) TM was acting suspiciously.

I know that objectively suspicious behavior is rooted in some type of suspicious activity.

So now we are differentiating suspicious behavior into objective and subjective ?
And you have helpfully defined suspicious behavior as being rooted in suspicions activity.

I know that the evidence points to Martin simply walking home from the store after buying snacks.
I know that the police concluded "there is no indication that Trayvon Martin was involved in any criminal activity at the time of the encounter".

So now being suspicious eqauls being involved in criminal activity ?

I know that Zimmerman was concerned about recent break-ins in his neighborhood perpetrated by suspects who happened to bear a resemblance to Martin.

To how martin was dressed, you mean.

I know that Zimmerman was dissatisfied with the police response to these break-ins.
I know that Zimmerman exhibited poor judgment and overzealous behavior that night.
I don't doubt that Zimmerman found Martin suspicious.
I doubt that his suspicion was reasonable.
And based on that doubt, I roundly reject your previous assertion that Martin was acting suspiciously, an assertion which you seem to have now quietly walked back.
Again, you're trying to force the discussion into the terms of proving a negative. No one needs to provide evidence Martin wasn't acting suspiciously. That's an irrational expectation.
.

Proving someone wasn't acting suspiciously is not proving a negative. That's absurd. Provide evidence of how he was behaving, then we can conclude if it falls under the category of suspicious or not.

I don't see what relevance any of that is.
"Walking casually" is Zimmerman's descriptor, so if you disagree, take it up with him.
Possibly.
However, anyone who didn't just step out of time machine from 1989, or wasn't in a big damn hurry to play cops and robbers, might have considered the possibility that Martin was talking on a hands-free device considering the prevalence of such devices. .

So GZ is guilty of not considering all possibilities. *shrugs* You admit the possibility that TM may have looked odd or out of place.

The internet is chocked full of all sorts of thoughts and opinions on any number of topics. Very little of it is to be taken as fact, and almost none of it has anything to do with this specific case.

It has to do with helping define suspicious behavior. We can't agree or disagree TM was acting suspiciously until we agree what suspicios behavior is.

How is that any less of a non-starter than your claim to know that Martin was acting suspiciously?

Because that's the initial post I responded to before you jumped in ?

And yet you just ignored my answer, and instead asked the question of someone else.

Correct. Perhaps even to see if they thought similar to the way you thought, or had a different answer.

There is no conflation, because it's two different scenarios.

Then you should expect two different results.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

<SNIP>
The claim being made that "He didn't get permission to go to 7-eleven" has not been supported and is herein demolished.

You're right, I didn't prove that he had no permission.Although, I certainly think that the fact that Tracy Martin never once mentions in all his interviews that he gave TM explicit permission to go to 7-11 is good evidence for my claim he didn't receive explicit permission to go to 7-11.

But mumbles claimed he had gotten permission to go to the 7-11.

he first piece of evidence that Martin was walking home from the store, is the word of his family. According to them, he received permission from his father to walk to a local 7-1 to buy snacks.

If I recall correctly, that was one of the 'early' stories. I don't see any evidence proving that claim. Do you ?

So you have 'demolished' my claim that he didn't get permission by attempting to show it is possible that he and his father may have spoken on the phone. But not a word about the lack of actual proof for the original claim.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Because of the lack of evidence. See how that works? As Karate points out, this is irrelevant in any case, but the 7-11 tape provides no solid evidence of Martin attempting to buy anything other than what was on him after he was shot..

OK, the clerk looking over his shoulder at the tobacco products, and then the three guys who followed after TM at the store buying black and milds, and TM having a lighter in his pocket, and taking 40 minutes to walk home a half mile ... none of that could possibly be related. OK then.

That is not evidence he wasn't acting suspiciously as he walked home.
And of course, it takes him almost three quarters of an hour to walk the half mile from 7-eleven.

Of course it takes him 3 times as long as it should ? Why of course ?

GZ police recording clearly contains the statements about why GZ found him acting suspiciously. I have quoted those words numerous times. GZ elaborated on the statements in his police interview.

The fact that he walked in the general direction of his fathers girlfriends home is evidence he wasn't acting suspiciously ?

Which DeeDee ? The 16 year old one or the 18 year old one ? How is that GZ statements are all dismissed as self-serving, but we are to take the word of this nebulous DeeDee ? The DeeDee who tells us TM was right by his Daddy house ?

So, to summarize, you have no reason to believe that Martin was acting suspiciously, you simply want us to believe so,because something something.
[/QUOTE]

So, in summary, you have no evidence to refute GZ claim he was acting suspiciously.

Evidence of distant marijuana use - which is, again, irrelevant.

Again, we have not seen the actual toxicology report. Perhaps there is more information on there.

Perhaps he ran around the corner, and was shocked when Zimmerman actually got out of his car to pursue him on foot. Or perhaps, he walked towards his home, and Zimmerman cut him off.

Oh, and if you want us to believe that he was hiding behind bushes...yeah, again, evidence. There don't appear to have been any bushes for him to hide behind easily - especially not while talking on the phone.

Talking on the phone generally implies listening as well - a rather quiet activity. Lots of 'perhaps' - no actual reason why he didn't just go home.

There are pretty major limits to what's "suspicious" The guy walking slowly down the street isn't suspicious, outside of extremely limited circumstances. There guy getting out of his car in order to chase after a stranger, is extremely suspicious, outside of a few circumstances. The guy with the gun, sitting in a tree in the woods during hunting season, isn't very suspicious. The guy with the gun, running towards a major government building and shrieking about taxes is *very* suspicious.

Because GZ is both reckless and dumb. It's the same reason why he thought it would be a good idea to abandon his car and run after the supposedly "suspicious" person. And the same reason he thought it would be a good idea to conspire with his wife to hide a large sum of money and a passport, over a prison phone..

He thought TM was suspicious because he is reckless and dumb? And of course, TM who was suspended from school 3 times, smoked pot, had unaccounted for items and what was referred to as a burglary tool in his backpack, he is the model of smart and sensible behavioral ?

And yet again, this is nonsense. Yes, the person near you who reaches for their pocket in response to a clear ringtone during a business meeting is no threat. But in this case, even if we do believe his walkthrough (it's not very credible given the evidence, but that's another issue), Zimmerman put his hand into his pocket, after pursuing Martin both in his car, and then on foot, and immediately after being confronted by this by Martin on his alarming behavior. And that is far mor than enough to suspect a person of being interested in a mugging, or violence, or both.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[leftysergeant]

No they don't. You can't commit assault and battery just because someone is rude, ever. You also can't brandish a firearm, aka assault with a deadly weapon, ever. Every single concealed carry training program will tell you that. You can only shoot them with it if you have a reasonable belief that your life is in immediate danger or to stop an ongoing felony.

Horse hockey. When an obvious threat to your life overtakes you and you have no weapon, the law allows you to strike back physically. If you have a weapon and somebody who is an obvious threat to your life, you are entitled to present that firearm and tell him to cease and desist from threatening behavior. If he continues to threaten you, you are allowed to fire for effect.

What you are not allowed to do is to convince somebody, intentionally or otherwise, that you are a pervert or gang banger, get into a fight and then pull a gun out and kill the victim.

That Z and Martin came into contact at all was entirely Z's decision and he acted with malice in making that decision.

 

[johnny karate]

IOW, you think osterman was lying.

At best, Osterman was just repeating something Zimmerman told him. Repeating someone else's claim is not a separate piece of evidence.

But regardless of what Zimmerman might have told him, Osterman wasn't there and therefore has no direct knowledge of what transpired.

That's why hearsay isn't admissible as evidence in a court of law.

You really believe that his written statement is the last and only word GZ gets on describing the of events that transpired that evening ? That's an absurd notion.

It is? How many versions of one event do you think someone is allowed to give in a criminal investigation before their honesty is called into question? Two? Three? Twelve?

You've already acknowledged that Zimmerman was probably being untruthful in at least one detail of his account, and yet seem to be unbothered by that untruthfulness.

You now also seem unbothered by Zimmerman giving different versions of his account.

Just out of curiosity, does is even matter to you what Zimmerman says, as long as it fits within the general framework of "I was acting in self-defense"?

Or is there a point where you might begin to question whether or not this guy is lying?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJzKYeX0DLI&t=1860
"and he just kept punching my face and my head..."

Yes, it's hilarious that there are minor discrepancies in his accounts.

So you feel that the repeated punching is just a minor detail? Something that can be easily glossed-over or forgotten?

And you're not troubled by the embellishments that were added in the retelling, but were curiously absent in the initial police statement?

And of course you're still left with the problem of no injuries on either Zimmerman's face or Martin's hands that correspond with the latter repeatedly punching the former.