Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[This is The End]

Hogwash. The former indicates that we can determine a position that would be valid from the information we have, unless the Prosecutor is holding stuff back that would change it. The second means that from the information avialable we can form a position that would hold, unless there is information we don't know because the Prosecutor is holding stuff back. Those are both exactly the same thing.

If you think those are the same thing you have a serious problem.

First of all suggesting the prosecution is "holding something back" or is "hiding something" is very transparent.

Again, the former clearly implies that you think there is a possibility that we know everything the prosecution knows.

While the latter clearly acknowledges that we do not know everything the prosecution knows.

Like night and day.

The former is clearly pro-defense biased.

The latter is clearly impartial.

 

[Unabogie]

Which reminds me what the post was.

The post was trying to mark the exact one year anniversary of the death of Trayvon Martin.

Are we done nitpicking that post yet?

You used the wrong word and PhantomWolf corrected you. Rather then just say, "Oh, I meant killed," you continued to argue your use of a word and supported it by saying that is what the state is accusing him of, ironically just a few posts after you stated "Therefore, in this case you should have no idea who was at fault yet."

Apparently the meaning of OnlyTellsTruths post was completely lost on you.

 

[This is The End]

You used the wrong word and PhantomWolf corrected you. Rather then just say, "Oh, I meant killed," you continued to argue your use of a word and supported it by saying that is what the state is accusing him of, ironically just a few posts after you stated "Therefore, in this case you should have no idea who was at fault yet."

Perhaps you missed where I immediately corrected the offending post??

 

[sgtbaker]

Apparently the meaning of OnlyTellsTruths post was completely lost on you.

No need to bold, I got the meaning. I had no issue with that and nothing to add to that. I got involved after he/she continued to defend using the wrong word, which has apparently been changed since the error was pointed out.

 

[AlBell]

That is what the state is claiming but since we haven't had the trial yet, and in your own words:


MOM is calling it justifiable homicide, via self defense. In the US you are not considered a murderer until the jury rules you are not guilty. It is the other way around.

Sarge, I suspect you meant 'guilty' rather than 'not guilty'..

 

[sgtbaker]

Perhaps you missed where I immediately corrected the offending post??

Nope, didn't miss it. It was the way off base defense of using the word, you continued to do, long after you edited that I was arguing with.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Again, the former clearly implies that you think there is a possibility that we know everything the prosecution knows.

While the latter clearly acknowledges that we do not know everything the prosecution knows.

I think we're just going to have to disgaree on this one. I think you are interpreting things into a statement that just aren't there.

 

[sgtbaker]

Sarge, I suspect you meant 'guilty' rather than 'not guilty'..

No I meant not guilty. It's tough to read, I know and it was difficult to write but in context I meant you are not guilty until proven innocent.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

In his first telling. We've gone over this a million times in the last thread.

http://trayvon.axiomamnesia.com/audio/george-zimmermans-statements-sanford-pd-audio/

Listen to the first recording on this page, approximately 13 minutes in.

Into the grass? So he fell off the sidewalk, backwards, into the grass. Yet that doesn't put him even farther from the body?

Satisfied?

Thanks you for linking to where he actually said that, it's helpful.

Now I need you tell me where he explains which way he was facing so I know what direction 'backwards' is.

Because during the walk through, he certainly indicated which side of the sidewalk he fell on, and it wasn't the far side.

 

[This is The End]

I think we're just going to have to disgaree on this one.

It isn't that complicated.

We will learn new things during the trial.

I would be very surprised if we learn zero new information during the trial. Beyond very. Flabbergasted. That's just now how trials work, even in the sunshine state. The prosecution has information we do not have. To suggest that is because they are "hiding" it is either weird, or telling of bias.

Again, we will learn new things during the trial.

You are seemingly trying to suggest that there is a possibility that we will not learn new things at the trial. That we know everything now. If you really weren't it was very unlcear.

That is a very pro-defense thing to suggest.

Evidence:

From the very extreme:

and unless the Prosecution is hiding something

Hiding. Wow. Just wow. They're hiding their case from PhantomWolf before the trial!

To the a bit more subdued, but still clearly suggesting the possibility (highlighted):

We don't know what if anything that the Prosecution has in reserve and hasn't released publically.

To now, finally and thankfully, the logical conclusion:

The only thing I have stated is that with the current publically available evidence there is not enough to find GZ guilty of 2nd degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[This is The End]

Nope, didn't miss it. It was the way off base defense of using the word, you continued to do, long after you edited that I was arguing with.

I was merely trying to point out that the statement was about M not Z.

Z is innocent until proven guilty. Z is only a suspected murderer in the eyes of the prosecution, not a convicted murderer.

My, admittedly badly worded*, statement was about M, so innocent until proven guilty does not directly apply. *At the very least it needed the word "supposedly".

You act like my statement ended with "murdered." Full stop. Completely ignoring that even originally it was immediately followed by "be it by justifiable self-defense or not" after a comma, not even a period.

To be accursed of bad intentions even when the good faith conditions were clearly in the sentence is beyond improper:

It's rather hard to consider people impartial when they write that GZ murdered Trayvon.

That person literally wrote that immediately after acknowledging the condition of "justifiable self-defense" was very clearly displayed in the statement. Again that is beyond improper, it is intentionally dishonest.

That quote would only logically stand if my statement ended with murdered. Full stop.

Ugh, now I'm even calling it a "statement".

It was trying to mark the exact one year anniversary of the death of a fellow human being.

 

[sgtbaker]

It isn't that complicated.

We will learn new things during the trial.

I would be very surprised if we learn zero new information during the trial. Beyond very. Flabbergasted. That's just now how trials work, even in the sunshine state. The prosecution has information we do not have. To suggest that is because they are "hiding" it is either weird, or telling of bias.

Again, we will learn new things during the trial.

You are seemingly trying to suggest that there is a possibility that we will not learn new things at the trial. That we know everything now. If you really weren't it was very unlcear.

That is a very pro-defense thing to suggest.

Evidence:

From the very extreme:



Hiding. Wow. Just wow. They're hiding their case from PhantomWolf before the trial!

To the a bit more subdued, but still clearly suggesting the possibility (highlighted):



To now, finally and thankfully, the logical conclusion:

One of the intents behind Fl discovery laws is to avoid ambush trials. If the discovery phase is finished, then there should be no new evidence. The only thing the prosecution is not responsible for releasing is the way they intend to present the evidence. MOM appears to be arguing that the state is withholding evidence, which may or may not be true.

 

[PhantomWolf]

It isn't that complicated.

We will learn new things during the trial.

You know that for sure, you're 100% positive of that? You know what the Prosecutor knows?

I would be very surprised if we learn zero new information during the trial. Beyond very. Flabbergasted. That's just now how trials work, even in the sunshine state. The prosecution has information we do not have. To suggest that is because they are "hiding" it is either weird, or telling of bias.

If they have information they haven't shared then they are hiding it. Hiding it doesn't mean that they are doing it to be nefarious, it just means that they are keeping it away from the public. Of course if I was to over interpret your statement, I would note that you too are leaving a possibility that the Prosecutor has released everything they have too, even if it is very tiny.

Again, we will learn new things during the trial.

Then you go back to being 100% sure that they have other stuff, but unless you know exactly what the Prosecutor knows, you're guessing.

You are seemingly trying to suggest that there is a possibility that we will not learn new things at the trial. That we know everything now. If you really weren't it was very unlcear.

There is a possibility, admittedly it's not a very big one, but it is a possibility. It's a larger possibility that they have released the stuff they consider important to their case because looking at what they have actually released, it'd seem strange that they'd withhold real dynamite that would make the case a slam dunk for them.

That is a very pro-defense thing to suggest.

No, it's a pro-reality thing to suggest. The reality is that they have released a heck of a lot of stuff that over here they wouldn't because it's not allowed. No-one but them knows if they have released the important parts or not. They have released the witness statments, the 911 calls, the GZ interviews, the crime scene photos and videos, I believe they have released the autopsy results as well. There doesn't seem to be a lot of the big stuff left to release, so yes there is a possibility that they have released all of the relevant information, again it might not be big, but it is possible. Saying that it is not possible for them to have released it all is, to me, just as silly as claiming that it's not possible for them to have anything else. Again there have been cases where people have adamently claimed that the Prosecution must have more than had been publically released pre-trial, only to find out during the trial that in fact they didn't.

Hiding. Wow. Just wow. They're hiding their case from PhantomWolf before the trial!

Where did you get the idea that I meant that they were specifically hiding it from me?

To the a bit more subdued, but still clearly suggesting the possibility (highlighted):

And again, there is a possibility. It might be small, but we don't know what we don't know. To claim that there is no possibility is frankly just as crazy as claiming that they have released everything. I have always allowed for a possibility that they still have stuff, and that they don't, because we simply don't know which it is.

To now, finally and thankfully, the logical conclusion:

Which is the same conclusion as the other quotes, that they have a released a lot of the relevant information, and we don't know if that is all or not, there is a the possibility it is, and there is the possibility it isn't, we just don't know and we can't claim to know for certain 100%.

 

[PhantomWolf]

That person literally wrote that immediately after acknowledging the condition of "justifiable self-defense" was very clearly displayed in the statement. Again that is beyond improper, it is intentionally dishonest.

Bollocks, it was written after you created a post with a clearly biased word in it. Whether you like it or not, the word murdered has a very specific meaning, and by using it you are showing a position for guilt since Trayvon can only have been murdered if GZ is guilty.

Now to your credit, you changed the post when called on it, though it took a little debate to do so and you still made sure to add in "Homicide" which while a lot less still has a slight bias to it as many consider "homicide" and "murder" to be the same (Yes -I- know they aren't, Homicide includes Manslaughter and Self-defence killings as well, but not everyone realises that self defence cases are still homicides and they just think Murder and Manslaughter.)

You have spent many, many posts nitpicking my terminology and over analysing my posts to try and twist them so you can attack me, and then you turn around and say that it is dishonest to point out your use of highly biased language? You really need to give yourself a reality check.

 

[Unabogie]

Thanks you for linking to where he actually said that, it's helpful.

Now I need you tell me where he explains which way he was facing so I know what direction 'backwards' is.

Because during the walk through, he certainly indicated which side of the sidewalk he fell on, and it wasn't the far side.

You can't get this from the rest of what he said? In his INITIAL telling, where did Trayvon approach from? Where was he standing? By the way, how does his changed story, which he told with the benefit of two days of preparation and a chance to see the scene of the crime again, change the fact of what he claimed at first, which is that Trayvon approached him from the south, he turned to face Trayvon, which means he was facing south? It's simple, deductive logic. He then claimed to get hit once, ONCE, and that he fell backwards IMMEDIATELY down to the ground, upon which he stayed.

He doesn't get as many bites at that apple as he wants, does he? I can't believe you're willing to just toss out his prior, inconsistent statements and just cherry pick what you like. There's a progression of statements. The earlier statements, followed by statements he made once he saw the scene in daylight with the police. At that third attempt at explanation, he changed his story to explain why he ended up so far from where he ORIGINALLY said he was. We don't have to accept this as the truth, do we? We can exercise some skepticism about an admitted shooter's willingness to lie? Especially once we saw what he and his wife cooked up at the bond hearing?

 

[This is The End]

If they have information they haven't shared then they are hiding it.

You wish that was what you meant. That's laughable.

Hiding it, indeed.

 

[This is The End]

If the discovery phase is finished, then there should be no new evidence.

This must be your first sunshine state trial.

That is not how it works at all.

Your statement should say:

The discovery phase is finished, and yet there should still be no new evidence at the trial that was not covered under the sunshine laws and therefore was not required to be disclosed.

There can be plenty of new evidence we have not seen.

Just one example is the expert findings. For instance, if they fingerprinted that supposed "partial chamber check" we would not know about it. All we would know is that one of the witnesses they have told the defense about.

Also, your claim is inherently wrong because if there is a breakthrough in the case, and the prosecution plans on using it in the trial, they still have time to let the defense know about it.

According to you if someone came forward with a video recording of the entire 90 seconds, they can't use it in the trial because "discovery phase is over".

 

[PhantomWolf]

You wish that was what you meant. That's laughable.

Hiding it, indeed.

Until you win the Rand Million Dollars for mind reading, trying to tell me what I meant is extremely rude. As the author of my posts, I, and not you, am the authority on what the post meant. Your claim to know what I meant is what is laughable, you don't have a clue not matter how you want to try and twist it.

 

[This is The End]

To claim that there is no possibility is frankly just as crazy as claiming that they have released everything.

Again, do you even read the stuff you type?

Claiming they have released everything is crazy. Claiming we will learn nothing at the trial at all is crazy.

There is the very slightest possibility we will learn nothing at the trial. Not bringing that up in every post is not crazy. In fact, trying to suggest that possibility is very pro-defense.

It's like 99.9% to .1%. According to PhantomWolf thats the same!

You tried to imply we know everything and you did it for a reason. You aren't going to get away from that.

You have now moved the goalposts to "very small possibility". That just shows us even more the reason why you originally brought it up.

 

[Dan O.]

Thanks you for linking to where he actually said that, it's helpful.

Now I need you tell me where he explains which way he was facing so I know what direction 'backwards' is.

Because during the walk through, he certainly indicated which side of the sidewalk he fell on, and it wasn't the far side.

Maybe you should choreograph what you think happened. See if you can get all the moves to fit together without tripping yourself.