Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[TheL8Elvis]

Did you really just ask how smoking pot and shooting someone dead are meaningfully different?

No.

 

[Unabogie]

I will openly call GZ a killer because that's what he is. Whether or not he is a murderer remains to be seen.

That's great. And Trayvon is juvenile delinquent with a history of drug use, truancy, and who knows what else.

No, sorry, they are not the same thing.

Why ? Because you say so ? How are they different statements in any meaningful way ?

Then I'm at a total loss as to what you're arguing here. It literally appears to me like you're just disagreeing to disagree. I liked it better when we were discussing evidence. That was productive.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Then I'm at a total loss as to what you're arguing here. It literally appears to me like you're just disagreeing to disagree. I liked it better when we were discussing evidence. That was productive.

She said: I will openly call GZ a killer because that's what he is.

And I pointed out that TM is a JD, with a history of truancy and drug use.

That is what TM is.

They are both true statements that describe each individual.

If katieg is simply pointing out that shooting someone is not the same thing as any other act than shooting someone, then I would like to know why she felt it was necessary to point that truism out. That is obvious.

I want to know why katieg says "they are not the same thing" - because they are the same thing - they are both true statements that describe each individual.

If one is OK, the other should be OK, too.

Does that make my question clear ?

 

[Dan O.]

The arguments at hand are about the immunity hearing. I think I am spot on topic.

No. Rather than following the current discussion, you have repeatedly badgered posters with the same question. This is uncivil of you and disruptive to the flow of the other conversations. If you have a point to make, make your point and support it with your own evidence. Other posters do not have an obligation to answer your questions and demands for proof and if you persist it is as likely to get you dropped into an ignore file.

 

[Unabogie]

By the way, I wonder why truancy and pot smoking are deemed relevant here? I looked up some statistics. For instance, in California, it looks like about 1 in 3 students skips schools sometimes. In some counties, it's almost 50% of the students. That makes it quite normal (while not good for their studies) and hardly indicative of deeper, murderous troubles.

http://www.kidsdata.org/data/topic/table/truancy.aspx


Now, just for kicks, let's look at stats on men who have had restraining orders put on them due to violent outbursts.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18523113

10% of women killed by their partners had restraining orders. And 20% were killed within 2 days. That means that men with restraining orders are often willing to kill people as their anger problem escalates.

According to this link:

http://gothamist.com/2010/02/27/do_orders_of_protection_actually_protec.php

There were about 230,000 restraining orders in New York in 2010.

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/Census10/HouseAndElectors.phtml

New York had almost 20,000,000 people in it in 2010.

So that's about 1% of the population in New York who've had restraining orders put on them. I'd say that puts old George in rare company.

I'd also say that skipping school and smoking weed put Trayvon in pretty normal company, judging by the statistics. In other words, he was a typical teenager.

 

[Unabogie]

She said: I will openly call GZ a killer because that's what he is.

And I pointed out that TM is a JD, with a history of truancy and drug use.

That is what TM is.

They are both true statements that describe each individual.

If katieg is simply pointing out that shooting someone is not the same thing as any other act than shooting someone, then I would like to know why she felt it was necessary to point that truism out. That is obvious.

I want to know why katieg says "they are not the same thing" - because they are the same thing - they are both true statements that describe each individual.

If one is OK, the other should be OK, too.

Does that make my question clear ?

So you're just hammering a semantic point to justify leaping to defend George's honor? Is this really getting us anywhere?

 

[Giz]

I'd also say that skipping school and smoking weed put Trayvon in pretty normal company, judging by the statistics. In other words, he was a typical teenager.

You forgot "possessing a pile of stolen jewelery". I'm sure that's typical too.

 

[johnny karate]

This is the part where I say "The legal opinion of a non-lawyer is as compelling as always" right ?

No, because that would be stupid, and just a desperate attempt at a "gotcha".

We're not discussing the specifics of the law. We're discussing O'Mara's clear and obvious actions. He cancelled the immunity hearing. That's a fact. There currently is not another one scheduled. That's a fact. There very well might not be another one. That's a fact.

Because honestly - you have to be an attorney and know the law to understand if that was a good idea or not.

Why? What arcane legal knowledge will tell me that canceling one immunity hearing before you know if you're even going to get another is a good idea?

MOM said Mr. Martin was lying. He was the one who deposed the three LEOs who all claimed they also heard MR. Martin say that the voice on the recording played for him was not his son.

I wasn't there, so how would I know ? It's not like I analyzed the facts and came to this conclusion on my own. If you think it makes a difference for me to say "I believe MOM when he claims Mr. Martin lied" then I think you are just playing word games.

Well, that pretty much encapsulates your whole approach to this case, doesn't it?

It's not like you analyze facts and come to conclusions on your own. No, you just believe what O'Mara tells you... for some reason.

And by that same token, Zimmerman racially profiled and chased down an unarmed teen before murdering him. Because Angela Corey said so.

I've already answered that.

Because he knows more about the law than you ?

Again, I've already answered those.

No, you've yet to explain how, in your opinion, a defense team with a client with an unimpeachable account of self-defense facing a prosecution with no evidence wouldn't take the opportunity to put said client on the stand in an immunity hearing.

But now that you've explained how you don't really come to conclusions on your own through an analysis of facts, but rather just believe things that certain people tell you, I understand why you haven't offered an opinion.

Because O'Mara hasn't given it to you yet.

 

[Unabogie]

You forgot "possessing a pile of stolen jewelery". I'm sure that's typical too.

You have no evidence of that at all. We've gone over this one a million times in the old thread. But if we're going to use unverified claims, I'd still put "stolen jewelry" up against "assaulted his fiance, raped his cousin, got fired from a bouncer job for assault, and assaulted a law enforcement officer" any time you'd like.

 

[johnny karate]

So you're just hammering a semantic point to justify leaping to defend George's honor? Is this really getting us anywhere?

I'm fine with them calling Martin a juvenile delinquent.

I'll take a kid who skips school and smokes pot over a murderer any day of the week.

 

[Alt+F4]

I don't think he even fits the legal definition of juvenile delinquent because none of his actions resulted in an arrest. I see nothing in his behavior except typical teenage stuff.

 

[Unabogie]

I'm fine with them calling Martin a juvenile delinquent.

I'll take a kid who skips school and smokes pot over a murderer any day of the week.

I posted some stats above. There's a very large percentage of kids who act like Trayvon did before George murdered him. Smoking pot, skipping classes, wasting time on Facebook, etc. What makes George stand out is his history of anger, violence, and sexual offenses against a minor. He's in a small minority of really dangerous people, and it's bizarre that he'd be in a position to be the head of the neighborhood watch. He's the kind of guy you want a NW to guard against.

His combination of violent history, anger issues, paranoia, and the constant carrying of that damn gun led to the situation here. I don't care that Martin wasn't an ideal student. George Zimmerman is a public menace. I can only speculate as to why certain people want to leap to defend his honor so vehemently.

 

[12AX7]

I'm not going to apply for the $1M, but here's a prediction:

George Zimmerman will not take the stand in either an immunity hearing or trial, simply because his BS fanciful tale(s) recollection of the events on the night in question makes him a serious liability under cross.

 

[tsig]

​

I think you missed the follow up post:

​

Even according to Judge Nelson, MOM still has ~ 6 weeks to file for an immunity hearing.

Unless you want to continue on with your absurd claim that he waived the right to file for immunity ? Why is it you seem so reluctant to address that claim you made ? It's very telling.

So he didn't waive his right for a hearing he just isn't going to have one?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

So you're just hammering a semantic point to justify leaping to defend George's honor? Is this really getting us anywhere?

I leaped to defend GZ honor ? Is that really what you think happened ? We must be reading completely different posts....

 

[Mister Earl]

As a note from a sideliner, can I just make the suggestion that all sides take a breather for a minute? I'm definitely getting the impression that most, if not all, involved are delving a little into embellishment and hysterics. The discussion is starting to become unproductive.

Relax, take a breather, have some coffee, and relax again. The thread will still be here when you return.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

No, because that would be stupid, and just a desperate attempt at a "gotcha".

We're not discussing the specifics of the law. We're discussing O'Mara's clear and obvious actions. He cancelled the immunity hearing. That's a fact. There currently is not another one scheduled. That's a fact. There very well might not be another one. That's a fact.

And he can still for for an immunity hearing. And there very well might be one.That's a fact, too.

Why? What arcane legal knowledge will tell me that canceling one immunity hearing before you know if you're even going to get another is a good idea?

And unless you understand the laws behind the immunity hearing, and you know the legal precedence of Judge Nelsons order, then you are just pulling a guess out of your ass. So that's why your guess of whether or not you think there will be an immunity hearing is worth no more or less than mine, and why actual legal knowledge is useful.

Well, that pretty much encapsulates your whole approach to this case, doesn't it?

It's not like you analyze facts and come to conclusions on your own. No, you just believe what O'Mara tells you... for some reason.

Well, if he lied, he would be disbarred and face criminal charges. Remember, you explained to me the whole reason about why MOM is truthful. So that seems to be a good reason to believe him.

And by that same token, Zimmerman racially profiled and chased down an unarmed teen before murdering him. Because Angela Corey said so.

No, you've yet to explain how, in your opinion, a defense team with a client with an unimpeachable account of self-defense facing a prosecution with no evidence wouldn't take the opportunity to put said client on the stand in an immunity hearing.

So when I said that I believed they would put GZ on the stand in a combined trial/hearing, that wasn't really an explanation ?

But now that you'v explained how you don't really come to conclusions on your own through an analysis of facts, but rather just believe things that certain people tell you, I understand why you haven't offered an opinion.

Because O'Mara hasn't given it to you yet.

Nice generalization. Do you believe MOM when he states verifiable facts in the court ? Earlier you claimed he had to be telling the truth becuase he would be risking criminal charges, etc. But now if I believe what he says in court in a specific instance, suddenly all my prior arguments are now somehow based on what he has said. Neat trick, that.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

By the way, I wonder why truancy and pot smoking are deemed relevant here? I looked up some statistics. For instance, in California, it looks like about 1 in 3 students skips schools sometimes. In some counties, it's almost 50% of the students. That makes it quite normal (while not good for their studies) and hardly indicative of deeper, murderous troubles.

http://www.kidsdata.org/data/topic/table/truancy.aspx


Now, just for kicks, let's look at stats on men who have had restraining orders put on them due to violent outbursts.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18523113

10% of women killed by their partners had restraining orders. And 20% were killed within 2 days. That means that men with restraining orders are often willing to kill people as their anger problem escalates.

According to this link:

http://gothamist.com/2010/02/27/do_orders_of_protection_actually_protec.php

There were about 230,000 restraining orders in New York in 2010.

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/Census10/HouseAndElectors.phtml

New York had almost 20,000,000 people in it in 2010.

So that's about 1% of the population in New York who've had restraining orders put on them. I'd say that puts old George in rare company.

I'd also say that skipping school and smoking weed put Trayvon in pretty normal company, judging by the statistics. In other words, he was a typical teenager.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin-dogged-disciplinary-problems-school/story?id=16011674
Martin's family attorney confirmed today that the teenager was suspended from his Miami school three times over the past year.

What percentage of students get suspended 3 times in the first half of a single school year ?

What percentage of students get suspended for illegal drugs ?

I don't know why you bothered looking up all those facts. If it was to make the case that TM was just a typical teen, I think your way wide of that mark.

 

[Mister Earl]

I got suspended quite frequently from school myself when I was in high school. Not due to malfeasance myself, but from fights with bullies. My school preferred to just suspend anyone involved in an altercation, antagonist or not. And since I was a frequent target, I was frequently suspended.

 

[Alt+F4]

Oh no! I teenager used weed! He was suspended 3 times from school for....being a dumb teenager.