Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[johnny karate]

Having an interest in this case, I have been trying to follow this thread.

Opposing beliefs shared by posters often make a thread more interesting.

Having said that, your sarcasm sucks. I can't recall who said it, but the quote I recall reading said something like, "Sarcasm is a sign of a defeated wit."

Really, it doesn't make your stand on this issue more palpable.

Your input is appreciated and well-received. I sincerely thank you for it.

 

[332nd]

Having an interest in this case, I have been trying to follow this thread.

Opposing beliefs shared by posters often make a thread more interesting.

Having said that, your sarcasm sucks. I can't recall who said it, but the quote I recall reading said something like, "Sarcasm is a sign of a defeated wit."

Really, it doesn't make your stand on this issue more palpable.

... Now I have a vision of Linus Van Pelt screaming "More Sarcasm!!!"

 

[sgtbaker]

You are absolutely correct. You have every right to make poor arguments in which you refuse to substantiate your opinions with anything more than vague generalities. I apologize if my request for clarification offended you.

You are entirely free to feel my position is flimsy. What's offensive is to demand an entirely different argument from the one I am making. I never said fear, I said it is, IMHI, a strategic decision. I apologize for failing to give you the argument strawman you were dying to tear down.

 

[johnny karate]

You are entirely free to feel my position is flimsy. What's offensive is to demand an entirely different argument from the one I am making. I never said fear, I said it is, IMHI, a strategic decision. I apologize for failing to give you the argument strawman you were dying to tear down.

You do realize that "fear" is also synonymous with "concern", right? As in "Zimmerman attorneys were concerned about the outcome of an immunity hearing".

Feel free not offer clarifications for your opinions, but let's not go through another "cold-blooded" episode in which you try to tell me what particular definiton I meant when I used a word.

 

[sgtbaker]

You do realize that "fear" is also synonymous with "concern", right? As in "Zimmerman attorneys were concerned about the outcome of an immunity hearing".

Feel free not offer clarifications for your opinions, but let's not go through another "cold-blooded" episode in which you try to tell me what particular definiton I meant when I used a word.

I am not telling you what words you can or can't use, nor am I attempting to define them for you. You can interchange whatever words you want; fear, trepidation, hesitation, concern, use whatever word you want... don't demand I support an argument I didn't make using words I didn't say. My only issue is the fact that you continuously assign positions to other people and then attempt to flame them with it. If you can't tear apart the actual position that I am taking and in your desperate need to be right you scramble to attack a strawman, you have nothing. If you can't be bothered to treat me like a separate entity with a separate set of ideas from the other people in this thread who's ideas tend to parallel with mine then I really can't be bothered with you. Christ, I have spent more time arguing that I never said this or never took that position than I do actually exchanging ideas with anyone.

 

[12AX7]

This is a lie, and people wonder why I use the term "Trayvon truthers".

I have no doubt why you use the term.

And it's not for the reason you stated.

 

[Unabogie]

I am not telling you what words you can or can't use, nor am I attempting to define them for you. You can interchange whatever words you want; fear, trepidation, hesitation, concern, use whatever word you want... don't demand I support an argument I didn't make using words I didn't say. My only issue is the fact that you continuously assign positions to other people and then attempt to flame them with it. If you can't tear apart the actual position that I am taking and in your desperate need to be right you scramble to attack a strawman, you have nothing. If you can't be bothered to treat me like a separate entity with a separate set of ideas from the other people in this thread who's ideas tend to parallel with mine then I really can't be bothered with you. Christ, I have spent more time arguing that I never said this or never took that position than I do actually exchanging ideas with anyone.

Can we knock this off? I have no idea why you are beating this into the ground.

I understand your position well enough at this point. Let's move on. Many of us were predicting that there would be no immunity hearing for some of the same reasons you cited. I think when O'Mara says “George wants a jury of his peers to decide the case” then at the very least, that says that he doesn't want (or can't get) a judge to dismiss it. That's pretty clear to me that they have no intention of putting on any sort of pre-trial hearing with George on the stand.

Do you agree with that?

 

[Dancing David]

http://gzlegalcase.com/index.php/pr...ense-receives-trayvon-martin-s-school-records

The Zimmerman defense received the school records of Trayvon Martin, as ordered by Judge Nelson. When we asked the Court to issue Subpoenas Duces Tecum for the school records, the State objected, and Mr. Crump, on behalf of the Martin family, registered a public objection. They argued, in part, that George Zimmerman did not know Trayvon Martin before the night of February 26, 2012, and so the nature of Trayvon’s character as revealed in the school records is irrelevant to the case at hand.

The Judge ruled that the defense should have the records. This ruling was based, in large part, on a case called State v. Munoz, 45 So 3d 954 (3 DCA 2010). That case holds that, under the right circumstances, a person's reputation for violence may be admissible in a case, even if the person accused of the crime was unaware of the reputation. The case focuses on the issue of the whether the person with the reputation may have acted aggressively in this case.

​

I'm sorry, I am still not seeing how what I said was wrong. It looks like there was an objection that the records were not relevant, and the judge said they might be. And there is case history showing what TM did in school may have a bearing on the case.

And the fact that the judge allowed it is discovery does not mean it will meet 'the right circumstances', so your exaggeration, hyperbole and arm waving about TM's school record is unwarranted. And your allegation that somehow it will be relevant is still specious. What exactly was the ruling in State vs,. Munoz, did you read it?

I doubt you did,
http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=In FLCO 20101013177.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR

The relevancy of TM's school record in discovery is to avoid future appeal based upon Munoz. It is in no way and indicator of it being admitted in the trial. # suspensions is hardly indicative of anything other than rash choices made by a young person.

And in fact is is purely tort reference in Munoz, Munoz lost the appeal. The grounds were denied, however considerable details was laid out as to when reputation evidence may be presented. And in fact it looks as though the Munoz criteria would not apply.

The distinction exists because reputation evidence offered to show that Mr. Suarez was the initial aggressor relates to Mr. Suarez's conduct, whereas reputation evidence offered to show the reasonableness of the defendant's fear, relates to the defendant's state of mind, which requires the defendant to have knowledge of the reputation.1

I am glad that you have toned down the rhetoric to at least discuss this with me.

 

[Unabogie]

And the fact that the judge allowed it is discovery does not mean it will meet 'the right circumstances', so your exaggeration, hyperbole and arm waving about TM's school record is unwarranted. And your allegation that somehow it will be relevant is still specious. What exactly was the ruling in State vs,. Munoz, did you read it?

Oddly enough, the person with a KNOWN reputation for violence is George Zimmerman. He's assaulted random people in bars, women, and there are two allegations of assault on a woman in his capacity as a bar bouncer, and the repeated rape of his teenage cousin (starting when she was 8 years old). And yet his supporters routinely dismiss this history as insignificant and irrelevant. If it comes out that Trayvon got in a fight at school once*, as a TEENAGER, then I bet those same people will be quick to label this as the most important evidence of the case.

*Full disclosure: I got in fights during junior high school and high school. I even started a couple. There was lots of pushing, a few weak punches thrown, and honor was defended (or so we all thought). In other words, kids get in stupid fights at school. That doesn't mean I was ready to murder someone for no reason, which is what George claims.

 

[johnny karate]

I am not telling you what words you can or can't use, nor am I attempting to define them for you. You can interchange whatever words you want; fear, trepidation, hesitation, concern, use whatever word you want... don't demand I support an argument I didn't make using words I didn't say.

In your first post on this issue you referred to the immunity hearing as a risk for Zimmerman.

I later asked what Zimmerman would have to fear from it.

People typically have fears regarding things that are risks. That's not a big leap.

So let's not extrapolate that into me completely misrepresenting what you said. Because I clearly did not.

My only issue is the fact that you continuously assign positions to other people and then attempt to flame them with it. If you can't tear apart the actual position that I am taking and in your desperate need to be right you scramble to attack a strawman, you have nothing. If you can't be bothered to treat me like a separate entity with a separate set of ideas from the other people in this thread who's ideas tend to parallel with mine then I really can't be bothered with you. Christ, I have spent more time arguing that I never said this or never took that position than I do actually exchanging ideas with anyone.

I haven't tried to assign you any position, nor flame you over that position.

And during this discussion, I have twice acknowledged that I'm not attempting to do so:

I don't believe you are one of the people in this thread who took a hard line on this issue, but it has been argued the prosecution has no evidence of guilt.

"Air-tight" is certainly how Zimmerman's story has been presented in this thread. And while I'm not attributing that characterization to you, I am trying to get you to articulate specifically why you think an immunity hearing poses such a threat to Zimmerman.

However, you are not making your position clear. You think the immunity hearing is a risk for Zimmerman. But you refuse to articulate for what specific reasons.

And you don't have to. That's your prerogative.

But when you refuse to clarify your position, it's not exactly fair to respond with such hostility if someone makes an incorrect assumption about it.

 

[sgtbaker]

In your first post on this issue you referred to the immunity hearing as a risk for Zimmerman.

I later asked what Zimmerman would have to fear from it.

People typically have fears regarding things that are risks. That's not a big leap.

So let's not extrapolate that into me completely misrepresenting what you said. Because I clearly did not.



I haven't tried to assign you any position, nor flame you over that position.

And during this discussion, I have twice acknowledged that I'm not attempting to do so:



However, you are not making your position clear. You think the immunity hearing is a risk for Zimmerman. But you refuse to articulate for what specific reasons.

And you don't have to. That's your prerogative.

But when you refuse to clarify your position, it's not exactly fair to respond with such hostility if someone makes an incorrect assumption about it.

After you just lectured me, accusing me of telling you what you mean when you use words, you now tell me that when I use the term risk, I mean fear. This just keeps getting better. The risk is making a decision now that can potentially limit their choices later; ie putting his client on the stand now when he may not want to at the trial. That doesn't mean he is afraid it means he is prepared (of course, this is all theoretical because as I said much earlier, it's just my theory).

 

[sgtbaker]

Can we knock this off? I have no idea why you are beating this into the ground.

I understand your position well enough at this point. Let's move on. Many of us were predicting that there would be no immunity hearing for some of the same reasons you cited. I think when O'Mara says “George wants a jury of his peers to decide the case” then at the very least, that says that he doesn't want (or can't get) a judge to dismiss it. That's pretty clear to me that they have no intention of putting on any sort of pre-trial hearing with George on the stand.

Do you agree with that?

That I agree with.

 

[johnny karate]

... you now tell me that when I use the term risk, I mean fear.

That... didn't happen. Not even close. And I have no idea how you got that out of what I posted.

Since you are so committed to finding cause for outrage in everything I say, I think I'll bow out of further discussion with you.

 

[Dancing David]

Oddly enough, the person with a KNOWN reputation for violence is George Zimmerman. He's assaulted random people in bars, women, and there are two allegations of assault on a woman in his capacity as a bar bouncer, and the repeated rape of his teenage cousin (starting when she was 8 years old). And yet his supporters routinely dismiss this history as insignificant and irrelevant. If it comes out that Trayvon got in a fight at school once*, as a TEENAGER, then I bet those same people will be quick to label this as the most important evidence of the case.

*Full disclosure: I got in fights during junior high school and high school. I even started a couple. There was lots of pushing, a few weak punches thrown, and honor was defended (or so we all thought). In other words, kids get in stupid fights at school. That doesn't mean I was ready to murder someone for no reason, which is what George claims.

Please stop that, my post was not an opportunity for your endless urine stream either. Your comment is not relevant to my post, nor the context of my post.

I am not a soap box for your repetitive memes. The context of presenting the allegations of violence by GZ is almost as specious as the ones about TM's school record. They are questionable as evidence, but it depends on the defenses case as well. Almost none of the incidents will be admissible without considerable caveats.

Your last line is a great example of urine spraying that leads no where and is just an endless repetition of the same memes by you.

 

[Dancing David]

That... didn't happen. Not even close. And I have no idea how you got that out of what I posted.

Since you are so committed to finding cause for outrage in everything I say, I think I'll bow out of further discussion with you.

Why don't you just say 'NYAH NYAH boo boo, stick your head in dog doo', it would contribute as much as your incredible pissing contest.

I know you are involved in this three way urine fest, but it really decreases the signal ratio in the thread.

 

[sgtbaker]

<sits in the corner awaiting her own [justifiable] talking to from Dancing David>

I am sorry for contributing to the noise. I need to learn to let unimportant things go and focus on the discussion. Just for the record, though, it's not so easy for girls to aim. If I haven't sprayed you yet, Dancing David, be patient.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

And the fact that the judge allowed it is discovery does not mean it will meet 'the right circumstances', so your exaggeration, hyperbole and arm waving about TM's school record is unwarranted.

I'm sorry, I missed my exaggeration, hyperbole and arm waving. I just said:

My understanding is it could possibly be brought up if certain characterizations are made.

My understanding is the school records may apply if there are certain characteristics in them. Such as being aggressive.

It is also my understanding that if the prosecution brings up TMs character, then it would be fair game for the defense. Likewise, if the defense brings up GZ character.

and your allegation that somehow it will be relevant is still specious. What exactly was the ruling in State vs,. Munoz, did you read it?

I doubt you did,
http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=In FLCO 20101013177.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR

The relevancy of TM's school record in discovery is to avoid future appeal based upon Munoz. It is in no way and indicator of it being admitted in the trial. # suspensions is hardly indicative of anything other than rash choices made by a young person.

I didn't say it that it was the number of suspensions that would be the relevant part.

I did actually read that same link as you, and thought this was the relevant part:
The purpose of introducing the reputation evidence in a self-defense case is to show that the victim was the initial aggressor. Pino, 389 So.2d at 1194. Reputation evidence is offered to show that the victim acted in conformity with a known character trait. Because reputation evidence relates to the conduct of the victim, the defendant is not required to have had prior knowledge of the victim's reputation in the community.

If the school records show any incidents that provide evidence of TM acting as an aggressor, i.e. starting fights, it seems they would be relevant.

And in fact is is purely tort reference in Munoz, Munoz lost the appeal. The grounds were denied, however considerable details was laid out as to when reputation evidence may be presented. And in fact it looks as though the Munoz criteria would not apply.

If there is reputation evidence that shows TM to be aggressive, I think it may apply.

I am glad that you have toned down the rhetoric to at least discuss this with me.

 

[bookworm]

Given the number of claims here that TM would not have started an altercation because he had no history of aggression, it'll be interesting to see any responses IF the background does show it.

 

[Unabogie]

Please stop that, my post was not an opportunity for your endless urine stream either. Your comment is not relevant to my post, nor the context of my post.

Well thank goodness we have you here to bring us back on topic, which is the difference between male and female urine. Thank you for reminding us what's important.

I am not a soap box for your repetitive memes. The context of presenting the allegations of violence by GZ is almost as specious as the ones about TM's school record. They are questionable as evidence, but it depends on the defenses case as well. Almost none of the incidents will be admissible without considerable caveats.

Who said different? You're arguing against a straw man. I was simply pointing out a double standard from the people arguing that Trayvon's school records (or other unsubstantiated accusations) were relevant.

Your last line is a great example of urine spraying that leads no where and is just an endless repetition of the same memes by you.

My last line about how schoolyard fights in junior high school are typically two people pushing each other and hitting weakly in order to save face? What does that have to do with the topic of this thread, which is urine?

 

[Unabogie]

Given the number of claims here that TM would not have started an altercation because he had no history of aggression, it'll be interesting to see any responses IF the background does show it.

Actually, I think the claim is that Trayvon would not have attempted to murder someone for no reason, because he had no history of aggression. I don't think anyone thinks it's impossible he took a pop at the creepy man who followed him and got out of his truck to chase after him while he did nothing wrong.

Where the two narratives diverge is that George claims that Marting jumped out of the bushes and immediately began to try and kill him, including verbally saying he wanted to kill him. That's the part that's unbelievable for us.