Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[Nessie]

I'm not sure I'm following the logic here. If Zimmerman was legitmately defending himself, then why the need to embellish?



Again, I'm not seeing the logic. If Martin was actually aggressive, why the need to embellish the story to make Martin seem aggressive?

In both cases, Zimmerman should be able to recount exactly what happened without the need for embellishment.

That he was carrying a gun and used it against someone unarmed is a potential reason to embellish. He has to justify using deadly force with a firearm.

Are there instances of gun owners killing an unarmed person and then saying they did not fear for their life? Can you shoot someone dead even if you do not fear for your life and just want to avoid any form of physical assault?

 

[johnny karate]

He describes being initially assaulted by TM. At best, it was a fight that evolved into a "murder attempt"

You're conflating being assaulted with being in a fight. According to Zimmerman's statement to the police, there was no fight. He was immediately on his back with Martin trying to kill him. The assault you referred to was merely a precursor to a murder attempt.

So, some sort of propensity for violence doesn't tie together violent acts ?

No, not all violent acts. Someone who gets into fistfights isn't necessarily likely to commit murder anymore than someone who steals a candy bar is likely to rob a bank.

Fistfights are fairly common, and most people have been in at least one in their lives. Most people, however, don't brutally try to murder total strangers for no apparent reason.

 

[johnny karate]

That he was carrying a gun and used it against someone unarmed is a potential reason to embellish. He has to justify using deadly force with a firearm.

I agree.

My point is that if he really was justified, he wouldn't have to embellish. He could just tell the truth.

 

[Unabogie]

I don't believe it would be uncommon for someone who defended themselves to embellish things to try to make sure others see it the right way.

You say his embellishments were to make the victim look aggressive. Perhaps the victim WAS aggressive?

The problem with this strategy (if that was indeed his strategy) is that details matter. And if he demonstrates a propensity to lie or embellish to make himself look better and the victim look worse, then who's to say where the lies end and the truth begins?

The fact that you don't believe details in his story means that even people predisposed to taking his side find his story incredible.

At what point does a person that we all believe lied to the police become unbelievable enough to discount his whole story?

 

[Dancing David]

Well, that's just silly. A person with an arrest for assault, a restraining order for assault, and a dead teenager clearly has a history of violence. How many people do you know with such a history?

And what is the difference in standards of evidence for arrests and for conviction, what exactly was the outcome of those two arrests?

What is an arrest evidence of?
What was the disposition of the cases?

 

[Newtons Bit]

And what is the difference in standards of evidence for arrests and for conviction, what exactly was the outcome of those two arrests?

What is an arrest evidence of?
What was the disposition of the cases?

Wasn't the "victim" in the assault case the police officer who was shot and killed by other police officers for behaving in a similar manner to what GZ described when the alleged assault took place?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

You're conflating being assaulted with being in a fight. According to Zimmerman's statement to the police, there was no fight. He was immediately on his back with Martin trying to kill him. The assault you referred to was merely a precursor to a murder attempt.

I think you are in the minority in denying there was a "fight".

Most people will understand there was a fight, in which GZ described described that he felt TM was going to cause him great bodily injury.
Covering someones mouth and nose in an effort to get them to stop screaming is not necessarily a murder attempt.
Forcing someone back down and causing their head to hit the sidewalk is not necessarily a murder attempt.
Until this point where GZ claims his weapon is seen/reached for, the words "you gonna die tonight" don't come into play.

I understand you passionately believe it was an"cold blooded murder attempt" , so I don't plan on arguing the semantics with you again.

Just pointing out that there is an alternative viewpoint.

No, not all violent acts. Someone who gets into fistfights isn't necessarily likely to commit murder anymore than someone who steals a candy bar is likely to rob a bank.

Do you have a chart with which violent acts correlate with which other violent acts ?

Fistfights are fairly common, and most people have been in at least one in their lives. Most people, however, don't brutally try to murder total strangers for no apparent reason.

Nor, I assume, do they assault them for no apparent reason.

 

[remirol]

Nor, I assume, do they assault them for no apparent reason.

True. Sometimes it's for a not immediately apparent reason, such as "they're an old, paranoid, racist man with vigilante fantasies."

 

[Newtons Bit]

I understand you passionately believe it was a "cold blooded murder attempt", so I don't plan on arguing the semantics with you again.

It's an incredibly devious plan:

Step 1: Get victim to sucker punch you.
Step 2: Get victim to climb on top of you and slam your head against concrete.
Step 3: Get victim to tell you "you gonna die tonight!"
Step 4: Shoot the victim while he's on top of you.

It's a simple an easy method that you could get almost anyone to fall for.

 

[Giz]

"they're an old, paranoid, racist man with vigilante fantasies."

That's certainly one way of summarizing:

Neighborhood watch co-ordinator,
not racist,
extensive history of phoning the police (no history of vigilante interventionism),
Not that old,
Not paranoid (but neighborhood had suffered numerous property crimes).

 

[Nessie]

I agree.

My point is that if he really was justified, he wouldn't have to embellish. He could just tell the truth.

There being a gun makes all the difference. You could argue that a gun owner has to shoot no matter what or else they risk being over powered and their gun being used on them. But do gun owners want to use that argument? Would it not be a better justification to spice things up a bit, or a lot?

 

[Unabogie]

And what is the difference in standards of evidence for arrests and for conviction, what exactly was the outcome of those two arrests?

What is an arrest evidence of?
What was the disposition of the cases?

He pled down to a "pretrial diversion program" when he assaulted the DEA agent and had to complete anger management courses. When he assaulted his girlfriend, he was slapped with a restraining order. When he shot Trayvon Martin he was charged with murder.

 

[Unabogie]

It's an incredibly devious plan:

Step 1: Get victim to sucker punch you.
Step 2: Get victim to climb on top of you and slam your head against concrete.
Step 3: Get victim to tell you "you gonna die tonight!"
Step 4: Shoot the victim while he's on top of you.

It's a simple an easy method that you could get almost anyone to fall for.

So you accept the killer's word at face value about, well, everything.

Good to know.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

He pled down to a "pretrial diversion program" when he assaulted the DEA agent and had to complete anger management courses.

Did you ever read Newtons Bit post below, and does this change your opinion at all ? Or are you sticking with your position GZ is a liar about that night, and of course that officer never identified himself.

I don't even know if that is correct. I see no conviction or plea recorded in the country data. Also, in GZ's own words:

“I was arrested in July of 2005 for assault on a law enforcement officer and resisting arrest with violence. Both charges were immediately dropped to resisting arrest without violence, and then dropped all together.

“I was in an altercation with an undercover officer that was taking part in an ATF sting for underage drinking in UCF. He never told me he was an officer and assaulted me first. Shortly after that, in September 2005, the same unit was conducting a sting at UCF and an officer was killed by an OPD officer because he discharged his weapon and did not identify himself.

Source

It's a strange story, but one that appears to check out.

Though not an actual federal ATF agent, the officer worked undercover for the State Bureau of Alcohol and Tobacco. On the day he was shot and killed by OPD, he was behaving erratically, unbecoming of a police officer, and in a manner entirely consistent with GZ's claims.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

True. Sometimes it's for a not immediately apparent reason, such as "they're an old, paranoid, racist man with vigilante fantasies."

So TM assaulted GZ because he thought was an old, paranoid, racist man with vigilante fantasies ?

 

[remirol]

So TM assaulted GZ

[citation needed]

 

[Unabogie]

Did you ever read Newtons Bit post below, and does this change your opinion at all ? Or are you sticking with your position GZ is a liar about that night, and of course that officer never identified himself.

Again, you're taking his word for things even though he's a demonstrated liar. Wow. There's nothing you won't swallow from that guy.

But taking his word for a moment, against my better judgement, you're saying that the failure to identify oneself is grounds for assault? Interesting. Does this apply to everyone? Like say, Trayvon Martin?

And here again, we have poor George and his rotten luck. People keep wrongfully accusing him of violence. First the cop. Then his fiancee. Then his cousin. Then the family of the kid he murdered. He just can't catch a break in his short 28 years.

 

[Rare Truth]

Did you ever read Newtons Bit post below, and does this change your opinion at all ? Or are you sticking with your position GZ is a liar about that night, and of course that officer never identified himself.

Wow. A post from December that was rebuffed immediately? Seriously?

a few posts after that one:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8871777&postcount=4586

and this one:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8873037&postcount=4599

This was hashed out over an over earlier. Unbelievable.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Again, you're taking his word for things even though he's a demonstrated liar. Wow. There's nothing you won't swallow from that guy.

But taking his word for a moment, against my better judgement, you're saying that the failure to identify oneself is grounds for assault? Interesting. Does this apply to everyone? Like say, Trayvon Martin?

And here again, we have poor George and his rotten luck. People keep wrongfully accusing him of violence. First the cop. Then his fiancee. Then his cousin. Then the family of the kid he murdered. He just can't catch a break in his short 28 years.

I see you aren't interested in having a discussion, but just repeating the same old crap.

So you're saying that the failure to identify oneself is grounds for the police shooting you ? Interesting.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Wow. A post from December that was rebuffed immediately? Seriously?

a few posts after that one:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8871777&postcount=4586

and this one:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8873037&postcount=4599

This was hashed out over an over earlier. Unbelievable.

And yet neither of those posts address the fact that the LEO GZ is charged with "assaulting" has a history of not identifying himself.

It's almost as if you intentionally missed the point of the post. Totally believable.