Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[TheL8Elvis]

First of all, no, that's not my standard.

Second of all, not one officer, five officers. Five. For Zimmerman to have been telling the truth, five police officers would have had to conspired against him. Five of them.

Please, please consider that before you respond.

No, only the one GZ shoved needed to say " I identified myself ". Not all 5. No conspiracy necessary.

And yet you brought them up in response to Zimmerman being a liar.

In response to what ... ?

Good point. His wife is a liar, too.

Oh yeah, you brought her up in response to Zimmerman being a liar. Then I brought in the others.

So apparently in your world view, the accused murderer whose self-defense claim relies on his word is the person with whom you are least concerned about being truthful.

I really don't know how you got that straw man out of my statement.

I'm... not on the jury.

And Zimmerman is the only liar here who killed someone and expects us to take him at his word

Then he probably has no expectations from you.

 

[KatieG]

Is when you are in court the only time lying counts ?

They intentionally lied to the entire country through the media.

Lied about what? That TM was shot and killed on his way home from a 7-11 after buying Skittles and a Watermelon drink? What part of that is a lie? That he was on the phone with a female friend, who may or may not have relevant testimony? Where's the lie?

Many things were said by parties on all sides that didn't/don't make sense. That doesn't necessarily mean they're lies.

 

[johnny karate]

TRAYVON TRUTH #53: The arrow does not point to smeared blood.
[qimg]http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/2527/nosedx.jpg[/qimg]

So it's smeared blood because... you say it is?

The claim was that the absence of blood smears disproves the claim of smothering.

No, the claim was:

Hands on mouth and nose smothering with the force Z described would be bloody smears all over Z's face.

And your little red blotch doesn't even really disprove the straw man you constructed, let alone the actual claim.

ETA: Little things like that smear is a good illustration of how the SAO is corrupt. This photo should have been presented to Zimmerman at the onset of discovery instead of the degraded copy.

Priceless. Shortly after making a "trayvon truth" jibe, you allege a conspiracy against Zimmerman.

Yes, that photo is clearly the case-cracker. It's a wonder the defense cancelled the immunity hearing with such a devastating piece of evidence in their hands.

 

[johnny karate]

No, only the one GZ shoved needed to say " I identified myself ". Not all 5. No conspiracy necessary.

The number is four officers in light of Rare Truth's correction.

And what those four officers attested to is that Fleischman identified himself and showed his badge to Zimmerman. It's right there in Rare Truth's previous post.

Zimmerman would later lie about that.

For him to not be lying, those four officers would have to be lying.

Oh yeah, you brought her up in response to Zimmerman being a liar. Then I brought in the others.

Really? Then who are you referring to here:

But it's OK, he's in good company with all the other liars involved in the case.

I really don't know how you got that straw man out of my statement.

You brought up "other liars" in order to deflect from Zimmerman's obvious and blatant lie. It wasn't until I mentioned Shellie that suddenly relevance was an issue. So apparently you think these "other liars" that you had previously mentioned are at least as relevant to the case as Zimmerman being a liar.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Those last few words in bold are there to see who would actually go to the documentation to check it out. (they were obviously quite subjective. Did you get it?)

So you intentionally lied when purporting to quote what was in the report.

Brilliant. That won't confuse anyone if they ever refer back to that post

But I accept the correction. It was FOUR police officers who contradicted Zimmerman.

BTW, I was wrong again - I had misread what Newtons Bit wrote - GZ never claimed it was the same officer.

“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.

I'm not sure why I had it in my head that he claimed it was.

And it was not "FOUR police officers" who contradicted GZ. It was one. Officer Fleischman.

And here is an interview by FDLE of someone who corroborates GZ version:

http://www.clickorlando.com/blob/view/-/17653292/data/2/-/dbht3oz/-/5-31-12-FDLE-int-W-R.wav

Starts about 8:15 in ...

 

[TheL8Elvis]

The number is four officers in light of Rare Truth's correction.

And what those four officers attested to is that Fleischman identified himself and showed his badge to Zimmerman. It's right there in Rare Truth's previous post.

Sure. If that's what Fleischman told them he did, they would all believe him. The "report" is very non-specific about who corroborated what. Nothing is specifically attributed to any one officer.

Zimmerman would later lie about that.

For him to not be lying, those four officers would have to be lying.

No, just one of them.

You brought up "other liars" in order to deflect from Zimmerman's obvious and blatant lie. It wasn't until I mentioned Shellie that suddenly relevance was an issue. So apparently you think these "other liars" that you had previously mentioned are at least as relevant to the case as Zimmerman being a liar.

I brought up other liars to put lying into perspective. It's not some scarlet letter that only GZ is wearing.

And that somehow in your head translates into:

So apparently in your world view, the accused murderer whose self-defense claim relies on his word is the person with whom you are least concerned about being truthful.

i.e. not what I said.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Lied about what?

Right off the top of my head, they lied about why TM was suspended from school.

4 SPD LEOs say Tracy Martin said "that's not my sons voice", which he later claimed he never said.

 

[Rare Truth]

So you intentionally lied when purporting to quote what was in the report.

Brilliant. That won't confuse anyone if they ever refer back to that post



BTW, I was wrong again - I had misread what Newtons Bit wrote - GZ never claimed it was the same officer.

“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.

I'm not sure why I had it in my head that he claimed it was.

And it was not "FOUR police officers" who contradicted GZ. It was one. Officer Fleischman.

And here is an interview by FDLE of someone who corroborates GZ version:

http://www.clickorlando.com/blob/view/-/17653292/data/2/-/dbht3oz/-/5-31-12-FDLE-int-W-R.wav

Starts about 8:15 in ...

Yes, it was four officers. Are you calling them liars? Are you saying that FBI report does not say what it clearly says in black & white?

And what you present is a single friend of Z's who said he worked bouncer parties with Z.

If you think that dude's statement override's FOUR police, by relaying a story that does not even involve the arrest at Knight's Library -- I don't know what to tell you.

But thanks for informing us of another occasion where GZ was involved in scuffles.

Bad summer for GZ, eh? JULY 2005 <--when the Knight's Library GZ arrest incident occurred.

AUGUST 2005 <-- Restraining order slapped on GZ by Judge.
AUGUST 2005 <-- some incident at party Tugboat worked bouncer security dude (which apparently again involved cops, and we have yet to see further records.)

Phew. Good thing the Judge at his hearing saw to it GZ enter Anger management classes.

 

[Rare Truth]

I'm not sure why I had it in my head that he claimed it was.

I know why you "had it in your head." Most of us do. It's why Newton'sBit had it in his head.
He even had it figgered Jenkins was GZ's arresting officer.

Because that was what GZ intended to relay. Something that did not even involve GZ's arresting officer was tied to another incident that involved another police officer and his unit, that met his lethal demise because he "didn't identify." (Even though the story linked belies that).

What else is the purpose of the tale told? Z conflated the two incidents to try and infer the cop who arrested him was part of a "don't identify" gang of rogue cops all bent on stickin' it to dudes like Z, when in fact there was NO RELATIONSHIP whatsoever.

That's what good liars do: they word things such that you "get it in your head" something that isn't, is.

That's why good BS'ing has been elevated to an art.

And GZ is an artist extraordinaire.

 

[johnny karate]

Sure. If that's what Fleischman told them he did, they would all believe him. The "report" is very non-specific about who corroborated what. Nothing is specifically attributed to any one officer.


No, just one of them.

Another discussion driven into the ground through obstinate denialism.

You believe what you want. I'm willing to let the record - and your denial of it - speak for itself.

At this point, I doubt you'd believe Zimmerman did anything wrong if he showed up at your doorstep and confessed.

I brought up other liars to put lying into perspective. It's not some scarlet letter that only GZ is wearing.

Yes, you brought up "other liars" and then complained about the relevance of me bringing up Shellie. And then tried to pretend it was me who brought in other people in the first place.

George Zimmerman is the only person in this case whose honesty matters. He's the one claiming he killed someone out of self-defense. He's the one claiming he was in reasonable fear for his life.

No one else matters, including his wife. But if you don't want her brought into it, then maybe stop trying to drag two grieving parents into it. Personally, I would think common human decency would be enough to not do that.

 

[johnny karate]

Yes, it was four officers. Are you calling them liars? Are you saying that FBI report does not say what it clearly says in black & white?

It's mind-boggling.

A single school officer makes a report that includes no criminal action, and suddenly it's a fact that Martin was involved in a burglary.

Four state law enforcement officers attest to Zimmerman assaulting one of them in an FBI report, and it's denial and sophistry.

 

[Rare Truth]

It's mind-boggling.

A single school officer makes a report that includes no criminal action, and suddenly it's a fact that Martin was involved in a burglary.

Four state law enforcement officers attest to Zimmerman assaulting one of them in an FBI report, and it's denial and sophistry.

Like Zimmerman, some people's words are their own worst enemy.

I'm content to let the whole world see it because it, in itself, provides the best evidence.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Yes, it was four officers. Are you calling them liars? Are you saying that FBI report does not say what it clearly says in black & white?

No, I am saying it does not say what you claim it says.

There are no individual statements from the officers.T he "report" is very non-specific about who corroborated what. Nothing is specifically attributed to any one officer. There is no indication anyone witnessed fleischman showing GZ his badge.

And what you present is a single friend of Z's who said he worked bouncer parties with Z.

If you think that dude's statement override's FOUR police, by relaying a story that does not even involve the arrest at Knight's Library -- I don't know what to tell you.

Yes, FOUR police officers who would in no way shape or form ever be friends, or cover for each other. It's certainly not possible one of them claimed "I showed him my badge" when he actually had not.

 

[Rare Truth]

See what I mean?

 

[Unabogie]

I know why you "had it in your head." Most of us do. It's why Newton'sBit had it in his head.
He even had it figgered Jenkins was GZ's arresting officer.

Because that was what GZ intended to relay. Something that did not even involve GZ's arresting officer was tied to another incident that involved another police officer and his unit, that met his lethal demise because he "didn't identify." (Even though the story linked belies that).

What else is the purpose of the tale told? Z conflated the two incidents to try and infer the cop who arrested him was part of a "don't identify" gang of rogue cops all bent on stickin' it to dudes like Z, when in fact there was NO RELATIONSHIP whatsoever.

That's what good liars do: they word things such that you "get it in your head" something that isn't, is.

That's why good BS'ing has been elevated to an art.

And GZ is an artist extraordinaire.

Hence punched once, dropped to the ground backwards "onto the grass", can morph into a debris field 50 feet away. Running after the "suspect" can change from "yes, I was following" to "no, I was just heading in the same direction, looking for an address".

And again, if we're looking for patterns here, when George assaulted the DEA guy, what did he claim? "He assaulted me first, and it was self-defense". When pushed and shoved his fiancee, what did he claim? "She assaulted me first, and it was self-defense". And now, when he was running after a suspect, swearing at him, calling him a "punk" (or whatever), when he finally met up with him and shot him, what does he claim? "He assaulted me first, it was self-defense".

Always says the other person started it, always lies about details that come out if you look hard enough. As you said, he's a master of BS. We'll not a master. He just does it all the time, so he makes it look easy.

 

[Unabogie]

Yes, FOUR police officers who would in no way shape or form ever be friends, or cover for each other. It's certainly not possible one of them claimed "I showed him my badge" when he actually had not.

Wait, so after admitting that the document does in fact contradict George's self-serving characterization of what happened, you're doubling down and claiming a conspiracy? How deep does it go? Was Cheney involved?

 

[Rare Truth]

Hence punched once, dropped to the ground backwards "onto the grass", can morph into a debris field 50 feet away. Running after the "suspect" can change from "yes, I was following" to "no, I was just heading in the same direction, looking for an address".

And again, if we're looking for patterns here, when George assaulted the DEA guy, what did he claim? "He assaulted me first, and it was self-defense". When pushed and shoved his fiancee, what did he claim? "She assaulted me first, and it was self-defense". And now, when he was running after a suspect, swearing at him, calling him a "punk" (or whatever), when he finally met up with him and shot him, what does he claim? "He assaulted me first, it was self-defense".

Always says the other person started it, always lies about details that come out if you look hard enough. As you said, he's a master of BS. We'll not a master. He just does it all the time, so he makes it look easy.

Yes. The pattern is well established.

I wouldn't be surprised the money GZ stiffed out of his credit card debts (settled, and then still didn't pay them) he blamed on the credit card company for lending him the money in the first place.

Thief.

 

[johnny karate]

Wait, so after admitting that the document does in fact contradict George's self-serving characterization of what happened, you're doubling down and claiming a conspiracy? How deep does it go? Was Cheney involved?

And it's interesting how one-sided it is.

The school officer who filed the report alleging that Martin had stolen jewelry could have very well had it in for Martin for some reason and fabricated the whole thing.

That's at least as likely as four state law enforcements agents conspiring to lie to the FBI.

But if any of us even suggested the former, it would be met with a barrage of "Trayon Truther" posts.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Why would it take legal insight to know that they just declined to go forward with a hearing that would free their client and protect him from a civil suit? You think they are going to "combine" the trial with an immunity hearing and then if George is convicted the judge will just let him walk and also declare him immune from a civil lawsuit? Seriously? Can you name another case that happened that way? I'm genuinely curious. What judge has ever done that?

AFAIK, immunity can be filed for at any time, and more than once. Here is an example of immunity filed for and granted post-trial

http://jaablog.jaablaw.com/files/34726-32374/JarkasOrder1.pdf

So, afaik, there is no necessity in filing for immunity prior to the trial, nor necessarily any benefit. And I don't find anywhere that MOM or GZ has waived his right to file.

 

[Dan O.]

So MOM's plan is to go to trial and hope for an acquittal on any minor charges and a hung jury on the murder charge so this supreme court ruling will be applicable and he can file for the immunity hearing post trial. Is anyone booking odds on this?