Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[johnny karate]

Fair enough. It was after TheL8Elvis started trying to trace back Rare Truth's post to the source material.

Would you be fine if somebody inserted the word "violently" into Trayvon's school records and then quoted it here? As long as they made some vague, non-specific admission in a later post that they had altered the original text? And would you heap scorn and sarcasm on anybody that posted what the actual discrepancies were?

Here's what I wouldn't do: Make a huge deal out of it after it had already happened and been acknowledged by the person who did it before anyone else caught it in an obvious effort to deflect from the fact that it changed nothing about the material facts.

George Zimmerman assaulted a law enforcement officer and then lied about it. That's a fact. And Rare Truth's embellishments didn't alter that fact in the slightest.

 

[johnny karate]

Or not.

Yes, I was wrong about a guess I made regarding something that has nothing to do with the facts of the case. What a huge burn.

 

[WildCat]

WildCat, you didn't answer the question.

How come your feelings don't get hurt when a Zimmerman defender blatantly misrepresents what Zimmerman said in serve of an obvious agenda?

How come you are only the defender of Truth and Justice when it's someone defending Martin who you perceive to be dishonest?

I'll tell you what, address that glaring double standard, and then show me the forensic report that states the red mark on the side of Zimmerman's mouth is blood, and then we'll talk about what I can or can't admit.

The only thing in that post you linked which I find bizarre is your claim that the smudge is not smeared blood.

I saw nothing dishonest in anything you quoted.

Do you stand by your claim that the smudge is not smeared blood?

 

[johnny karate]

That is what I'm saying. Feel free to call me gullible, but I don't have the time nor the inclination to sift through what is being presented as a direct quote and try to figure out what are the "obvious" embellishments (and the "violently" that was added was anything but obvious).

You know what would be easier for everyone involved? Just providing the actual quote without embellishment.

Rare Truth did just that, after acknowledging the embellishments. Long before anyone else even noticed them.

I'm sure it was a hellish 15 or so hours for you, lost in that wilderness of unknowing, but the important thing is we all made it through, and can now begin the long and painful process of putting our lives back together.

 

[Rare Truth]

 

[johnny karate]

The only thing in that post you linked which I find bizarre is your claim that the smudge is not smeared blood.

I saw nothing dishonest in anything you quoted.

Of course you didn't.

Do you stand by your claim that the smudge is not smeared blood?

Much in the way that you refuse to acknowledge obvious dishonesty, I will also refuse to acknowledge anything.

Come to the table with even an iota of intent for honest discourse, and then we can have a discussion.

 

[johnny karate]

We can go round all day long on this unproductive chitter if you like, it does not change the fact Zimmerman was charged with
------> FELONY with VIOLENCE.

That IS part of the record.

I would like to add, GZ was arrested on with TWO charges.

And seeing I have to cart each and every PDF image over here now, because clinking on links is tragically difficult for some:

[qimg]http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y221/who007/zfelony_zps32535e4f.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y221/who007/zfelony2_zpsb0b79155.jpg[/qimg]

http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/exhibit_list_redacted.pdf

RESISTING OFFICER WITH VIOLENCE § 843.01, Fla. Stat.
BATTERY UPON LEO § 784.07, Fla. Stat.

"I don't care who you are." -- "**** you." <-- GZ, after being shown the Officer's badge.

Heywhaddayouknow.

The word "violence" actually appears in the charging affidavit documenting Zimmerman's assault of a law enforcement officer, which he later lied about:

But I get it, when the facts don't support you then change the facts. Like when 9/11 truthers "paraphrase" NIST reports. Thus a push becomes a violent assault.

I wonder just how quickly WildCat will be along to acknowledge his misplaced snark.

Knowing him to be the stalwart champion for Truth and Justice that he is, I'm sure it will be momentarily.

 

[12AX7]

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.

Ah yes, a police conspiracy. Of course.

Oh wait, that doesn't happen according to one of your fellow Zimmerites; police are razor-straight honest in all things.

Please tell me you're not asserting that police should be held to a lesser standard of integrity in testimony than citizens. Please.

On a side note, it's amazing the support Zimmerman gets from gun owners. Lurk on some of the larger firearm forums for this subject and see what I mean.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I don't see where you posted "the text in the post doesn't match what is written in the actual document":

Can you point it out to me?

Did you read page 11 ? I can't find where they talked to "Five of 'em. All cops there at the sting."

Nor do I find that paragraph above. Why don't I see the same paragraph on page 11 that you have posted here ?

And I bolded the last sentence in Rare truths post to point out part of the difference.

It's all the funnier to see you doing all this dancing and backpedaling after all the sardonic posts you have made accusing me of doing those things.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

We can go round all day long on this unproductive chitter if you like, it does not change the fact Zimmerman was charged with
------> FELONY with VIOLENCE.

That IS part of the record.

And then the charges were dropped. Because they never would have stuck.

Tell me, you seem so intent on this subject - what exactly do you think the fact that GZ shoved a police officer 8 years ago proves, exactly ?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Yes, I was wrong about a guess I made regarding something that has nothing to do with the facts of the case. What a huge burn.

So when you say "I'm sure" , it really means "I guess". I'll keep that in mind when reading your posts in the future.

 

[Dan O.]

That is what I'm saying. Feel free to call me gullible, but I don't have the time nor the inclination to sift through what is being presented as a direct quote and try to figure out what are the "obvious" embellishments (and the "violently" that was added was anything but obvious).

You are right there. For anyone that has been following along, "violently" would not have looked out of place in that particular report. I'm even surprised that it was left out of the original. But that next line was so totally wrong that I had doubts about the authenticity of the whole thing. Why are you cherry picking that one word instead of considering the whole of the embellishment?

It was a hypothetical question. Assuming you're here to debate honestly, I would think the harm is obvious.

Is there an honest debate here? It's so difficult to tell with all the snipping going on (That includes you implying a question of my honesty).


I've made a similar mistake with Trayvon's phone records. The majority of these records exist as scanned documents and there isn't a reliable repository where they have been collected converted and open to verification. If we we're honestly searching for the truth^TM we would have created such a repository long ago. Elvis is the only one that replied when I brought this up in the beginning. I take that as a sign that the majority of the posters are just here to snipe. I try to be honest and interject a few facts from time to time. But I see no point in preparing for an all out debate on this forum.

 

[WildCat]

Heywhaddayouknow.

The word "violence" actually appears in the charging affidavit documenting Zimmerman's assault of a law enforcement officer, which he later lied about:


I wonder just how quickly WildCat will be along to acknowledge his misplaced snark.

Knowing him to be the stalwart champion for Truth and Justice that he is, I'm sure it will be momentarily.

Yeah, the attack was so violent that all charges were dropped. That's typical of people who violently attack a police officer? Or is it typical of a prosecutor who knows he has a weak case?

Meanwhile, you're claiming the red smudge on Zimmerman's face wasn't smeared blood.

 

[Rare Truth]

And then the charges were dropped. Because they never would have stuck.
...

This is where you go from dropped <like a baby on its head> to it didn't really fall.

You ASSUME, with absolutely NOTHING to go on, "it never would have stuck."

Wrongly. You. don't. know. that. We DO KNOW, like many first offenders, there is some leeway granted to arrestee newbies. We can see Z had to go through the court system, and we can see that HE HAD TO PAY A DEBT in order to get the charges reduced.

What did he have to do? He had to spend MONTHS taking

ANGER MANAGEMENT CLASSES in order to prove to the court he would reform. In order to get the charges "dropped."
he also had to pay for the class, and court fees.

That whole process to finalize took almost a year. Daddy being a judge probably didn't help. Or maybe it did. Who knows?
George seems to drop the line about mom and dad working in the court system rather readily.
He sure did use it when he was spouting his tale about why he wanted to be a Coparooni in his LEO program application and had to explain the arrest.
Maybe daddy helped. Maybe not <--See? that is spek-alation.

So, let's see...

OK. Date he was arrested: 7/16/05
Date Filed: 7/18/05

<07/18/2005 Arrest Affidavit
ARREST AFFIDAVIT FILED - DOA <07/16/2005>
>>

Now let's follow it after to the next charge...You'll have to enter "Zimmerman, George" here : <didja hear that right? You can lookitup, as they say.>

http://myclerk.myorangeclerk.com/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=5797428

to see that Felony WITH Violence...
and the July /August 2005 Dates there
to Felony without Violence.
Then to misdemeanor...

and how it went.

*dah dah dum....* Let's look at it here. Notice that red line?

Defendant
ZIMMERMAN, GEORGE MICHAEL

DOB: 10/05/1983
ZAHRA SHANAZ UMANSKY, Esquire
Retained

407-228-3838(W) Plaintiff
STATE OF FLORIDA

OTHER EVENTS AND HEARINGS
07/28/2006 Nolle Prosequi NOLLE PROSEQUI COUNT 001
06/15/2006 PTD Program Agreement for Supervision
Extension ORANGE CO. PTD AGGREEMENT FOR SUPERVISION EXT.
01/26/2006 Bond Discharged CLOSED BOND DISCHARGED #61766193
01/12/2006 Approval for Participation in PTD APPROVAL FOR PART.IN PTD
12/30/2005 Pre-Trial Deferment PRE-TRIAL DEFERMENT FILED
12/30/2005 Waiver of Speedy Trial WAIVER OF SPEEDY TRIAL FILED
11/22/2005 Notice Returned Unserved NOTICE RETURNED UNSERVED FILED
10/27/2005 Defendant Not Present DEFENDANT NOT PRESENT
10/27/2005 In Open Court IN OPEN COURT
10/27/2005 Appearance of Attorney Entered APPEAR. OF ATTORNEY ENTERED
10/27/2005 Per the Court: ORDERED FILED IN OPEN COURT*
10/27/2005 Defendant Referred to PreTrial Diversion DEF REFERRED TO PTD
10/27/2005 Case Held in Abeyance CASE HELD IN ABEYANCE
10/27/2005 Waiver of Speedy Trial WAIVER OF SPEEDY TRIAL ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT
10/27/2005 Pre-Trial Conference (8:30 AM) () TRIAL PERIOD 10/31-11/09/05.
10/25/2005 Hearing (9:00 AM) () DEF'S MOTION TO COMPEL
10/17/2005 State's Witness List STATE'S WITNESS LIST FILED
10/17/2005 Notice of Filing of State's Discovery Exhibit NOTICE OF FILING STATE'S DISCOVERY EXHIBIT
10/07/2005 Notice of Hearing NOTICE OF HEARING FILED <10/25/2005> 09:00 A.M.
10/06/2005 Motion to Compel MOTION TO COMPEL FILED
09/28/2005 Notice for Pre-Trial NOTICE FOR PRETRIAL RET: 10/27/2005
09/28/2005 Defendant Not Present DEFENDANT NOT PRESENT
09/28/2005 In Open Court IN OPEN COURT
09/28/2005 Counsel Not Present ATTY/PD NOT PRESENT
09/28/2005 Written Plea of Not Guilty WRITTEN PLEA OF NOT GUILTY PREVIOUSLY ENTERED
09/28/2005 Arraignment (1:00 PM) ()
09/28/2005 Arraignment (8:00 AM) ()
09/27/2005 Arraignment ARRAIGNMENT SCHEDULED FOR 09/28/2005
09/06/2005 Notice NOTICE OF ARRAIGNMENT ISSUED <09/28/2005> 01:00 P.M.
08/31/2005 Notice of Appearance NOTICE OF APPEARANCE FILED ZAHRA S. UMANSKY
08/31/2005 Waiver of Arraignment WAIVER OF ARRAIGNMENT
08/31/2005 Written Plea of Not Guilty WRITTEN PLEA OF NOT GUILTY ENTERED
08/31/2005 Notice of Intent to Participate in Discovery NOTICE OF INTENT TO PARTICIPATE IN DISCOVERY
08/31/2005 Demand for Disclosure of Criminal Records DEMAND FOR DISCLOSURE OF CRIMINAL RECORDS
08/31/2005 Demand for Exculpatory Information DEMAND FOR EXCULPATORY INFORMATION
08/30/2005 Complete Case Transferred COMPLETE CASE TRANSFERRED FROM 05-CF-9525
08/30/2005 Bond Filed POLAKOFF BOND FILED RET TBN #A061766193 $1000
08/29/2005 Information Filed INFORMATION FILED
====================
08/30/2005 Receipt of Original Papers RECEIPT OF ORIGINAL PAPERS FILED TO 05-MM-10436
08/29/2005 Request for Administrative Transfer REQUEST FOR ADMINISTRATIVE TRANSFER TO COUNTY COURT
08/05/2005 Notice of Appearance NOTICE OF APPEARANCE FILED ZAHRA S. UMANSKY
08/05/2005 Waiver of Arraignment WAIVER OF ARRAIGNMENT
08/05/2005 Written Plea of Not Guilty WRITTEN PLEA OF NOT GUILTY ENTERED
08/05/2005 Notice of Intent to Participate in Discovery NOTICE OF INTENT TO PARTICIPATE IN DISCOVERY
08/05/2005 Waiver of Defendant's Attendance at Pre-Trial WAIVER DEFT'S ATTENDANCE AT PRETRIAL CONF
08/05/2005 Demand for Disclosure of Criminal Records DEMAND FOR DISCLOSURE OF CRIMINAL RECORDS
08/05/2005 Demand for Exculpatory Information DEMAND FOR EXCULPATORY INFORMATION
07/18/2005 Complaint COMPLAINT FILED
07/18/2005 Bond Filed POLAKOFF BOND FILED RET TBN $1000 A061766193
07/18/2005 Arrest Affidavit ARREST AFFIDAVIT FILED - DOA <07/16/2005>

Financial Information
Defendant ZIMMERMAN, GEORGE MICHAEL Total Financial Assessment 265.48 Total Payments and Credits 265.48 Balance Due as of 03/26/2012 0.00 08/07/2006 Transaction Assessment 7.5008/07/2006 Payment Added for Conversion Only Receipt # 5000386023 SEALED (7.50)03/12/2012 Transaction Assessment 1.0003/12/2012 Counter Payment Receipt # CR-2012-13569 MEDIA (1.00)03/22/2012 Transaction Assessment 180.9903/22/2012 Counter Payment Receipt # CR-2012-15164 JOHN F. COUWELS (180.99)03/22/2012 Transaction Assessment 20.0003/22/2012 Counter Payment Receipt # CR-2012-15191 MEDIA (20.00)03/23/2012 Transaction Assessment 55.9903/23/2012 Counter Payment Receipt # CR-2012-15477 BARBARA J. LISTON (55.99)

 

[TheL8Elvis]

This is where you go from dropped <like a baby on its head> to it didn't really fall.

You ASSUME, with absolutely NOTHING to go on, "it never would have stuck."

And you have nothing indicating that's not why they lowered the charges. The fact is, they charged him one one thing, and then lessened the charge for some reason. If you think it's out of the milk of human kindness, I think you are just fooling yourself.

That whole process to finalize took almost a year. Daddy being a judge probably didn't help. Or maybe it did. Who knows?

His father was not a judge. While I appreciate the correction on the arresting officer, you should concentrate less on having long posts full of different colors and a bunch of useless fluff, and more on the facts.

Also, did you plan on responding to the rest of my post ?

Tell me, you seem so intent on this subject - what do you think the fact that GZ shoved a police officer 8 years ago proves, exactly ?

 

[johnny karate]

​

And I bolded the last sentence in Rare truths post to point out part of the difference.

It's all the funnier to see you doing all this dancing and backpedaling after all the sardonic posts you have made accusing me of doing those things.

That's you stating you can't find the paragraph, not you stating the text in Rare Truth's post didn't match what was actually in the document.

Someone who requires such exacting language to prove Shellie Zimmerman was lying or that it was four officers who witnessed George Zimmerman assault one of them should know better than to try to slide by on such a loose interpretation.

 

[johnny karate]

Yeah, the attack was so violent that all charges were dropped. That's typical of people who violently attack a police officer? Or is it typical of a prosecutor who knows he has a weak case?

Still trotting out that weak and dishonest argument?

As you are fully aware by now, Zimmerman had to successfully pass a pretrial diversion anger management program in order to get those charges dropped.

And as to your continued disagreement with the use of the word "violent" I guess you'll have to include the arresting officer and the legislators who drafted the text of the law in your ever-expanding group of "Trayvon Truthers" (read:"Anyone who disagrees with me, even when I demonstrate myself to be factually incorrect.")

Meanwhile, you're claiming the red smudge on Zimmerman's face wasn't smeared blood.

Meanwhile, you're claiming the criminal charges against Zimmerman were simply dropped because the prosecution had a weak case.

 

[Rare Truth]

It's killin' ya, isn't it, L8? Gettin' hammered so roundly with the facts and details and the best we can see is a hummannamamammamm.

Like Slinky, fun for boys and girls!

His father was not a judge.

Better tell that to George. He seemed to think it was important when tawkin' to LEO in his application in his wanna-be policin'.

http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/87267817 <linky link.>

You 'amember that link, right? That's the one you brought here and used to justify GZ was telling the Truff when he said that cop din't show no steekin badges.

Ma dad's a retired judge ya know....

You 'amember, right?

 

[johnny karate]

And then the charges were dropped. Because they never would have stuck.

You're making things up.

And you have nothing indicating that's not why they lowered the charges. The fact is, they charged him one one thing, and then lessened the charge for some reason. If you think it's out of the milk of human kindness, I think you are just fooling yourself.

It's usually done out of expedience, and yes, a little human kindness. We don't just through people in the gulag. Our criminal justice system actually has some preventative and rehabilitative measures built into it. It's not strictly punitive.

Educate yourself:

Pretrial diversion (PTD) is an alternative to prosecution which seeks to divert certain offenders from traditional criminal justice processing into a program of supervision and services administered by the U.S. Probation Service. In the majority of cases, offenders are diverted at the pre-charge stage. Participants who successfully complete the program will not be charged or, if charged, will have the charges against them dismissed; unsuccessful participants are returned for prosecution.

The major objectives of pretrial diversion are:

• To prevent future criminal activity among certain offenders by diverting them from traditional processing into community supervision and services.

• To save prosecutive and judicial resources for concentration on major cases.

• To provide, where appropriate, a vehicle for restitution to communities and victims of crime.

• The period of supervision is not to exceed 18 months, but may be reduced.

And just so it's clear to all the deniers, Zimmerman didn't just walk out of court a free man when he agreed to the program, he had to successfully pass or he would face prosecution again. That's how these programs work.

 

[Unabogie]

It's killin' ya, isn't it, L8? Gettin' hammered so roundly with the facts and details and the best we can see is a hummannamamammamm.

Like Slinky, fun for boys and girls!



Better tell that to George. He seemed to think it was important when tawkin' to LEO in his application in his wanna-be policin'.

[qimg]http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y221/who007/zjudge_zpsb55d9715.jpg[/qimg]

http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/87267817 <linky link.>

You 'amember that link, right? That's the one you brought here and used to justify GZ was telling the Truff when he said that cop din't show no steekin badges.

Ma dad's a retired judge ya know....

You 'amember, right?

This one is almost as cut and dried as the perjury case against his wife. Here in this letter, he claims that the officer never told him he was a cop and "assaulted him first". Yet in the FBI report, the cop, and those who were with him, say that not only did they tell him who they were, but he yelled "**** you" at them before getting violent.

And in light of that clear evidence, how can anyone claim George didn't lie about this incident?

But they do claim that, and they do a step further. They say that it's the COPS who are all in collusion to lie about good old George, and that the charges were "dropped" even though they clearly weren't. He just got a sympathetic DA who was willing to deal down to anger management classes and some fines.

But the important part is that he still did it. He still assaulted some cops, screamed at one of them, and got arrested and charged for it.

Those are clear facts about George Zimmerman.