Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[johnny karate]

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 ?

It proves Zimmerman has a short temper and the capacity for violence. It also proves he has no compunction about lying during the course of this investigation in order to cover his own ass.

Tell me, why are you now questioning the relevance of a topic you were perfectly content to argue for pages when you thought you were right?

 

[johnny karate]

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.

Are you as incensed with Zimmerman now that it's been revealed all Rare Truth did was repeat Zimmerman's lie? Or does Zimmerman get another pass?

 

[boooeee]

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?

I don't see how pointing out more embellishments makes Rare Truth look any better.

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.

I think you're right about the sniping and the general lack of honest debate. Oh well.

 

[johnny karate]

I don't see how pointing out more embellishments makes Rare Truth look any better.

Rare Truth acknowledged the embellishments before anyone else noticed them, posted the actual document, and provided an explanation for how and why those embellishments were in the quoted text.

You can take or leave that explanation as you wish, but the matter has been resolved and has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

 

[Unabogie]

I don't see how pointing out more embellishments makes Rare Truth look any better.

I don't see how Rare Truth is the subject of this thread, and especially in light of your lament that no one is interested in honest debate, suggests that you aren't interested in discussing the aspect we're debating, which is George's arrest and PTD for assaulting a LEO at a bar.

Back on topic, it's clear that George lied on his application, right? He claimed that the LEO never identified himself, something that the cops there all say is a lie. He claimed that the cop assaulted him first, which they also say is a lie. He demonstrated a quick temper and a propensity to start cussing and shoving, something that tracks what the SA is alleging when he murdered Trayvon.

The main issue here is that some posters were saying that the charges were dropped, which is not true since they merely put him though a PTD, and that the cop never showed his badge, something that isn't true. If you want to help get the thread back into "honest debate", you could start by helping these posters admit their mistake on this.

 

[Rare Truth]

KeeeeeeeeeeeeeRist! Like it tumbled all the legos.

Talk about desperation.

Enough already.

 

[This is The End]

I don't see how pointing out more embellishments makes Rare Truth look any better.

Ah OK. That does prove that Z legitimately killed M in self-defense.

Case closed. Call off the trial.

Way to go Rare Truth.

 

[12AX7]

:crickets chirping:

 

[This is The End]

I saw this interesting bit when reading about the evidence released to the public by Z's lawyers on Friday:

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/03/14/new-photos-emerge-trayvon-martin-phone

HLN affiliate CFNews13 reports that the phone was part of the evidence the prosecution released to the defense during the pre-trial phase of discovery.

Zimmerman's attorneys said that the evidence also included a data file from Martin's phone, but it can’t be released to the public.

"We believe [it] is not part of the public record, and therefore will not be provided here," they said.

Evidence that the prosecution gave to the defense that we don't have and apparently won't be seeing until the trial?? Impossible!

Then again, this is from Z's attorneys so it cannot be questioned...

What a predicament.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

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.

Why ? Is GZ involved in this discussion ? Wasn't it you who posted this, although you know GZ father isn't a judge and had nothing to do with this case ?

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.

Oh wait, I know. You are "just asking questions".

He seemed to think it was important when tawkin' to LEO in his application in his wanna-be policin'.
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?

Is that supposed to be mocking of GZ , or ... what is that supposed to represent ?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Are you as incensed with Zimmerman now that it's been revealed all Rare Truth did was repeat Zimmerman's lie? Or does Zimmerman get another pass?

Whatever gave you the idea I was incensed ?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

It proves Zimmerman has a short temper and the capacity for violence. It also proves he has no compunction about lying during the course of this investigation in order to cover his own ass.

Tell me, why are you now questioning the relevance of a topic you were perfectly content to argue for pages when you thought you were right?

Where did you get the idea I was questioning the relevance of the topic, versus asking Rare Truth why he thought it was relevant ?

I'd think you would be the one questioning why it relevant ? Shoving isn't murdering someone, so like TM fighting in school, how could it be relevant ?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I don't see how Rare Truth is the subject of this thread, and especially in light of your lament that no one is interested in honest debate, suggests that you aren't interested in discussing the aspect we're debating, which is George's arrest and PTD for assaulting a LEO at a bar.

Back on topic, it's clear that George lied on his application, right? He claimed that the LEO never identified himself, something that the cops there all say is a lie. He claimed that the cop assaulted him first, which they also say is a lie. He demonstrated a quick temper and a propensity to start cussing and shoving, something that tracks what the SA is alleging when he murdered Trayvon.

I cuss, does that make me a murderer ? TM cussed on his social media pages, does that mean it is more likely that he assaulted GZ ? Or in reality, does cussing have nothing to do with it ?

And just like fighting in school, a quick temper does not make one a murderer.

The main issue here is that some posters were saying that the charges were dropped, which is not true

Is this irony ? After all these pages of discussion, you get the basic premise wrong. The charges were dropped.

You probably missed it because of all the ridiculous colors and fonts, but it was right there:

07/28/2006 Nolle Prosequi NOLLE PROSEQUI COUNT 001

since they merely put him though a PTD, and that the cop never showed his badge, something that isn't true. If you want to help get the thread back into "honest debate", you could start by helping these posters admit their mistake on this.

All I'm saying is GZ stuck with his story that the LEO never showed a badge. The FBI interviewed a friend who was with him that night who corroborated GZ version. But if your sure if the LEO says he identified himself, then he certainly must have.

You should have a talk with Kimani Grays mother. If those LEOs in Brooklyn said Kimani had a gun, then he certainly had a gun, right ?

 

[Nessie]

It does not say much about either person that they got into a fight in the first place. It says a lot about people who carry guns when they say they were the one in fear for their life.

 

[Rare Truth]

 

[TheL8Elvis]

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

Yes, it's already clear you don't want to have an actual discussion.

What is a "Magistrate Judge" ?

Is that the same thing as a Judge, or the same thing as a Magistrate, or neither ?

 

[remirol]

I wonder if the reason so many people are vigorously defending Zimmerman in this thread is because it's not so much a referendum on an old cranky white guy -- we have plenty of those in this country -- but that it's by extension a referendum on whether Stand Your Ground laws are appropriate in the first place, due to the burden it places on society in determining which out of two people is telling the truth when one of them is dead.

I'm not certain I have a solid opinion on whether or not those laws should even exist yet. I don't have as much of a problem with "castle doctrine", where the assumption of dangerous malice is placed directly on the intruder; after all, it's pretty easy to avoid being caught on the wrong end of that, "don't enter people's houses uninvited and/or while they're unawares".

I'm not so enthralled with SYG laws however, as it seems to provide a convenient means for arguments to turn into killings without appropriate sanctions levied upon the remaining arguer. I would prefer that the presumption of guilt be placed on the initial person who chose to escalate the situation to deadly force, and that any or all involved parties be legally obliged to NOT initiate, but only respond in kind if deadly force is already present and known. This would of course mean that rather than hide behind SYG laws, the defense would need to provide more active proof of 'self-defense' in circumstances like this one -- and, in this one, it would require George to take the stand and give his version of events.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I wonder if the reason so many people are vigorously defending Zimmerman in this thread is because it's not so much a referendum on an old cranky white guy -- we have plenty of those in this country -- but that it's by extension a referendum on whether Stand Your Ground laws are appropriate in the first place, due to the burden it places on society in determining which out of two people is telling the truth when one of them is dead.

I'm not certain I have a solid opinion on whether or not those laws should even exist yet. I don't have as much of a problem with "castle doctrine", where the assumption of dangerous malice is placed directly on the intruder; after all, it's pretty easy to avoid being caught on the wrong end of that, "don't enter people's houses uninvited and/or while they're unawares".

I'm not so enthralled with SYG laws however, as it seems to provide a convenient means for arguments to turn into killings without appropriate sanctions levied upon the remaining arguer. I would prefer that the presumption of guilt be placed on the initial person who chose to escalate the situation to deadly force, and that any or all involved parties be legally obliged to NOT initiate, but only respond in kind if deadly force is already present and known. This would of course mean that rather than hide behind SYG laws, the defense would need to provide more active proof of 'self-defense' in circumstances like this one -- and, in this one, it would require George to take the stand and give his version of events.

Just to clarify, GZ does not need to invoke any SYG laws. (according to his attorney) Traditional self-defense would still place the burden of proof on the prosecution.

That doesn't mean you don't have a valid preference that the person who escalates the violence should be the one to defend their actions, just that it is not necessarily only a problem with SYG laws. It has been pointed out that most things work that way - the burden iof proof is on the claimant. However, the reversal of that seems to be the price that must be paid for allowing the presumption of innocence.

 

[boooeee]

I don't see how Rare Truth is the subject of this thread, and especially in light of your lament that no one is interested in honest debate, suggests that you aren't interested in discussing the aspect we're debating, which is George's arrest and PTD for assaulting a LEO at a bar.

I haven't commented on that particular issue because I didn't feel I had anything to add. My opinion: It's GZ's word against the officer's. I would trust the word of a LEO over some random mook, so I think it is more likely than not that the situation went down as the officer described it. Much in the same way that I don't have to be a forensic scientist to conclude it is more likely than not that the red stuff on George's mouth in that picture is blood.

Rare Truth added value to the thread by posting the information he did. He also muddied the waters by presenting false information as a direct quote. Wildcat added value to the thread by detailing exactly what was wrong with what Rare Truth posted as a direct quote. Rare Truth was praised for his contribution (and rightly so), even given an "MVP" award. Wildcat was met with abuse. And several posters didn't seem to think there was anything wrong with deliberately* altering direct quotes. That was what I found odd.

I've been following this thread and not contributing much. I am interested in the case and have my own opinion on what happened (which has evolved since the case first came to light). I also recognize there is room for honest disagreement on what happened. As jonny said, this has been hashed out. I'm not seeing much point in participating in this thread further.

* From Rare Truth's various explanations, it is unclear whether it was deliberate or not. But some posters seemed fine with Rare Truth's actions when at the time it appeared to be deliberate.

 

[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?)

Actually, it wasn't done on purpose.

Take your pick, purposeful or not.