Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[Giz]

I wonder if the reason so many people are vigorously defending Zimmerman in this thread

Hmmm, I would have said that the thread was divided into those that are convinced that GZ are guilty and those that think there isn't anywhere near enough proof to show that beyond reasonable doubt. (So far... perhaps compelling evidence will appear during the trial).

"I" think that one can make up hypotheticals, either way, that:
- paint GZ as the guilty party,
- paint TM as the guilty party,
while being aligned with the known facts.

And while that would make for a compelling civil (balance of probabilities) trial, it isn't enough for a criminal conviction (beyond reasonable doubt).


... so hardly a referendum on a cranky old white guy (and presumably you meant a 29 yr old hispanic)?

 

[johnny karate]

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

Good, then we agree it's a relevant topic.

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 ?

It's not an matter of saying someone who assaults a police officer is therefore a murderer. It's a matter of undermining Zimmerman's credibility and narrative.

He's on record lying to the police during the course of this investigation.

And that lie was regarding a previous altercation in which Zimmerman, coincidentally enough, was dishonest about his role and tried to make himself look like a victim.

And most importantly, it paints a picture of Zimmerman that directly contradicts how he portrayed himself in his account of events the night he killed Martin. He wants us to think he was just a mild-mannered person doing nothing wrong when he was set upon by a violent criminal, when what the record shows is that Zimmerman actually has a problem with controlling his anger and a propensity for violence.

Whether or not any of this will be admissible in court of law , I have no idea. But in the court of the JREF Forum, Zimmerman is a violent man and a liar.

 

[KatieG]

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 ?

You should direct that question to GZ, he's the one that submitted the information using that language.

 

[johnny karate]

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

When you have to clip someone's sentence in order to construct a gotcha moment, it's a pretty good sign you're being dishonest.

Why don't you post the Unabogie's full sentence?

Yes, the charges were dropped. Because Zimmerman successfully completed a pretrial diversion anger management program. Had he not successfully completed that program, he would have faced prosecution again.

You and WildCat both alleged that that charges were simply dropped because the prosection had a weak case.

Evidence has been presented to you that demonstrates how PTD programs work and why they are implemented, and it has nothing to do with what you claimed.

If you want to be honest, why don't you address that, and acknowldge that when you asserted:

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

... you manufactured that assertion without a shred of evidence.

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.

Three other officers also say it.

 

[johnny karate]

You should direct that question to GZ, he's the one that submitted the information using that language.

Yep.

Apparently, a judge is only not a judge when Zimmerman calls his dad a judge.

When Rare Truth calls Zimmerman's dad a judge (in clear mockery of Zimmerman himself), he's a liar.

When Zimmerman calls his dad a judge, he didn't really mean "judge".

 

[Nessie]

To what extent can you claim to be in fear of your own life when you have a gun and the other person does not? The person with the gun has superiority over the unarmed person in terms of ability to defend and attack.

How far would you believe a 6'10" professional wrestler who said he was in fear of his life when he got into a fight with a 60 year lady who has arthritis and he killed her by strangling her? What about a guy with a sword who kills a 10 year old child and claims self defence? Clearly the odds are stacked with one party, the unarmed person, the old lady and the child being in by far the weaker position. That has to influence decision making and what is likely. So straight away I would argue Zimmerman is in a weak position for claiming self defence as he was the one in strong position.

The big difference in the above scenarios is that the person with the gun can have their gun taken off them and it used against them, whereas the wrestler cannot be disarmed at all and a child vs a sword is going to be unlikely to be able to disarm and kill. So those with guns have to go for deadly force sooner than others with the position of superiority or risk it being used against them.

So in terms of self defence, are gun users to be given an advantage over all others that they can use their position of superiority sooner and deadly force to prevent any injury, when you would laugh others out of court if they claimed they needed to kill to defend themselves?

 

[johnny karate]

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.

Once again, you are being dishonest about the chain of events.

Rare Truth acknowledged the embellishments before anyone else noticed them - and posted the actual document in full - long before WildCat pointed them out. You failed to mention that. Someone can't "add value" by detailing something that had already been revealed.

 

[johnny karate]

Hmmm, I would have said that the thread was divided into those that are convinced that GZ are guilty and those that think there isn't anywhere near enough proof to show that beyond reasonable doubt. (So far... perhaps compelling evidence will appear during the trial).

"I" think that one can make up hypotheticals, either way, that:
- paint GZ as the guilty party,
- paint TM as the guilty party,
while being aligned with the known facts.

And while that would make for a compelling civil (balance of probabilities) trial, it isn't enough for a criminal conviction (beyond reasonable doubt).


... so hardly a referendum on a cranky old white guy (and presumably you meant a 29 yr old hispanic)?

You need to pay closer attention to what is happening in this thread. Because it's not as quite as simple as you protray it.

Yes, I believe Zimmerman is guilty, but I have acknowledged several times that I don't know if there is enough evidence to convict him. I certainly think there is enough evidence to make a compelling case for conviction, but until the trial starts, none of us knows if it will be sufficient.

But a simple difference of opinion on the validity of the evidence is not what is being argued in this thread for the most part. There is a contingent here that will defend Zimmerman at all costs on any issue. And when presented with evidence to the contrary, they will deny it.

One of the current discussion topics is Zimmerman's arrest for assaulting a law enforcement officer, and the subsequent lies he told about the incident. All of this is a matter of record. And yet it is still denied by this contingent that seems unwilling to ever believe Zimmerman does anything wrong. It has even gone to the point that conspiracies against Zimmerman are alleged.

It has also been argued that Shellie Zimmerman did not lie during the bond hearing, despite the fact that her lies are a matter of record.

It has also been argued that Zimmerman's own lawyer falsified court documents in order to deny the far more likely and obvious conclusion that it was Zimmerman himself who lied.

So when remirol refers to people "vigorously defending Zimmerman", I think that might be a reference to the people who seem to have a deep-seated emotional investment in believing Zimmerman is innocent.

 

[WildCat]

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.

This case really has nothing to do with SYG laws, it will be entirely about traditional rules of self-defense.

 

[tsig]

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 ?

When all else fails do the semantic samba. Throw the dictionary at the argument and question everything.

Sad really.

 

[WildCat]

A Magistrate Judge is a judge, but one who doesn't hear cases in a courtroom. They do things like issue search warrants and review arrests.

Not every state has this position.

 

[boooeee]

Once again, you are being dishonest about the chain of events.

Rare Truth acknowledged the embellishments before anyone else noticed them - and posted the actual document in full - long before WildCat pointed them out. You failed to mention that. Someone can't "add value" by detailing something that had already been revealed.

This was Rare Truth's "acknowledgement" (along with an image scan of the document):

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?)

As Wildcat pointed out, the whole thing was in bold, so it's unclear exactly what he altered. Or even that he altered it. At the time, I wasn't even sure what Rare Truth meant by that post. And while the image file was there, it's harder to read a scanned image as opposed to actual typed text in the browser (and yes, I know he highlighted it).

At the time I jumped into the thread, it appeared that Rare Truth had taken the text, deliberately added words that were not there, and posted it as a direct quote. And you seemed just fine with that. That was what I took issue with. Deliberately changing quoted text is stupid and does nothing to further honest debate.

 

[Unabogie]

Can we change the name of the thread to the "Rare Truth Case"? Because let's focus on what really matters here: the timeline of Rare Truth's posts. What did we know and when did we know it?

 

[Bob001]

This case really has nothing to do with SYG laws, it will be entirely about traditional rules of self-defense.

Whether or not they apply in this particular case, it's worth discussing whether "stand your ground" laws benefit society. We all agree that if someone is trying to kill you or hurt you and you can't run away, you can do whatever you need to do to defend yourself. But suppose you can get away? A large, mean drunk, maybe with a knife or a club, maybe unarmed, threatens to kill you, and you turn and run away (and call the cops). He laughs, goes back to his bottle, nobody gets hurt, and the police come by and pick him up. If he actually chases you, now you have a pretty firm case for basic self-defense. But suppose he threatens to kill you, you get scared, and you draw your piece and blow him away. Is that a good thing? That's what "stand your ground" encourages. Suppose you miss him and kill a bystander (not at all uncommon)? Suppose the guy is a neighborhood character who yells at everybody and never actually hurt anybody? Suppose he's a mental patient off his meds? Suppose the guy wasn't even yelling at you, but was yelling at a fellow drunk? Etc., etc. Killing somebody might be necessary, but it should always be a last resort, never the first. Stand your ground makes it all too easy.

 

[WildCat]

Whether or not they apply in this particular case, it's worth discussing whether "stand your ground" laws benefit society.

Which would be best done in another thread. This one is long enough as it is.

 

[boooeee]

I'm not seeing much point in participating in this thread further.

Can we change the name of the thread to the "Rare Truth Case"? Because let's focus on what really matters here: the timeline of Rare Truth's posts. What did we know and when did we know it?

Thanks for the reminder. Enjoy yourself.

 

[Unabogie]

Thanks for the reminder. Enjoy yourself.

I tried to get you back on topic, but you were far more interested in this stupid sideshow.

If you were, in fact, interested in the case, you'd give us your opinion on the many pieces of evidence we have. The location of the body, George's story, the stories of the various witnesses, and how the timeline of the NEN call matches or doesn't match to the walk-through version of what happened that night.

Or you could talk about the defense's move to decline the April immunity hearing.

Or you could talk about the bond hearing and how that affects or doesn't affect the credibility of the defendant.

We could enjoy that a lot more than your fixation on a single post (and indeed a single POSTER) that has now gone on for several pages.

"Watermelon Lean" was more relevant to the case than this drivel.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Good, then we agree it's a relevant topic.

I never said it was relevant.

It's not an matter of saying someone who assaults a police officer is therefore a murderer. It's a matter of undermining Zimmerman's credibility and narrative.

He's on record lying to the police during the course of this investigation.

And that lie was regarding a previous altercation in which Zimmerman, coincidentally enough, was dishonest about his role and tried to make himself look like a victim.

And most importantly, it paints a picture of Zimmerman that directly contradicts how he portrayed himself in his account of events the night he killed Martin. He wants us to think he was just a mild-mannered person doing nothing wrong when he was set upon by a violent criminal, when what the record shows is that Zimmerman actually has a problem with controlling his anger and a propensity for violence.

Whether or not any of this will be admissible in court of law , I have no idea. But in the court of the JREF Forum, Zimmerman is a violent man and a liar.

I don't agree that's what event shows.

 

[johnny karate]

This was Rare Truth's "acknowledgement" (along with an image scan of the document):

As Wildcat pointed out, the whole thing was in bold, so it's unclear exactly what he altered. Or even that he altered it. At the time, I wasn't even sure what Rare Truth meant by that post. And while the image file was there, it's harder to read a scanned image as opposed to actual typed text in the browser (and yes, I know he highlighted it).

So the argument becomes Rare Truth had already acknowledged the embellishment but just not to my particular satisfaction and Rare Truth posted the actual document but it was too difficult for me to read.

At the time I jumped into the thread, it appeared that Rare Truth had taken the text, deliberately added words that were not there, and posted it as a direct quote. And you seemed just fine with that. That was what I took issue with. Deliberately changing quoted text is stupid and does nothing to further honest debate.

You are certainly entitled to feel anyway you wish over what Rare Truth did. All I ask is that you be honest in your portrayal of the events.

The purposeful and disingenuous exclusion of relevant information seems to be a common aspect of argumentation in this thread ("Yeah, the attack was so violent that all charges were dropped.").

For the sake of argument, let's say what Rare Truth did was dishonesty of the lowest form. Whether or not that is true, it does not change the material facts of what he presented. Zimmerman did assault a law enforcement officer, and he did later lie about it. That is what the facts - with or without Rare Truth's embellisments - clearly show.

Conversely, we have arguments like this being made:

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

Not only is that a fabrication on its face, but is also quite an obvious and deliberate attempt to portray events in a misleading way in order to reach a conclusion different from what really happened. So it is every bit as dishonest as what Rare Truth did, with the added bonus of being dishonest about what actually happened.

And as someone who purports to be interested in "honest debate", I have to wonder why the former so offends your sensibilities why the latter does not merit comment from you.

 

[johnny karate]

I don't agree that's what event shows.

Big shocker.

If Zimmerman said the sun rose in the west, you wouldn't believe it actually rose in the east.