Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[TheL8Elvis]

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?

I didn't edit a word out of his post. I posted his full sentence.

Do we really now need to argue about what he claimed and when ? Here, I'll post is again, it doesn't make what he said any less wrong:

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.

Yes, the charges were dropped. It is true.

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.

Would you like to point out where anyone claimed otherwise ?

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.

They simply dropped the obstruction of justice charge. No PTD necessary.
But you knew that because you have been paying attention, right ? You just decided that was not important enough to mention here.

If you want to be honest, why don't you address that, and acknowldge that when you asserted:
... you manufactured that assertion without a shred of evidence.

See my shred of evidence above.

Three other officers also say it.

I've already pointed out to you that's not necessarily true. There are no individual claims in the FBI report, and none of the other officers are listed on the actual police report.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

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.

Let's talk about that. I tried to bring you back to that topic.

Do you believe waving the court dates judge nelson set aside for the hearing means he can't have one ?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

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

Sad really.

What's sad is rare truth already knows GZ father is not a judge:

Then we have the fact GZ's own father, as a Magistrate (remember, George told people he hoped one day to be a Judge himself) - well, a big part of daddy's job was to review bond applications and set bail. !!

So when he posts this:

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.

It's completely contrary to the facts he already knows, and quite dishonest.

 

[12AX7]

Yes, the charges were dropped. It is true.

Why were they dropped?

A. There wasn't enough evidence (which seems to be the impression the Zimmerites are putting forth).
B. George agreed to pretrial diversion program to avoid being prosecuted on the original charges.

 

[johnny karate]

I didn't edit a word out of his post. I posted his full sentence.

That is a lie.

The is the full sentence:

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.

This is what you posted:

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

Do we really now need to argue about what he claimed and when ? Here, I'll post is again, it doesn't make what he said any less wrong:

No, there is no argument. Rational people without an axe to grind on this issue can clearly see what Unabogie posted and what he meant by it.

Others feel the need to disingenuously clip his statements in order to score cheap debate points.

Yes, the charges were dropped. It is true.

Because Zimmerman was required to first successfully complete an anger maangement course, and not because the prosecution had a weak case as you and WildCat so dishonestly asserted.

Would you like to point out where anyone claimed otherwise ?

Both you and WildCat alleged the charges were simply dropped due to the prosecution having a weak case. That woud be claiming otherwise.

They simply dropped the obstruction of justice charge. No PTD necessary.
But you knew that because you have been paying attention, right ? You just decided that was not important enough to mention here.

Not only were you specifically responding to a post not referring to the obstruction charge when you made your false claim:

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.

... but you asserted the charges plural were dropped, not just the one to which you are now pretending to have been referring.

See my shred of evidence above.

In light of the actual evidence, your lame attempt to rewrite history is rejected for the blatant lie that it is.

I've already pointed out to you that's not necessarily true. There are no individual claims in the FBI report, and none of the other officers are listed on the actual police report.

Yes, you've pointed it out. And it was rejected as yet another disingenuous attempt to distort the facts. In short, I don't believe your interpretation of the evidence, and I don't even believe that you believe it.

 

[johnny karate]

A. There wasn't enough evidence (which seems to be the impression the Zimmerites are putting forth).

You are being too kind.

It was actually asserted as a fact:

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

It is nothing short of a brazen and unvarnished lie.

 

[johnny karate]

It's completely contrary to the facts he already knows, and quite dishonest.

I'm glad you admitted that.

So now there is another lie we know Zimmerman told.

 

[Unabogie]

Let's talk about that. I tried to bring you back to that topic.

Do you believe waving the court dates judge nelson set aside for the hearing means he can't have one ?

I think it demonstrates that they don't want one, even though they said they did earlier in the case. Hence, the lawyers are now saying they WANT the case decided by a jury and not the judge, which is just ridiculous, since the judge can dismiss the case before trial, but cannot find him guilty, and since the judge can also bestow upon him immunity from a civil suit.

So sure, hypothetically the judge can flip flop on her insistence that an immunity hearing happen within 45 days, but the defense declined that and hasn't asked for a new date prior to trial. They've asked for it to be "rolled into" the trial, which has all kinds of legal problems regarding the 5th amendment and the burden of proof. Seeing as how she laid out the 45 day deadline, I don't see why she would cave on this point, but O'Mara says he can only prepare for one hearing, and that's the trial. So I think we won't have an immunity hearing. And when George is convicted I don't see how a judge would ever vacate that afterwards.

So why do they keep the option open? For the same reason they seem to do a lot of things: to try the case in the press so they can fool the rubes into donating more money to George's $125,000 a year lifestyle.

 

[Noztradamus]

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).

What compels you to say that?

I see the situation as
Party A flees
Party B pursues Party A
Party B shoots and kills Party A
Party B says "it was self defence"

Public discussion seems to revolve around Party B has no case to answer vs. The incident should be investigated and if that shows ANY doubt about Party B's version of events, it should go to trial.

 

[WildCat]

What compels you to say that?

I see the situation as
Party A flees
Party B pursues Party A
Party B shoots and kills Party A
Party B says "it was self defence"

Public discussion seems to revolve around Party B has no case to answer vs. The incident should be investigated and if that shows ANY doubt about Party B's version of events, it should go to trial.

That's cool, but the jurors in the real courtroom will have to make decisions based on the actual evidence, and not a scenario they made up in their heads.

 

[Noztradamus]

That's cool, but the jurors in the real courtroom will have to make decisions based on the actual evidence, and not a scenario they made up in their heads.

And which of the 4 parts of the scenario that I made up in my head is in debate?

 

[Mumbles]

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.

I actually have no issue with the aggressor, in your theoretical, getting shot, if they pulled a knife or a club. At that point, the person has decided to be violent, so the person being assaulted has the right to defend themselves. I see no reason why anyone should feel obligated to turn their back on a person who just pulled a weapon out.

My problem with this case, is that the person who is claiming self-defense, is apparently the aggressor. Trayvon Martin was, by all reasonable accounts, simply walking home from the store, when George Zimmerman decided to pursue him, first in his car, and then on foot when Martin literally ran away from him. And when questioned by the police, he comes up with a story that is both ridiculous, and impossible. I don't necessarily agree with a second degree murder charge, but I have no issue with him being put on trial, and I think it's clear that he was in the wrong in any event, nor with people who chose to march after the Sanford PD's goofball PR statements.

 

[WildCat]

And which of the 4 parts of the scenario that I made up in my head is in debate?

Where Pary A flees and Party B pursues.

I bet in your head Zimmerman jumps out of his truck, gun in hand, chasing after the terrified Martin until he catches up to him and shoots him. And somehow does this while being on the phone with the police most of the time.

 

[johnny karate]

That's cool, but the jurors in the real courtroom will have to make decisions based on the actual evidence, and not a scenario they made up in their heads.

And which of the 4 parts of the scenario that I made up in my head is in debate?

Yeah, I'd also like to know what part of Noztradamus' synopsis was made up in his head.

Because the only people I see manufacturing things out of whole cloth are those offering the fabrications like these:

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?

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

See, WildCat, someone who alleges that the charges against Zimmerman were dropped because the prosecution had a weak case has just made up a scenario in their heads not based on any actual evidence.

 

[johnny karate]

Where Pary A flees and Party B pursues.

Wow. It's like you are completely unaware of the details of the case.

From Zimmerman's NEN call:

Zimmerman: He's running.

Operator: He's running? Which way is he running?

Zimmerman: Down towards the entrance of the neighborhood.

Operator: Okay, which entrance is headed towards?

Zimmerman: The back entrance.

Operator: Are you following him?

Zimmerman: Yeah.

At best, you could make a semantic argument over the difference between "following" and "pursuing", but it would be a pretty thin one, and certainly not grounds to say the scenario was made up in someone's head.

If you want to see a scenario made up in someone's head, then look no further:

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?

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

 

[Unabogie]

Wow. It's like you are completely unaware of the details of the case.

From Zimmerman's NEN call:


At best, you could make a semantic argument over the difference between "following" and "pursuing", but it would be a pretty thin one, and certainly not grounds to say the scenario was made up in someone's head.

Well at least maybe now he'll understand why the location of the body is not some immaterial, minor discrepancy made up to make George look bad. It's at the heart of the questions of whether or not George continued to chase the "suspect".

If George stopped, as he claimed, and was walking back to his truck, there's no reason why the body and debris field would be so far south. If he continued chasing the "suspect", and followed him south and was not heading back to his truck, the he would fulfill the "B chased A" part of the scenario.

I sincerely hope this clears up WHY that detail is so important to the case. It's specifically one of the items Gilbreath mentioned as to why they charged George with murder.

 

[WildCat]

Wow. It's like you are completely unaware of the details of the case.

From Zimmerman's NEN call:


At best, you could make a semantic argument over the difference between "following" and "pursuing", but it would be a pretty thin one, and certainly not grounds to say the scenario was made up in someone's head.

If you want to see a scenario made up in someone's head, then look no further:

How does that support the claim Martin was fleeing? Martin could easily have been in his father's condo by the time Zimmerman got off the phone if that was the case.

Zimmerman sure doesn't sound like he's running while on the phone, just walking.

eta: are you still sticking with your ridiculous assertion that the red smudge on Zimmerman's face isn't smeared blood?

 

[Noztradamus]

What compels you to say that?

I see the situation as
Party A flees
Party B pursues Party A
Party B shoots and kills Party A
Party B says "it was self defence"
.

Where Pary A flees and Party B pursues.

I bet in your head Zimmerman jumps out of his truck, gun in hand, chasing after the terrified Martin until he catches up to him and shoots him. And somehow does this while being on the phone with the police most of the time.

I don't see what basis you have for imagining what is in my head

I limited my statements to those attested by the only living person who saw the entire event.

Now I supose in your head Martin could have been thinking "If I act uppity then run, i can lure this cracker into chasing me, then I can leap out of the bushes and bust his ass" (while being on the phone most of the time), but there is no evidence of that.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I think it demonstrates that they don't want one, even though they said they did earlier in the case.

Do you think it demonstrates that they don't want one at all, or that they just don't want one 45 days before the trial ?

Hence, the lawyers are now saying they WANT the case decided by a jury and not the judge, which is just ridiculous, since the judge can dismiss the case before trial, but cannot find him guilty, and since the judge can also bestow upon him immunity from a civil suit.

Since the burden of proof is on GZ in an immunity hearing, and on the state in a trial, if GZ or his attorney doesn't think, for whatever reason, that they judge will grant an immunity request, it does it make sense to request one before the trial. If he is found not guilty (or not found guilty, however you like it) then he can request a an immunity hearing and probably have much greater odds of winning, don't you think ? If he loses the trial, he probably wouldn't have won immunity anyway.

So sure, hypothetically the judge can flip flop on her insistence that an immunity hearing happen within 45 days, but the defense declined that and hasn't asked for a new date prior to trial. They've asked for it to be "rolled into" the trial, which has all kinds of legal problems regarding the 5th amendment and the burden of proof.

And you gleaned these problems from you deep legal knowledge, or where?

How about if GZ simply files for immunity, the judge says no, and he appeals and has his motion granted because there is nothing associated with the law stating a particular time frame, is there ?

Seeing as how she laid out the 45 day deadline, I don't see why she would cave on this point, but O'Mara says he can only prepare for one hearing, and that's the trial. So I think we won't have an immunity hearing. And when George is convicted I don't see how a judge would ever vacate that afterwards.

You realize it's that kind of thing that makes it difficult to have a reasonable discussion, right ?

So why do they keep the option open? For the same reason they seem to do a lot of things: to try the case in the press so they can fool the rubes into donating more money to George's $125,000 a year lifestyle.

You realize it's that kind of thing that makes it difficult to have a reasonable discussion, right ?

 

[WildCat]

Well at least maybe now he'll understand why the location of the body is not some immaterial, minor discrepancy made up to make George look bad. It's at the heart of the questions of whether or not George continued to chase the "suspect".

If George stopped, as he claimed, and was walking back to his truck, there's no reason why the body and debris field would be so far south. If he continued chasing the "suspect", and followed him south and was not heading back to his truck, the he would fulfill the "B chased A" part of the scenario.

I sincerely hope this clears up WHY that detail is so important to the case. It's specifically one of the items Gilbreath mentioned as to why they charged George with murder.

You keep saying that, and it still makes no sense to me as far as what you claim it proves. If that's really what Gilbreath's strongest argument will be Zimmerman walks.