Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[Dancing David]

That couldn't be wind noise?

What source file are you using to analyze?

It is not very likely wind noise would show that sharp cut at the start.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

That sounds all nice and "it seems"-it fluffy and all, except for the fact Zimmerman declined THREE TIMES the chance to go to the hospital.

[qimg]http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y221/who007/z-hospital_zps11898031.jpg[/qimg]

http://trayvon.axiomamnesia.com/wp-...olice-Reports-without-statements-redacted.pdf
Page 1.

And the reason he did was he was doing just fine. "At no point did [he] exhibit any behaviors that warranted medical attention."

Cripes, not even an ice pack.

Well, it seems like I was wrong about anyone encouraging him NOT to go (though I think the quotes you posted are all from EMT rather than officers, right?) but yea, point taken. GZ didn't want to go to the hospital.

But this sort of reinforces my main point, doesn't it? Which was that he passed up a golden opportunity to buy himself time to work on his story, AND simultaneously look like more of a victim and make the beating out to be worse than it was.

All he had to do was lie, or not even that... just agree with the recommendations he was getting to go to the hospital.

So, why didn't he if he knew at that point that he was guilty of something? Wouldn't "firming up" his self-defense claim by focusing as much on his injuries and how woozy he felt have played into that goal well?

I'd just like to know how declining the hospital trip repeatedly squares with your perception of him as a nonstop liar who was conscious of his guilt at that point.

 

[12AX7]

No, because one of the points of the trial is going to be if that was reasonable behavior, given that GZ is very likely to have known this is exactly what citizens are not to do in this situation.

Great point.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

No, because one of the points of the trial is going to be if that was reasonable behavior, given that GZ is very likely to have known this is exactly what citizens are not to do in this situation.

He probably didn't regard getting out of his truck and repositioning himself so that he could maintain a visual from a great distance as being "getting involved" because he didn't anticipate any sort of direct interaction with Trayvon to result.

I would agree with him. It was his neighborhood, he had every right to stand or walk in whatever part of it he wished. If Trayvon was distressed by that, or concerned, he had every right to run, call police, knock on a neighbor's door, or confront Zimmerman and ask him what was going on.

What he didn't have the right to do was assault Zimmerman and continue a one-sided beatdown on him for a prolonged period. That's why he was shot, and rightfully so.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

because it has not been examined and presented in the court yet.

When they cross examine and get both their experts talking about it, then there may be some validity to the statement.

GZ may have been punched, it seems very likely, however it will be up to a jury to decide in GZ was in reasonable fear of his life and serious physical injury.

A broken nose is not however grounds for killing someone, so say he had a broken nose. Then we say 'So what?' that is not grounds for serious physical injury.

(Or life and limb, I forget the exact wording of the statute, that was back when crimeresearch was still posting)

The only thing I am claiming is that a medical report talking about GZ swelling and black eyes should be sufficient to establish that GZ had swelling and black eyes. Not that that would establish reasonable fear or anything else. And that I doubted the defense would argue that GZ did not actually have black eyes. It seems like you think I am arguing for something beyond that.

 

[Rare Truth]

As watertight as an otter's ass, isn't it?

Either way you get to play it both sides for Z. He goes to hospital, he's good. He doesn't, he's good. Brilliant tactic!

Had GZ documented his injuries properly, this whole thing would not be what it is. Don't you get it?

One of the biggest concerns many had at the start, was WTH? A guy shoots somebody and they don't do a tox screen?
They are in a brutal fight that might have ended his life and he didn't go to the hospital? Mwwwahhhhhh?

We know Z was under the influence of drugs - uppers and downers. In fact there was a notation that his adderall prescription was recently changed because of mood swings.

With meds like he was taking (4, as I recall) - just a beer or two can mess with a head. The suggestion he did not want to go because
a) tox screen results
and/or
b) he knew darn well his injury was minor and the report would only reinforce that, weakening his claim further

is not an illogical claim.

Couple that with Z's familiarity with the SPD, his knowledge of criminal justice, through the courses he was taking to be a cop, growing up with a dad as a magistrate and mom who worked in the courthouse, his best buddy who was a former SPD deputy, (one of the first person's called, and who referred to chief Lee as a "father figure" - and was there immediately that night), the FL SYG laws, the bad racial history re: Sanford PD and their black citizens...(not making this racial, but they *do* have a sordid history)

-- the idea Z had just killed a guy he figured would be discovered as a thief, or at least had criminal records -- (remember, they didn't ID Trayvon till the following day) he had some pretty good ideas of how far cooperating with police gets you, and indeed, it did.

So, no, I don't buy your "you see, by not going to the hospital, that proved Z was innocent." <--not an actual quote.

You see, that last bit of yours "a nonstop liar who was conscious of his guilt at that point" doesn't really play, when you consider he was not conscious of his guilt. There was no guilt.

To Z, he was a freakin hero. He just nabbed a bad guy and the huzzahs would be his.

His failing grades at criminal justice wouldn't matter a bit now -- He wasn't just the NW Cap't now - he was the Neighborhood SupaStar!

 

[TheL8Elvis]

You know finding contradictory claims from the same source isn't "cherry-picking", right?

Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.

Sorry, I don't see a "same source" exception.

Zimmerman said what he said. If that happens to contradict something else he said, I'm not sure how you think that helps him to point that out.

No, it's not a contradiction to something else, it's something else in addition to.
There is no contraditcion in
"I got out of my car to look for a street sign"
and
"I walked through to get an address"

It's sad that the only defense you can come up with amounts to Well, he said something different later on.

What exactly is sad about pointing out that you are being disingenuous ?

I don't have an expectation that every detail is going to remain unchanged in each telling, or that no additional details or corrections would occur, as you apparently do.

No, dishonest is when you assert a complete fabrication like this:

As you have already been told, referring to someone else's claim using their terminology isn't a lie.

Yes, you assert that as your excuse, and I rejected it.

Repeating things you know are lies to further your own ends is dishonest.

It's weird that you keep asserting otherwise.

I can only imagine it's to divert attention from your own shameful lie.

You have quite an active imagination.

Zimmerman knew the exact direction Martin was heading:

And gollygeegosh, wouldn't you know it? It turns out Zimmermam ended up heading in that same direction.

So you are asserting TM was headed for the back gate ?

Because if he wasn't, GZ didn't know the exact direction he was heading.

 

[Unabogie]

So you are asserting TM was headed for the back gate ?

Because if he wasn't, GZ didn't know the exact direction he was heading.

For the record, Martin WAS heading towards the back gate, sort of, since that's where his father's girlfriend lived. And we know George THOUGHT he was heading that way, since he SAID SO.

So I'm not sure what you think this demonstrates?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

As watertight as an otter's ass, isn't it?

Either way you get to play it both sides for Z. He goes to hospital, he's good. He doesn't, he's good. Brilliant tactic!

Had GZ documented his injuries properly, this whole thing would not be what it is. Don't you get it?

One of the biggest concerns many had at the start, was WTH? A guy shoots somebody and they don't do a tox screen?
They are in a brutal fight that might have ended his life and he didn't go to the hospital? Mwwwahhhhhh?

We know Z was under the influence of drugs - uppers and downers. In fact there was a notation that his adderall prescription was recently changed because of mood swings.

With meds like he was taking (4, as I recall) - just a beer or two can mess with a head. The suggestion he did not want to go because
a) tox screen results
and/or
b) he knew darn well his injury was minor and the report would only reinforce that, weakening his claim further

is not an illogical claim.

No, just one you have no proof for.

Should we start throwing out every claim we think about that we have no proof for, simply because it "is not an illogical claim" ?

 

[Unabogie]

What he didn't have the right to do was assault Zimmerman and continue a one-sided beatdown on him for a prolonged period. That's why he was shot, and rightfully so.

This is what we in the skeptic community call "begging the question".

 

[TheL8Elvis]

For the record, Martin WAS heading towards the back gate, sort of, since that's where his father's girlfriend lived. And we know George THOUGHT he was heading that way, since he SAID SO.

So I'm not sure what you think this demonstrates?

It demonstrates that GZ didn't know where TM was going. He THOUGHT he was headed for the back gate, but he wasn't. That's why you used the words sort of.

 

[Dancing David]

He probably didn't regard getting out of his truck and repositioning himself so that he could maintain a visual from a great distance as being "getting involved" because he didn't anticipate any sort of direct interaction with Trayvon to result.

I would agree with him. It was his neighborhood, he had every right to stand or walk in whatever part of it he wished. If Trayvon was distressed by that, or concerned, he had every right to run, call police, knock on a neighbor's door, or confront Zimmerman and ask him what was going on.

What he didn't have the right to do was assault Zimmerman and continue a one-sided beatdown on him for a prolonged period. That's why he was shot, and rightfully so.

Well, except for the facts that we don't know yet. We do know that GZ tried to start a neighborhood watch group, and that therefore the prosecution will probably bring that up. Especially since in almost all watch group material they do not mention 'getting out of his truck and repositioning himself so that he could maintain a visual from a great distance".

But we will have to wait and see what the actual news letters show and testimony,especially if GZ gave trainings.

I do not believe that any watch literature says anything about maintaining any sort of contact or position with regards to potential suspects.

 

[12AX7]

Should we start throwing out every claim we think about that we have no proof for, simply because it "is not an illogical claim" ?

Why not? We have your fellow Zimmerman Fanboys hearing mysterious voices in the background of calls, George's magically-healing wounds and self-cleaning clothes, black eyes that aren't black, Trayvon was/could've been a burglar/druggie/gangbanger, etc.

The pro-George side has thrown out way more claims with zero evidence than the pro-Trayvon side. And you have to. Why? Because at the end of the day, your boy shot and killed an unarmed teen.

Spin away.

What he didn't have the right to do was assault Zimmerman and continue a one-sided beatdown on him for a prolonged period. That's why he was shot, and rightfully so.

And there it is. That is almost the identical position held by many gun owners and CCW'ers that's being floated around on various firearms forums. Trayvon had no right to stand his ground; to defend himself. Your hero George went looking for trouble, found it, suffered a mild ass-kicking and felt the need to shoot/kill his way out of it. You guys picked a winner there.

"And rightfully so"? So classy.

 

[12AX7]

I do not believe that any watch literature says anything about maintaining any sort of contact or position with regards to potential suspects.

And, I wonder what Florida's CCW classes teach about that very subject?

 

[12AX7]

What he didn't have the right to do was assault Zimmerman and continue a one-sided beatdown on him for a prolonged period. That's why he was shot, and rightfully so.

I need to touch on this some more, because this position is mind-boggling.

Trayvon was on his way home to watch a game with the snacks he'd just purchased.

George was the one who got out of his vehicle, followed and confronted Trayvon, after being told not to. (No, he wasn't "looking for an address".)

Had George remained in his vehicle until the police arrived, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

And this continued, "one-sided beatdown for a prolonged period" would have produced injuries consistent with a one-sided beatdown for a prolonged period. George looks like he took a hit or two to the face, nothing more.

You George supporters really are a piece of work.

 

[johnny karate]

Ok, then, if you don't mind, break down the flaw in my logic with what I said here

The flaw in your logic has been explained to you. I don't see the point in further assisting you in your disingenuous attempt to split semantic hairs in order to find some possible way that maybe Zimmerman wasn't being untruthful.

He clearly was.

He didn't need stitches. The doctor stated so in the medical report.

And it's lot more simple and honest for you just to admit that and move on.

 

[johnny karate]

The lead paramedic on the scene that night (Michael Brandy) did have this to say though: "Told the officer there that he was gonna need to go to the hospital probably and get some stitches."

"No sutures needed" > "go to the hospital probably and get some stitches"

Doctor > EMT

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Why not? We have your fellow Zimmerman Fanboys hearing mysterious voices in the background of calls, George's magically-healing wounds and self-cleaning clothes, black eyes that aren't black, Trayvon was/could've been a burglar/druggie/gangbanger, etc.

You're right, a medical report talking about GZ black eyes is no proof that that he had black eyes. That same medical report that you apparently favor to dismiss the notion of the "magically-healing wounds "

Disingenuous much ?

And you'll observe, I'm just talking about the specific things you are saying, not making you responsible for everything anybody who thinks GZ is guilty says - accomplice in truck, magic bullet, etc.
Seems quite reasonable that you should just be responsible for your claims, doesn't it ?

The pro-George side has thrown out way more claims with zero evidence than the pro-Trayvon side. And you have to. Why? Because at the end of the day, your boy shot and killed an unarmed teen.

Spin away.

If only TM had stayed in school....

 

[Rare Truth]

And, I wonder what Florida's CCW classes teach about that very subject?

I wonder how many people think George would have ran after that kid if he didn't have a weapon.

 

[johnny karate]

Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.

Sorry, I don't see a "same source" exception.

Zimmerman made a very specific and unambiguous claim.

That he got out of his car for the purpose of finding a street sign.

That you somehow think it's unfair to challenge that claim is bizarre.

No, it's not a contradiction to something else, it's something else in addition to.
There is no contraditcion in
"I got out of my car to look for a street sign"
and
"I walked through to get an address"

Not if those actions both made sense in the context of the situation. But they don't. And that's been explained to you.

Zimmerman already had a street number, he just needed a street name to complete the address.

So he decided to walk away from the street he was on and towards another one, instead of just simply finding a street sign at his current location.

Furthermore, Zimmerman ended up in location away from either street - or anyway to potentially find an address - and, coincidentally enough, in a location that had him heading the same way he saw Martin running.

What exactly is sad about pointing out that you are being disingenuous ?

What exactly is disingenuous about challenging a specific, unambiguous claim made by Zimmerman?

I don't have an expectation that every detail is going to remain unchanged in each telling, or that no additional details or corrections would occur, as you apparently do.

You don't seem to have an expectation for Zimmerman to be consistent at all. As long as his story ends with "I shot and killed the kid" you appear to be satisfied.

Here in the real world, though, this is how it works. This is exactly what the trial is going to look like: Zimmerman's claims and statements being constantly challenged and compared to the evidence.

And I get that you don't think that will be enough too sway a jury. Only time will tell.

Yes, you assert that as your excuse, and I rejected it.

Repeating things you know are lies to further your own ends is dishonest.

As with your all your weird little "gotcha" games, this one has grown quite tiresome.

I am perfectly content to let my alleged "lie" stand as it is and let others decide for themselves.

So you are asserting TM was headed for the back gate ?

I didn't assert anything. Zimmerman did. Reads the transcript from the NEN call (Or is it being disingenuous to use Zimmerman's own words to determine his claims?)

Because if he wasn't, GZ didn't know the exact direction he was heading.

If you know someone is heading north, you can follow them by heading north. You don't need to know their specific destination.

Zimmerman knew the direct Martin was heading. It was towards the back gate. That's how he was able to follow him. Which the evidence shows he did.