Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[AlBell]

You've missed out on the new rules which say it's OK to make up what Z should have said or did regardless of what he actually said or did as long as the killing can be justified.

This makes this thread more of an exercise in fiction than a search for what really happened.

It's sure become a 'prove GZ was coon hunting' thread for many of you.

 

[AlBell]

So the only thing that counts is what was in Z's mind at the moment he pulled the trigger,

To meet the beyond reasonable doubt standard for murder 2 in court, imo yes.

and the only way we know that is what he tells us?

Witness testimony and forensics will be admissable; I doubt GZ's statements are although am not sure the status of police transcripts of interviews/walkthroughs. I'd bet we don't see GZ on the witness stand.

 

[12AX7]

Are you unable or just unwilling to find a couple NW-SOPs on your own?

Another non-answer from the Zimmerman Glee Club.

Witness testimony and forensics will be admissable; I doubt GZ's statements are although am not sure the status of police transcripts of interviews/walkthroughs.

Was George read Miranda before those statements, interviews and walkthroughs? If so, guess what?

 

[KatieG]

Are you unable or just unwilling to find a couple NW-SOPs on your own?

They have been posted several times, on this thread and the original thread. A search should find them easily.

 

[phonebook]

They have been posted several times, on this thread and the original thread. A search should find them easily.

So what's keeping you from doing it?

 

[12AX7]

They have been posted several times, on this thread and the original thread. A search should find them easily.

It's rhetorical at this point. The Zimmerites know the answer to the question. I suspect they know it will come up at trial. I further suspect they know it's not good for their hero.

Hence the silliness of AlBell's statement.

 

[KatieG]

That would be great, because you stated it just like it was a fact we should all accept.


Still not me.

I am not responsible for how your interpret my posts. I made a statement, you don't agree. Works for me, as I don't agree with many of your posts. The little slam about my "precious JQ"? Name-calling? Slamming another poster? Don't see the difference.

It is unlikely you will find a post here on JREF where I call another poster a name. Yet, the term "Trayvon Truther" is consistently used here as a slam on posters who simply want the truth in this case. Hmmmm, maybe there is some "truth" in that phrase.

This case should go to trial. All the relevant evidence will be presented and 6 people will decide what that evidence shows them. Then they will render a verdict. Some people will be happy with that verdict. Some won't. All I want is justice in this case, and for better or worse, justice will prevail. A guilty verdict won't give Trayvon back to his parents. A not guilty verdict won't give GZ back the life he had before that night.

And justice for all...

 

[KatieG]

So what's keeping you from doing it?

Because I'm not the one asking about them?

 

[12AX7]

Because I'm not the one asking about them?

Maybe phonebook has me on ignore?

 

[phonebook]

Because I'm not the one asking about them?

You seem to have more familiarity with their previous existence in this thread than I do. Do you know what I can use to narrow my search? For example, do you happen to know what user likely posted them?

I don't mind searching for them, because I am interested. I don't recall seeing anything specific to GZ's NW org, that precedes the incident, that specifically states anything about not getting out of a vehicle.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

Is it reasonable for GZ to have left his car?

I think so, yes.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

You seem to have more familiarity with their previous existence in this thread than I do. Do you know what I can use to narrow my search? For example, do you happen to know what user likely posted them?

I don't mind searching for them, because I am interested. I don't recall seeing anything specific to GZ's NW org, that precedes the incident, that specifically states anything about not getting out of a vehicle.

The neighborhood watch docs, IIRC, are all in the back of the first discovery release.
along with some wendy dorval emails and literature.

There was not an official, registered RATL neighborhood watch, nor did they have a manual.

There was a great deal of posting back and forth about that, about whether GZ was actually "on duty" 24x7 ,etc.

ETA: you can find some of it around here

 

[KatieG]

I think so, yes.

May I ask why you think that?

 

[12AX7]

I can just imagine it.

Prosecutor: Mr. Zimmerman, does your neighborhood watch SOP tell you to get out of the car and follow suspicious persons?

Zimmerman: No.

Prosecutor: Why did you get out of your car?

Zimmerman: To maintain visual contact (and/or find an address).

Prosecutor: Did you say on the NEN call that "these guys always get away?" (parahrasing)

Zimmerman: Yes.

Prosecutor: You weren't going to let this one get away, were you?

Zimmerman: I, uh...

Prosecutor: Were you asked by Sanford Police Dept. if you were following him?

Zimmerman: Yes.

Prosecutor: Did they tell you not to do that ("Ok, we don't need you to do that.")?

Zimmerman: Yes.





This is important because Trayvon ran from George ("he's running"). Trayvon attempted to disengage from this encounter. George then chose to continue it, not wait for the police who were en route, and against his own NW SOP and advice from SPD dispatch.

He ends up with a few minor cuts and a (maybe) broken nose. Nothing like the viscious, life-threatening beat-down he described. And at the end of all this, an unarmed teenager is shot and killed.

George will be shown to be the aggressor in this conflict.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I am not responsible for how your interpret my posts. I made a statement, you don't agree. Works for me, as I don't agree with many of your posts. The little slam about my "precious JQ"? Name-calling? Slamming another poster? Don't see the difference.

I interpreted your post as a statement, then you told me it was an opinion, now you are back to explaining how it was actually a statement, just like I originally said.

It is unlikely you will find a post here on JREF where I call another poster a name. Yet, the term "Trayvon Truther" is consistently used here as a slam on posters who simply want the truth in this case. Hmmmm, maybe there is some "truth" in that phrase.

I don't understand why you want to engage in this dialogue with me, I'm not using the phrase. Quite the opposite.

Trayvon truthers is no better than the Z team.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

May I ask why you think that?

Because it was his neighborhood, he had a legal right to walk in it... it had been beset by burglaries and he was attempting to be proactive and help put an end to that. That's a noble and good goal.

He was trying to have the most up to date information of where the suspect was at when the responding officer called him back. Giving that officer an address on Twin Trees, which Trayvon was getting further and further away from... wasn't going to be much help.

Zimmerman was taking steps to try to actually bring about a confrontation. A confrontation between Trayvon and a police officer, that is. I don't believe Zimmerman ever desired to come into direct contact with Trayvon. I don't think he dreamed Trayvon would come back north. I don't think it was unreasonable for him to think he wouldn't.

It's unfortunate what ended up happening, but I don't think there was any way Zimmerman could have foreseen that outcome.

I can understand why Trayvon might have been alarmed that George had gotten out of his truck, but I think he had a lot of good options if he was scared, and most didn't even involve contact with George.

I think the proper way for that evening to conclude would have been George sheepishly realizing he'd gotten an officer out there for no reason, the officer never finding Trayvon, and Trayvon could've just told his dad about some guy who was tailing him.

But personally, I think Trayvon knew who George was on the phone with. I think he was sick of getting in trouble and acted on his frustrations. I think his goal was a one punch knockout, and he improvised very poorly when that didn't go to plan. That's just my speculation, though.

 

[johnny karate]

You've yet to address my earlier logic. "Needed" is not the same as "could use, but would rather not", therefore it's not the opposite of "not needed".

No, I've addressed it. Just maybe not to your satisfaction.

You've recently made two assertions that were untruthful - if not outright fabrications- which demonstrated to me your agenda is to defend Zimmerman at all costs:

The doctor obviously had to view the wound that day to make a diagnosis, so why is there still a butterfly bandage there if it's "closed"? Perhaps GZ removed the bandaging the doctor put there, and put on a butterfly bandage to make his wounds look more severe?

Because the dispatcher said to him "He's running? Which way is he running?"

The "way" he was running was concealed by multiple large obstructions (town homes), and from GZ's vantage point at the time the dispatcher requested that information of him, the answer was not sufficiently attainable.

So I'm only willing to go so far down the rabbit hole with you.

I'm asking you if that's what you are saying. This is GZ's statement in question:

"She said I could use stitches, but she'd rather not put them in, as long as I didn't mess with my head, cuz the skin was already healing nicely".

Are you saying that he's "implying" that the doctor refused to give him the treatment he "needed"?

I'm saying he dishonestly tried to make he seem like his injuries were worse than they actually were when asked about them by the police.

If you want to find logical consistency in Zimmerman's dishonesty, it's a journey you'll have to take on your own.

 

[Rare Truth]

You seem to have more familiarity with their previous existence in this thread than I do. Do you know what I can use to narrow my search? For example, do you happen to know what user likely posted them?

I don't mind searching for them, because I am interested. I don't recall seeing anything specific to GZ's NW org, that precedes the incident, that specifically states anything about not getting out of a vehicle.

Seeing I'm feeling generous.

(remember that now...)

The actual handbook handed out by Zimmerman of the Sanford NW Program

http://www.scribd.com/doc/87073326/NWProgramHandbook

 

[johnny karate]

Bump for Skeptic Tank.

Or any other takers.

 

[phonebook]

No, I've addressed it. Just maybe not to your satisfaction.

Well, if I may ask but one thing of you then, and that is for you to point out where you addressed it. I would appreciate it.