Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[phonebook]

Shall we agree to disagree at this point?

Sure, I can agree to that

 

[phonebook]

That TM kept trying to get away, and that GZ kept pursuing are both arguable.

I contend that if TM wanted to make it home, he had more than ample time.

What does Martin not sprinting directly home prove exactly?

Doesn't prove anything. Just seems inconsistent with the story that he was in a hurry to get home to watch the NBA All-Star game, which is the story his family presented around the time this whole event made the news, as far as I can recall.

You'll have to provide a quote to back up your "recollection". Then you'll have to explain how Martin's family knew what he was thinking shortly before Zimmerman killed him. Did they hold a seance?

This is the best link I could find that represents what I said above - Link

Trayvon Martin was shot dead after he took a break from watching NBA All-Star game television coverage to walk 10 minutes to a convenience store to buy snacks including Skittles candy requested by his 13-year-old brother, Chad, the family's lawyer Ben Crump said.

Perhaps Martin's family didn't know what TM was thinking "shortly before Zimmerman killed him", but the last person to talk to him before he died did:

http://www.talkleft.com/zimm/deedeestatetranscript.pdf

About halfway through page 22 to the beginning of 23.

Dee Dee says Trayvon told her that he had left his little brother at home, and he was trying to rush back home to finish watching the All-Star game.

 

[Dan O.]

True, but still, it was after the dispatcher asked which way he was running.

No. You have to compensate for the cell phone delay. Try calling your cell from another line and listen to both while you talk. On Georges end, everything the dispatcher says will appear shifted earlier by about 300 milliseconds. For George, the clicks begin after the dispatcher says "Which way".

It does appear that George is taking his time. From the time he says ****, it's almost 3 seconds to put the car in park (though that could be because he had been moving), opening the door at 4 seconds, exiting the car at 5.5 seconds, closing the door at 7.5 seconds and locking the doors at 9 and 9.5 seconds.

It's a good thing George made sure his doors were locked. I've heard that's a pretty bad neighborhood. Now, if George took the keys with hime and locked the truck from the outside, what could he have possibly meant by "the keys are in my truck?

 

[phonebook]

Now, if George took the keys with hime and locked the truck from the outside, what could he have possibly meant by "the keys are in my truck?

This was discussed earlier; he didn't say that.

 

[KatieG]

Caught my own error. W8 was 18 yo the night of the shooting, not 17 yo as I referenced earlier.

 

[Dancing David]

You also realize that a jury might not view a broken nose and lacerations to the back of one's head as "minor" injuries correct? Injuries that aren't minor, or trivial are equivalent to "great bodily harm", which would justify GZ's use of force.

Are you sure the case you cite is not about deadly force but about jury instructions in California and regards interpretation of a California statute?
"Thus, since "great bodily injury" and "serious bodily injury" are essentially equivalent terms, and since section 243 of the Penal Code similarly states that a "bone fracture" constitutes "serious bodily injury," there is no doubt that the jury was properly instructed. As a matter of law a bone fracture under the circumstances herein, constitutes a "significant or substantial injury" within the meaning of Penal Code section 12022.7."

So while IANAL, I do not see how the appeal process in a case involving jury instruction regarding a California statue, will justify GZ's 'reasonable fear of loss or life or serious physical harm' under Florida statutes and definitions.

Now some case law from Florida involving what grounds exist for defense of self from serious physical harm might be more relevant.

 

[Dancing David]

According to Florida (where it occured) laws it is ... IF acting in self-defense....

You don't like those laws --- change them.

You don't like the politicians who implemented those laws --- vote them out and get different ones.....

If you were engaged in actual discussion rather than whatever it is you are doing, you would know that there is substantial case law in Florida that constitutes what grounds there are and are not for lethal self defense. And that in fact this will be a considerable amount of the trial and jury instructions. And that they are further constrained by different FL appellate and federal appellate case law.

So your blanket statements are specious to say the least.

 

[Dancing David]

I agree with that point and can attest to the fact that my teens can be slugs when they are chatting on the phone. The argument was not regarding the walk home from the store though. The claim was that TM kept trying to get away from GZ, which may or may not be the case but TM cannot be both meandering on the phone with his friend and continuously trying to get away from GZ, simultaneously.

I agree I find both points specious, but when people say something like 'TM if he was this should have gone home', that is as specious as 'TM was suspicious because he was walking slowly'.

 

[Dancing David]

Teenager assaulted adult, adult killed teenager in legal self-defense.

And when was the trial held to show that it was legal self defense?

 

[Dancing David]

He needs to establish some sort of injury, doesn't he?

No, reasonable fear is the bar...

 

[Rare Truth]

He did have one notable injury: the abrasion on his left fourth finger, just below the knuckle (a location where someone making a fist and throwing a punch might receive an injury). I don't think we have enough information to go on to say that he would or wouldn't have specific hand injuries, but he clearly had at least one. His hands weren't immediately preserved the instant he was shot, and in fact his hands were never bagged (from what I've read), so if he had any amount of blood on his hands, it could have been altered at various points before his body made it to the Medical Examiner's office. Also, his "hands" were never tested for blood, only his fingernails clippings.

There are many who would say a 1/8 to 1/4 inch abrasion below the left knuckle isn't consistent with the beatings to the head the alleged murderer described. Also, no bruising. It should also be noted Trayvon was right-handed.

Blood would have been noted and tested. It's is beyond unfathomable to think medical examiners would see blood on a hand and only test under the nails and on the cuff portion of his arms. Strains credulity.

He was also fingerprinted at the scene. The body was covered with the yellow police tarp when the Medical Examiner came at 9:45. Pictures of his body were taken, then and his body was bagged and sent to autopsy.

I'd be willing to bet those pictures, or the testimony from the M.E.'s, et al, will not include any blood on T's hands.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

There are many who would say a 1/8 to 1/4 inch abrasion below the left knuckle isn't consistent with the beatings to the head the alleged murderer described. Also, no bruising. It should also be noted Trayvon was right-handed.

Yet an argument ad populum is still a logical fallacy, and isn't a valid argument that TM wasn't hitting GZ.

Blood would have been noted and tested. It's is beyond unfathomable to think medical examiners would see blood on a hand and only test under the nails and on the cuff portion of his arms. Strains credulity.

Yet an argument from incredulity is still a logical fallacy, and still isn't a valid argument that there wasn't blood on TMs hands.

He was also fingerprinted at the scene. The body was covered with the yellow police tarp when the Medical Examiner came at 9:45. Pictures of his body were taken, then and his body was bagged and sent to autopsy.

I'd be willing to bet those pictures, or the testimony from the M.E.'s, et al, will not include any blood on T's hands.

Maybe we'll know in June, then .

 

[Megalodon]

[qimg]http://i1324.photobucket.com/albums/u613/Binary3/zimmerman-horizontal-mugshot_zps909dbad9.jpg[/qimg]

Every. Sentence. Wrong.

Really? Can you point out the swelling of the nose? The blood stains on his clothes?

This was a man that had a broken nose due to a vicious assault, and was fighting for his life on a supine position. Where are the blood stains on his chest?

He is supposed to have been hit 20+ times on the face and head. Where is the splatter? Where are the injuries in TM's hands?

His nose and mouth are supposed to have been clamped shut. Where are the blood residues in TM's hands and fingernails?

The wounds in the back of his head didn't merit even iodine! That means they were very superficial.

I will tell you what is consistent with the evidence:

GZ followed and ultimately confronted TM. He tried to grab the kid, and got punched on the nose, falling down and hitting his head. TM pinned him down, and he panicked and started screaming. The neighbor came out and said he was calling the cops. TM eased the pressure and possibly got up. GZ shot him.

In my view, GZ is a murderer, but legally he might get away with it.

The points that in my (very irrelevant) view are essential for the trial, that I haven't looked up are:

- angle of entry of the bullet
- powder residues/burns on both GZ and TM clothes

This will determine if the shot was done at a very close range, during the ground scuffle, or after TM got up.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

George has some amazing healing powers.

[qimg]http://i1324.photobucket.com/albums/u613/Binary3/zimmerman-horizontal-mugshot_zps909dbad9.jpg[/qimg]

Keep pounding the table, even though it adds nothing to the discussion ...

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Really? Can you point out the swelling of the nose?

Here:

http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/docu..._exhibits/george_zimmerman_medical_report.pdf

"The swelling and black eyes are typical of this injury"

Officer Smith:
Zimmermnn nppeared to hAve a broken and bloody nose and swelling of his face

Officer Ayala:
Zimmerman was also bleeding from his nose and the back of his head

It's unfortunate there aren't transcripts of the EMT interviews. It's a pain link to the audio.
There's more, but that should be more than sufficient.

The blood stains on his clothes?

Since they tested blood stains on his clothes, that ought to be sufficient proof there was blood stains on his clothing.

This was a man that had a broken nose due to a vicious assault, and was fighting for his life on a supine position. Where are the blood stains on his chest?

He is supposed to have been hit 20+ times on the face and head. Where is the splatter? Where are the injuries in TM's hands?

His nose and mouth are supposed to have been clamped shut. Where are the blood residues in TM's hands and fingernails?

And here comes the argument from incredulity ....

The wounds in the back of his head didn't merit even iodine! That means they were very superficial.

According to who ? If they were superficial, why did the EMT on the scene think he was going to go to the hospital to get stitches ?

I will tell you what is consistent with the evidence:

GZ followed and ultimately confronted TM. He tried to grab the kid, and got punched on the nose, falling down and hitting his head. TM pinned him down, and he panicked and started screaming. The neighbor came out and said he was calling the cops. TM eased the pressure and possibly got up. GZ shot him.

Yes, congratulations, you made up a story for which you have no proof, but is not inconsistent with the evidence.

In my view, GZ is a murderer, but legally he might get away with it.

The points that in my (very irrelevant) view are essential for the trial, that I haven't looked up are:

- angle of entry of the bullet
- powder residues/burns on both GZ and TM clothes

This will determine if the shot was done at a very close range, during the ground scuffle, or after TM got up.

Well let us know what your findings are. I alway look forward to more forensic analysis from a layperson.

 

[12AX7]

Keep pounding the table, even though it adds nothing to the discussion ...

Keep ignoring the fact that George's injuries do not look like he took a "fear for his life" beating. And keep ignoring the lack of evidence of this vicious, life-threatening assault.

And be sure to keep blaming the victim and thinking up ways Trayvon could have ran home/should have been somewhere else. Keep handwaving the fact that your hero shot and killed an unarmed teenager, after having recieved wounds no worse than a couple of 6-year-olds fighting on a playground.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I agree I find both points specious, but when people say something like 'TM if he was this should have gone home', that is as specious as 'TM was suspicious because he was walking slowly'.

Why are those two examples specious ? If I were to generalize them, it seems you are saying you don't think it's possible to form a reasonable conclusion about someones thoughts and/or motivations from observations their actions. That seems very counter-intuitive, so could you explain more out those two examples you cited ?

 

[remirol]

Yes, congratulations, you made up a story for which you have no proof, but is not inconsistent with the evidence.

You do realize that this is a jury trial, not a scientific laboratory, right?

Well let us know what your findings are. I alway look forward to more forensic analysis from a layperson.

What are your qualifications with regard to criminal and forensic investigations, precisely?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Keep ignoring the fact that George's injuries do not look like he took a "fear for his life" beating. And keep ignoring the lack of evidence of this vicious, life-threatening assault.

I haven't ignored them, in fact, I've discussed them ad nauseum.

But I can't discuss them with you, because you don't want to have a discussion, you just want to keep reposting pictures and the same logical fallacies.

You want to have a discussion ?
Address the fact that the EMTs on the scene thought he was going to the hospital.
Address Serinos statement that GZs injuries as "marginally consistent with a life threatening violent encounter"
Quit focusing on how you feel they "look".

And be sure to keep blaming the victim

TM assaulted the victim and broke his nose and was on top of him continuing his assault according to witnesses.

and thinking up ways Trayvon could have ran home/should have been somewhere else. Keep handwaving the fact that your hero shot and killed an unarmed teenager, after having recieved wounds no worse than a couple of 6-year-olds fighting on a playground.

I've already informed you he's not my "hero".

How am I supposed to have a discussion with you when you simply ignore my statements in favor of your own "facts"...

 

[TheL8Elvis]

You do realize that this is a jury trial, not a scientific laboratory, right?

No, this is an Internet forum.

What are your qualifications with regard to criminal and forensic investigations, precisely?

Why is that relevant ?