Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[TheL8Elvis]

I think her story has lots of holes of in it. I speculated on her meaning, you don't agree. That's ok with me. As to the holes in her story, until we see the whole thing laid out, it's hard to tell whether those holes will matter or not.

s/her/his

 

[12AX7]

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.

I understand that that photo causes you some discomfort; it's OK. The sooner you realize why (because it shows that George does not look like he suffered an attack like he describes), you'll begin to understand why your position looks ridiculous to others.

Address the fact that the EMTs on the scene thought he was going to the hospital.

I can't answer why someone thought something. Are you asking why the EMTs suggested a hospital trip? Probably for liability reasons. My elderly mother has interacted with EMTs several times; she's always advised to go to the hospital. The real question is why didn't George go? I mean, he was near beat-to-death. Again, you and other George supporters have to square this part of the story up; do whatever you can to make it fit his "fear for his life" story. So savage a beating he didn't even get a Band-Aid on the small cuts on his head? No ice pack? No ED visit? No black eyes? Swelling gone down just hours later? Bottom line: George didn't suffer a beating that warranted the use of deadly force to stop. I think a jury will see this as well.

Address Serinos statement that GZs injuries as "marginally consistent with a life threatening violent encounter"

I don't think the word "marginally" here helps George at all. Obviously you feel differently.

Quit focusing on how you feel they "look".

Why not? Can you honestly say that the pic I posted looks like George was hit "25-30" times? Can you honestly say those two small cuts (that didn't require stitches or even an ice pack or Band-Aid) look like "slamming" of his head into concrete? Can you honestly say his face looks like someone who was attacked violently enough to kill the attacker? Honestly?

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

And Trayvon had no right to defent himself, right? We've been over this. Geroge defending himself? Good. Trayvon defending himself? Bad.

 

[remirol]

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?

Why is that relevant ?

Uh huh. So you're just as much a layperson as he is and you're just slinging that word around in an attempt to poison the well rather than address the actual discussion. I thought so.

No, this is an Internet forum.

A dodge, how unsurprising.

The point being made, since you appear to need things spelled out, is that six people's opinions are going to decide this case... not an extensive double-blind study that gets peer reviewed. The prosecution will present its case, the defense will cross-examine as they see fit to poke holes in it, and then the defense will present their case while the prosecution does the same. After that, six people will go into a room and decide whether or not George is guilty of second-degree murder.

The additional point here is that I personally am making the effort to view everything through the lens of how it will be presented to the jury, and I think all this piddling around about "prove" and "can't prove" over trivial **** is a bunch of pointless nonsense. The jury is going to hear Witness 8's story, and the defense is going to have an opportunity to impeach her credibility. After that, it's up to whether the jury believes her. Same with all the other witnesses, with the possible exception of George as he has the opportunity to not take the stand (and I think it will sink him if he does and sink him if he doesn't, so he's in real bad shape IMO).

All this dithering over the minute details and whether they're objectively true or not is really losing focus on the big picture. Both sides are going to be heard. It's who manages to be more believable who'll win. :/

 

[Cylinder]

It's who manages to be more believable who'll win. :/

Keeping in mind, of course, that the standard of proof for the state is beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[remirol]

Keeping in mind, of course, that the standard of proof for the state is beyond a reasonable doubt.

Yes. Beyond a reasonable doubt in those six people's minds.

Not by your definition of reasonable doubt, or mine, or anyone here's. If those six people can be convinced that George committed murder, he's he'll be found guilty. [ETA: good point Dan O]

The point is that the methods of arranging that convincing are not limited to those which would pass peer review, or for which absolute incontrovertible evidence can be offered. Circumstantial evidence is largely useless in a scientific experiment, but has far greater weight in a courtroom (possibly more than it should, but we live in the world as it is, not as we think it should be). Eyewitness evidence is mostly rubbish, but swings cases all the time because those are ordinary people in the jury box, not trained rational thinkers who are aware that eyewitness evidence is crap.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Yes. Beyond a reasonable doubt in those six people's minds.

Errm... twelve...

 

[Unabogie]

Errm... twelve...

Not in Florida.

 

[Cylinder]

Errm... twelve...

Actually, it may be 6. Florida allows 6-person juries for non-capitol offenses - which is the common law minimum. I'm guessing O'Mara will move for a 12-person jury and the state will want 6.

 

[Dan O.]

Yes. Beyond a reasonable doubt in those six people's minds.

Not by your definition of reasonable doubt, or mine, or anyone here's. If those six people can be convinced that George committed murder, he's will be found guilty.

Yea, I know you are looking at it from their potential perspective. But lets try to be accurate here.

 

[remirol]

... but you're still dealing with 12 (six, apparently) humans in a jury trial, and they typically start out slightly predisposed towards "Why are you here if you didn't do something wrong?"

Tiny aside that has nothing to do with your greater point: There will only be six jurors at the trial.

Noted. I am unfamiliar with this concept so I can't say whether a half-jury would lean more towards conviction or acquittal; though I would note that this is six fewer people who can get "stuck" and render the whole thing hung.

Errm... twelve...

(see above; I thought so too)

Yea, I know you are looking at it from their potential perspective. But lets try to be accurate here.

</fixed>

 

[Dancing David]

He claimed to be punched 25-30 times in the face. He claimed that his assailant stopped his breathing by smothering him. He claimed that his assailant bashed his head into the concrete so many times he thought it was going to explode. He claimed that when he was hit, it was so hard that it felt like he had bricks in his hands. Are you really disputing what we all know to be true?

But what did you say?

"But he CLAIMED he was beat within an inch of his life."

Where did he claim that?

 

[AlBell]

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.

IIRC, the fear for his life was based on TM reaching for GZ's gun, and not any beating he was (or was not) enduring.

 

[remirol]

IIRC, the fear for his life was based on TM reaching for GZ's gun, and not any beating he was (or was not) enduring.

I wouldn't use that rationale if I were George.

The two obvious questions that will follow on from the prosecution are "How did TM know that George had a gun" and "How did TM know where George's gun was in order to grab for it... in the dark... during a scuffle?"

Everyone knows where a police officer's gun is because he's open-carrying and it's usually in the same spot for all officers. But concealed carry is a different realm entirely -- so even if they can point to a spot in George's statement where he calls out "I have a gun!", that still gives the prosecution a spot to insert a wedge of doubt.

 

[Dan O.]

IIRC, the fear for his life was based on TM reaching for GZ's gun, and not any beating he was (or was not) enduring.

It may require both. Without the beating over a two minute period of being restrained, you cannot prescribe a reasonable fear that the gun will be used.

 

[Dancing David]

So, you guys agree that in a criminal case, a civil attorney recorded coaching a witness and editing a recording of that coaching should be free from examination by a defendant?

It depends on what evidence is presented at the trial.
If that deposition or affidavit is presented that contains said behaviors, then that is casue to examine it. So when and if that deposition/affidavit is presented, then there are grounds to consider the question.

Otherwise you have to state how this influenced the behavior of a witness at the trial.

 

[KatieG]

s/her/his

That certainly adds to the discussion.

 

[Dancing David]

I was expressing myself through sarcasm in response to comments/opinions similar to the one below:



The above comment seems to imply GZ was only concerned about the potential illegal activities perpetrated by blacks, since blacks were the only ones reported in his previous calls (which isn't true). I'm not sure how complete my source is (HERE), but her suggestion that "You need only read his history of calls placed to the police, even before he move to RATL", specifically the highlighted part, isn't accurate. My source shows the only time race was specified, before he moved to the RATL, was when there were (2) Hispanic males, with (1) White male; and (1) White male which was GZ's former roommate.

If you wish to have the thread moderated then sarcasm is a great means of escalating the bickering.

 

[Dancing David]

You missed one..

You may notice that I am only reading two pages a day, and it also depends upon my homework load. My comments are running at least a day behind.

 

[Dancing David]

Hmmm, I think some people might have a problem with: "you are not permitted to go out onto your neighborhood street if there might possibly be a bad person there… because if they were to attack you and you defended yourself, you would then be legally liable for them launching an unprovoked assault." I mean, that would completely negate the validity of (police-approved) neighborhood watch patrols… after all the watch is either going to not see anyone "bad", in which case the patrol isn't needed, or, they will see a "bad" person, in which case they shouldn't be walking the dangerous streets anyway!!

Anyway:

Rights:
1- To get out of one's truck
2- To walk along the public sidewalk

Not a right:
3- To try and detain someone against their will
4- To assualt someone who is not an immediate danger to you

We know that GZ did "1" and TM did "2". GZ may have done "3" and TM may have done "4" (but we don't know).

I notice that you have missed the continuing basis of my statements regarding the possible arguments about GZ's reasonablesness in leaning the vehicle, at no point have I said anything about rights, do you wish to discuss the basis of the possible discussion of reasonableness? It is likely that the prosecution will frame that in terms of GZ's knowledge and information regarding his attempts to start a neighborhood watch.

I have not mentioned anything about rights in particular regard to this possible line of argument by the prosecution.

 

[Rare Truth]

doctor would have had to view his bare, unbandaged skin to assess the I never claimed to be an expert at identifying bandages on sight. I also explained that the reasoning behind me using the term "butterfly" bandage was from a comment I pulled directly from GZ's walk through video, apparently by the person operating the camera, or someone just off screen (I even provided a link to show this). Considering GZ had visited his doctor earlier that day, and that wounds she notes on the medical report, I made the assumption that the doctor is the one that provided him the bandages seen on his head ~6 hours later.

...

In reviewing some of the older discovery docs, and recalling the 'who put the butterfly bandages on' discussion -- I did find confirmation there, it was, as I suspected waaaaaaaaaaaay back when (and was mocked for it) that it was Shellie, his wife, who fixed him up.

She placed the bandages on him. Confirmed.