Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[This is The End]

Reaching for my gun would give me reasonable fear it would be used to shoot me, and I wouldn't need an ongoing beating to reach that conclusion. ymmv.

What about someone reaching for your gun, but from far enough away, or slowly enough, that you are able to get to it first?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Jeralyn Merritt deconstructs the states response.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2013/3/29/74056/4011

2 things I thought worth pointing out:

Fourth: This is now the third time Witness 8 has said Trayvon Martin initiated the verbal encounter between him and Zimmerman. ...

...it is important to set the record straight about a few undisputed facts. ....Defendant confronted Trayvon Martin

Not only is that disputed rather than undisputed, it is contrary to the three statements of Witness 8 and the testimony of the state's investigator at the April 20 bond hearing:

O'Mara: So do you know who started the fight? GILBREATH: Do I know?
O'MARA: Right.
GILBREATH: No.
O'MARA: Do you have any evidence that supports who may have started the fight?
GILBREATH: No.

Someone should tell her that the state was probably just playing coy, and that's not how things work.

Also:

On the legal issue, I'm out of time and will have to write a separate post. Let me just suggest that it is the prosecutor, not O'Mara, who needs a dictionary, and preferably a legal one, on exculpatory and impeaching information and the duties of disclosure. Significantly, he admits Witness 8's hospital lie is impeaching information he had a duty to disclose:
The State agrees that potential impeachment material should be (and has been) disclosed. Defense Counsel admits that he was informed on March 4, 2013, before any hearing on the matter, that the witness had not gone to the hospital. Defendant completely fails to identify any actual prejudice or additional cost affiliated with this issue.

 

[Rare Truth]

Still an argument from incredulity, and still not proof GZ said that.

We'll let the audience decide how incredulous it was.

Howzabouthat?

 

[Rare Truth]

Jeralyn has been so *********** wrong so many *********** times it's a pure amazement so many still fall at the feet of the Timothy McVeigh defender.

Truly amazing.

 

[KatieG]

Jeralyn Merritt has never met a defendant she didn't like. She's the opposite of Nancy Grace.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

We'll let the audience decide how incredulous it was.

Howzabouthat?

I don't follow. You want to vote on whether a logical fallacy is actually a fallacy ?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Jeralyn has been so *********** wrong so many *********** times it's a pure amazement so many still fall at the feet of the Timothy McVeigh defender.

Truly amazing.

Jeralyn Merritt has never met a defendant she didn't like. She's the opposite of Nancy Grace.

That's great. Whether you like her or not seems irrelevant.

Feel free to shred the points she made, then. Have at it.

 

[Unabogie]

This feels like 2012 again. We've already discusses this. It doesn't matter who spoke first. If George chased a 17 year old kid with his gun in tow, never said why he was chasing him, and then tried to grab him, it doesn't matter if Trayvon asked him why he was stalking him before George murdered him, does it? I bet some of Ted Bundy's victims spoke first as well. This is a really stupid point.

 

[Mister Earl]

I'm going to be honest - that's not a very compelling offer. You say whatever you think is true, and it's up to me or someone else to follow behind and correct you ?

My apologies. I must've missed the disclaimer stating that nobody can participate if they don't have every bit of this case fully memorized. Well. Once I do accomplish that and pass the Zimmerman/Trayvon case board, is there any particular notary you want me to use when I get my sworn statement saying I can contribute here? I'm willing to work with you

His doctors office, the next day. It was not a doctor, but a PA (that distinction is very important to some people) The complete diagnosis was posted by phonebook as a link a page or two back.

I think I remember that.

Dr. office didn't take pictures, afaik. There are no "here is the black eye picture" because anyone who interacted with - Serino, singleton, etc - can all vouch that they saw him with a black eyes from his broken nose.

Was his head x-rayed? Or was it more along the lines of, "Sure looks broke to me!"

I don't know how long the black eyes remained.

Let's say they lasted less than a day. Would you be willing to consider a misdiagnosis as a possiblity?

As to what he said - he gave a written statement, 2 or 3 interviews, and a video walkthrough. Links have been posted to all of those throughout the thread.

Eh... given the nature of Zimmerman, I'm sure you can understand, even if not agree, why some of us might be skeptical about his truthfulness.

 

[tsig]

That was one hell of a smackdown. One of Wildcat's most memorable posts!

Wonder why he doesn't acknowledge it?

Hmmm. :think:

Henceforth whenever Wildcat posts all one has to do is say Duane Allman and link that post.

 

[Mumbles]

I didn't make it up. I compared it to a professional photo taken an hour later. Just because you refuse to admit what your eyes tell you doesn't make that my problem.

There's not even a need for much of a conspiracy here. All I see, is that Zimmerman looked different in a well-lit room, than he did in a flash photo in the dark - which is not a surprise.

 

[phonebook]

Henceforth whenever Wildcat posts all one has to do is say Duane Allman and link that post.

He acknowledged his memory failed him by pointing out that he confused Allman with his bandmate Berry Oakley. If you look up Berry Oakley's story, you will see WildCat's explanation checks out.

It's possible to have a fatal head wound and not have so much as a headache.

Duane Allman said he was fine after his motorcycle crash and refused treatment. Got a ride home and then he dropped dead from a brain injury.

I didn't make it up, I confused it with his bandmate Berry Oakley, who died in almost the same spot in another motorcycle accident shortly after:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berry_Oakley

Sorry for my confusion, but the point stands - you can suffer a fatal skull fracture and not even realize anything major is wrong.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

My apologies. I must've missed the disclaimer stating that nobody can participate if they don't have every bit of this case fully memorized. Well. Once I do accomplish that and pass the Zimmerman/Trayvon case board, is there any particular notary you want me to use when I get my sworn statement saying I can contribute here? I'm willing to work with you

It's an ongoing test, we'll evaluate you as you go

I think I remember that.

Was his head x-rayed? Or was it more along the lines of, "Sure looks broke to me!"

No, there was no xray.

Let's say they lasted less than a day. Would you be willing to consider a misdiagnosis as a possiblity?

Sure. Do you have any evidence of that ?

Eh... given the nature of Zimmerman, I'm sure you can understand, even if not agree, why some of us might be skeptical about his truthfulness.

Yes, I understand that. On this particular issue I don't recall GZ ever saying anything about having black eyes.

 

[Mumbles]

This feels like 2012 again. We've already discusses this. It doesn't matter who spoke first. If George chased a 17 year old kid with his gun in tow, never said why he was chasing him, and then tried to grab him, it doesn't matter if Trayvon asked him why he was stalking him before George murdered him, does it? I bet some of Ted Bundy's victims spoke first as well. This is a really stupid point.

It's quite remarkable how much some people wish to harp on this. From the sounds of things, Zimmerman was following after Martin, first in his truck, and then on foot after Martin was alarmed by him and ran away. This marks Zimmerman as the clear aggressor in the case. The claim that Martin is somehow confrontational by asking *why* Zimmerman was being aggressive is laughable. He had a very good reason to question Zimmerman - namely, he had no idea why Zimmerman was following him, and assumed that Zimmerman wished him harm for no apparent reason (a correct assumption, even if you only assume that Zimmerman wanted him arrested).

 

[TheL8Elvis]

This feels like 2012 again. We've already discusses this. It doesn't matter who spoke first.

Then why is the state so insistent on it ? That's prima facie evidence to me that it is important.

If George chased a 17 year old kid with his gun in tow, never said why he was chasing him, and then tried to grab him,

That's a might big if that there is ZERO evidence to support.

it doesn't matter if Trayvon asked him why he was stalking him before George murdered him, does it? I bet some of Ted Bundy's victims spoke first as well. This is a really stupid point.

It seems like you understand that all the evidence that there is says TM confronted GZ. Therefor, who confronted who is now irrelevant since it doesn't favor TM.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

It's quite remarkable how much some people wish to harp on this. From the sounds of things, Zimmerman was following after Martin, first in his truck, and then on foot after Martin was alarmed by him and ran away. This marks Zimmerman as the clear aggressor in the case. The claim that Martin is somehow confrontational by asking *why* Zimmerman was being aggressive is laughable. He had a very good reason to question Zimmerman - namely, he had no idea why Zimmerman was following him, and assumed that Zimmerman wished him harm for no apparent reason (a correct assumption, even if you only assume that Zimmerman wanted him arrested).

You mist be talking about BDLR harping on that point. He certainly has taken every opportunity.

As to your claim that following someone makes them the "aggressor", I disagree.
ag·gres·sor
Noun
A person or country that attacks another first.
Synonyms
assailant - attacker - raider - invader - assaulter

According to GZ, the aggressor is TM. According to GZ and witness 8, the person who initiated the confrontation is TM.

If you have evidence that says otherwise, please share.

 

[Unabogie]

It's quite remarkable how much some people wish to harp on this. From the sounds of things, Zimmerman was following after Martin, first in his truck, and then on foot after Martin was alarmed by him and ran away. This marks Zimmerman as the clear aggressor in the case. The claim that Martin is somehow confrontational by asking *why* Zimmerman was being aggressive is laughable. He had a very good reason to question Zimmerman - namely, he had no idea why Zimmerman was following him, and assumed that Zimmerman wished him harm for no apparent reason (a correct assumption, even if you only assume that Zimmerman wanted him arrested).

Then why is the state so insistent on it ? That's prima facie evidence to me that it is important.

That's a might big if that there is ZERO evidence to support.

It seems like you understand that all the evidence that there is says TM confronted GZ. Therefor, who confronted who is now irrelevant since it doesn't favor TM.

Again, we're back in 2012. There are two things going on here and you're trying to conflate them.

First is who initiated the confrontation? And that's clearly the defendant. He flew out of his truck, cussing at the "suspect" and carrying his gun. He clearly caught up with him because the dead body of the child he murdered is nowhere near where he claimed the fight took place. The idea that after he caught his victim, that the victim cried out for him to explain why he was stalking him is the same as starting the confrontation is bizarre.

Let's play a game. A man breaks into your home and opens your bedroom door. You cry out "who's there?" and then he shoots you.

Who started the confrontation?

 

[Darkman]

George Zimmerman case: Lawyers trade heated motions

By Jeff Allen, Reporter
Last Updated: Friday, March 29, 2013, 6:49 PM

SANFORD -- News 13 legal analyst Mark NeJame says the back and forth jabs between attorneys in the George Zimmerman case appear to be getting personal, which could have an outcome on the case...

http://www.cfnews13.com/content/new...articles/cfn/2013/3/29/george_zimmerman_.html

 

[Mumbles]

Then why is the state so insistent on it ? That's prima facie evidence to me that it is important.

At what point id the state become insistent upon which person first verbally confronted who?

That's a might big if that there is ZERO evidence to support.

Well, aside from the 311 call where Zimmerman jumps out of his car in order to chase Martin - such as at roughly 2:08 here.

It seems like you understand that all the evidence that there is says TM confronted GZ. Therefor, who confronted who is now irrelevant since it doesn't favor TM.

There's only one problem. It's perfectly reasonable to confront strangers, in some cases. If I see a stranger in my house, confronting them does not make me responsible for what happens to them. If I confront a stranger in the middle of a martial arts tournament as participants, we're good, as we've both agreed to a non-lethal fight. And if I confront a stranger who is following me around for no reason (I've done this before), then it's a reasonable confrontation.

Zimmerman was following Martin around for no apparent reason, and Martin confronted him because of that. Good for Martin!

 

[Unabogie]

At what point id the state become insistent upon which person first verbally confronted who?



Well, aside from the 311 call where Zimmerman jumps out of his car in order to chase Martin - such as at roughly 2:08 here.



There's only one problem. It's perfectly reasonable to confront strangers, in some cases. If I see a stranger in my house, confronting them does not make me responsible for what happens to them. If I confront a stranger in the middle of a martial arts tournament as participants, we're good, as we've both agreed to a non-lethal fight. And if I confront a stranger who is following me around for no reason (I've done this before), then it's a reasonable confrontation.

Zimmerman was following Martin around for no apparent reason, and Martin confronted him because of that. Good for Martin!

Yep. As I wrote above:

Let's play a game. A man breaks into your home and opens your bedroom door. You cry out "who's there?" and then he shoots you.

Who started the confrontation?