Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[WildCat]

Imminent unlawful force.

I wasn't aware that Martin was psychic.

And what was this "imminent unlawful force"? Are you psychic too?

 

[WildCat]

Irrelevant. Don't weasel out of what you just did. You bold faced lied about what someone else said just so you could please yourself shredding a strawman. And you got caught doing it.

And worse yet, you don't even have the grapes to man up to it and apologize.

Tell me, why should I or anyone else even bother debating with you if you're just going to argue what you prefer your opponents are saying, rather than the actual arguments they're using?

Your inability to comprehend what Unabogie wrote is your problem, not mine.

 

[phonebook]

Which George denied to the police.

What did he deny?

 

[Dan O.]

How long has George Zimmerman been living in that neighborhood and still he doesn't know the name of the second major street?

Every day when George gets in his truck and heads for the main entrance, as he pulls up in front of the clubhouse and prepares to make a left at the stop sign, there is a street sign over the stop sign, we could probably read that sign ourselves in the reenactment video.

 

[Unabogie]

What did he deny?

Looking for his victim after he said "ok".

No one believes him on this, not even his supporters, apparently.

 

[WildCat]

And still think it is.

There is no evidence of GZs "imminent use of unlawful force." , except in your imagination.

And as I pointed out earlier, GZ is still entitled to self defense regardless, and the witnesses bear him out.

Let's recap what we've learned in this exchange:

1. It's okay to assault someone if your spidey senses tell you they're about to use "imminent unlawful force".

2. It's not okay to defend yourself from someone who is actually assaulting you.

Curiouser and curiouser.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

You're going to need to provide quotes or at least cites for Witnesses 11, 12, and 18, because I'm not seeing where they made the claims you attribute to them.

It's 12,13 and 18. I'll post it separately as it will take a little effort to track down.

However, I think the fight absolutely did move, as in there was a fight in which two people were engaged and on their feet.

The problem this presents for Zimmerman is that he repeatedly asserted he was immediately down on his back with Martin on top of him.

The non-explanation he later offered was in contradiction to those initial assertions.

Furthermore, it makes no sense.

Zimmerman was backing up towards his car - to the west - when he was supposedly approached by Martin from the south. And yet Zimmerman somehow stumbled/ran some 50 feet further south past his alleged assailant.

That anyone buys such a load of crap is mind-boggling.

*shrugs* BTDTGTTS. It's not 50 feet, really. It's ~37 from the edge of the sidewalk to TMs body. As I said, witness 6 claims to have seen them move 5-10 feet in the few seconds he watched. That's ~1/4 of the claimed movement in that brief part of the fight. GZ small keychain flashlight is near the Tee with no other reasonable explanation of how it got there.

So ... I'm waiting on your evidence and alternate theory. Even if you are content to just disbelieve GZ, I'm not, not without a reasonable theory of what did happen that meets the evidence.

That goes both ways.

You seem to have no problem with Zimmerman moving in and out of a state of fear, but somehow Martin had to be sprinting directly home in a panic or he wasn't afraid at all.

Furthermore, there is no claim regarding Martin's state of fear to rebut. It's all speculation. Perhaps he was just wary or concerned.

Either way, we know he did run away from Zimmerman.

Yes, know he did run away from Zimmerman.
I don't claim TM had to sprint home. I do claim he had time to if he wanted to be safe at home. I do thinks its possible to talk about what a reasonable person would do in such a situation, depending on how scared a person might be. Because except for what GZ says, speculation seems to be all there is.

I didn't make the argument that Zimmerman was the aggressor, I made the argument that circumstances cast him in the light of the aggressor.

And a total stranger pursuing someone at night as they flee from him certainly does that.

OK, you certainly did make that more specific claim. But it seems to me to be a difference without a distinction to me.

That's ridiculous. Of course there is. Zimmerman sat in his car watching a kid walk home from the store at night, and when that kid was sufficiently creeped out/threatened/bothered he fled the scene. Zimmerman then got out of his car to go after him.

If I need to be more specific, GZ did not do anything to actively engage TM in a physical way.

Yes, I concede he watched TM from his car. " sufficiently creeped out/threatened/bothered he fled the scene" is such a range of possible affectation , in my opinion, as to be useless.

No, she doesn't.

And when did you start believing anything Witness 8 had to say?

I did qualify her as dubious. Not good enough ? AFAIK, she actually was on the phone with him. But that could change, because that specific evidence hasn't been released to the public.

But yes, 3 times she has claimed TM spoke to GZ. That is initiating a confrontation. I assume you will let me know how you define it differently.

Other than the fact that he was punched in the nose, no there isn't.

Well, that's more evidence than exists for GZ assaulting TM in any way, so my point stands.

Again, that's nonsense. Even in Zimmerman's sanitized, self-serving version of events, there was plenty about his behavior for Martin to feel reasonably threatened.

To feel threatened, sure. To assault GZ, no.

I'll take the opinions of whatever medical professionals the prosecution calls to the stand against the opinion of someone with no medical training any day of the week.

Yup, and I am sure the defense will have thier own professionals. So they cancel out. Then you add in the SPDs non-professionals that fall on GZ side, advantage GZ.

I don't see why they will necessarily have to. The thorough shredding they give to Zimmerman's fanciful tale should probably be enough.

I only brought up in the context of this discussion.

Just so I am clear than - you're not going down the whole TM gets to Stand His Ground path ?

I don't see the prosecution going down that path. Not because I agree with your idea on it, but just because I don't think it will be of any benefit to them.

The standard is a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm.

If the prosecution is successful in taking Zimmerman's story apart and branding him a self-serving liar, I don't see why a jury would buy it when he claims his fear was reasonable to necessitate deadly force.

I guess we'll see. I think witness validation of TM on top of GZ will be enough to tip things in GZ favor of a reasonable doubt.

 

[phonebook]

Looking for his victim after he said "ok".

No one believes him on this, not even his supporters, apparently.

GZ has denied continuing to search for TM, as in him walking at any point south of the top of the T. Him looking down the street is not "looking for him" in the context he was asked in his interviews.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

"If Martin didn't flee
You must set George free"

That may be your best work to date.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Really? You think inventing a "convenient excuse" is different from lying? And then you say he wasn't following him because he thought he'd gone one way, went to look for him there, but was wrong about where he was and therefore that's different from "following"?

Sometimes I think you're just doing this for the lulz.

Yes, I think a convenient is excuse is different from outright lying.

I also think when you are following someone and you go a different way than they went, you are no longer following them.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

This post pretty much encapsulates your ongoing sophistry on this issue.

Zimmerman deceived the court and got caught doing so. In order to avoid admitting that simple truth, you've concocted some wild fantasy about a respected and prominent defense attorney flagrantly risking his law license for no particular reason.

Yeah... all you're doing there is rewording the same goofy theory. O'Mara risked disbarment and criminal charges to screw over his client, who then decided to leave his life in the hands of the man who just screwed him over. No matter how much you try to downplay it, it's still irrational.

I'm not asserting it's irrational, I'm arguing that it's irrational by

So - I forgot to ask, is BDLR also irrational ? Is he just off on a wild fantasy as well ?

http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0313/response_to_sanctions.pdf

B) On several occasions Defense Counsel asserted to the Court that Defendant was indigent, and he was unaware of the "defense fund" dollars his client had received. However, Defendant and his wife said otherwise2:
In a jail call with his wife, they talked about Defense Counsel knowing about the money.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Wow, that is so sad. It is literally the most minor overlooked thing imaginable. No one kept anything from them, it was nothing! I seriously doubt the judge is going to see anything to this either.

http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0313/response_to_sanctions.pdf
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.

It looks to me like the state admitted that it withheld potential impeachment material for months. Does it read that way to you, OnlyTellsTruths ? Or does it still look like no one kept anything from the defense ?

 

[Mister Earl]

Your inability to comprehend what Unabogie wrote is your problem, not mine.

Sorry to see that you're incapable of taking responsibility for being intentionally wrong. I think we don't have anything to talk about any more. What is there more to say to a blatant liar?

Take care of yourself.

 

[Darkman]

now, now ... no need to start getting personal, people...

 

[Dan O.]

*shrugs* BTDTGTTS. It's not 50 feet, really. It's ~37 from the edge of the sidewalk to TMs body. As I said, witness 6 claims to have seen them move 5-10 feet in the few seconds he watched. That's ~1/4 of the claimed movement in that brief part of the fight. GZ small keychain flashlight is near the Tee with no other reasonable explanation of how it got there.

The closer to the sidewalk you place Trayvon, the harder it becomes for you to explain the evidence.

Yes, know he did run away from Zimmerman.
I don't claim TM had to sprint home. I do claim he had time to if he wanted to be safe at home. I do thinks its possible to talk about what a reasonable person would do in such a situation, depending on how scared a person might be. Because except for what GZ says, speculation seems to be all there is.

You are arguing to unilaterally throw out Florida's Stand Your Ground law. Trayvon was in a place he was entitled to be and was not engaged in any activity that eliminated his right to use force if he reasonably believed force was going to be used against him. Trayvon has the right to remain silent and require that the case against his right to use force in self defense be proven. Trayvon has not given up his right to remain silent.

If I need to be more specific, GZ did not do anything to actively engage TM in a physical way.

An assertion without evidence. Trayvon has no burden of proof here.

Just so I am clear than - you're not going down the whole TM gets to Stand His Ground path ?

Just to be clear. For the sake of argument here, I am. Turnabout forces you to argue against your own argument.

I don't see the prosecution going down that path. Not because I agree with your idea on it, but just because I don't think it will be of any benefit to them.

They won't be citing the law. But they will point out that Trayvon was in a place he was entitled to be and George had no authority to hunt him down.

 

[Dan O.]

I don't think he lied to the police. I think looking for a street sign was a convenient excuse to also see where TM went. But I certainly can't prove it. Nor do I find it to be particularly relevant a case of self defense.

There is no street sign on the other side of the cut through on Retreat View Circle. However, there is a street sign on the intersection probably no more than 10 feet from where George indicated he stopped to make the phone call. I don't buy that George didn't know the name of the street. And that is not the claim that George made to the dispatcher on the recorded phone call that night. George was out of his vehicle and somewhere in the open area. George had just given the dispatcher directions to his truck as a place to meet the responding officers. The Dispatcher asked "What address are you parked in front of? This is a very specific question asking for a street address for the location of the truck. He is not asking for the name of the street and probably already knows the name from the map in front of him. The dispatcher is also not asking for any address on another street as this won't provide any information for the officers to locate the truck. George is making up the whole issue of looking for a street sign or looking for an address to justify why he is out there.


About that truck: what is is that George mutters under his breath right after telling the dispatcher about his truck? Why doesn't George want to return to his truck to wait for the responding officers where he can get out of the rain? Why does George have his wife remove the truck from the area while the police are still responding?

 

[Cylinder]

Why would he be simultaneously trying to get the cops there and lying about his knowledge of where there is?

 

[Cylinder]

Why does George have his wife remove the truck from the area while the police are still responding?

That's not true. Zimmerman's truck was parked there for at least an hour after the incident. SPD ran the plate.

 

[Dancing David]

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).

Now while strongly worded, this is a line of argument that the prosecution is likely to follow. There are factors that can mitigate a self defense claim and then it will still be up to the jury which story sticks for them, the one where GZ's actions lead to the confrontation or the one where it is mutual and GZ has a reasonable fear of loss of life or serious physical injury.

 

[Dancing David]

It's my opinion that Zimmerman probably assaulted Martin, by stalking him on that night, and quite naturally making Martin feel (reasonable) fear. Which makes Zimmerman the aggressor.

Minor point, so far that would not be assault. Possibly perceived as threatening, yes.

To be argued by the prosecution, most certainly.