Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[WildCat]

Well maybe GZ doesn't remember everything that happened in exquisite detail immediately after having his nose broken, and being knocked to the ground. Maybe that should be perfectly understandable. I guess we fault him for trying to explain what happened as best as he can remember?

This is why you should always carry a pen and notebook with you at all times, so you can document every second while someone is assaulting you to counter internet super-sleuths.

 

[tsig]

I think if the defense is going to rebut the thorough shredding Zimmerman's story is going to receive with memory experts testifying about the fallibility of human memory, Zimmerman is going away for a long time.

Yes, claiming your client's memory can't be depended on when his whole defense depends on his memory seems like a losing strategy to me.

 

[tsig]

Argument by YouTube? He didn't just have that model of flashlight, he had his own personal version of it. And that flashlight that he claimed didn't work, apparently worked. I know you guys don't accept that any of these things that hurt George's case, no matter how obvious, but I've long since given up hope that a trial will change any of that.

But hey, let's look at how the two sides are acting right now, eh?

Which of the two teams seems agitated and hesitant to get started and which one seems raring to go? Hint: it ain't George's team.

Z was all muzzy and woozy after a life threatening beating so when he said not working he really meant it was working.

(Debate is so fun when you can make it up on the run)

 

[WildCat]

Yes, claiming your client's memory can't be depended on when his whole defense depends on his memory seems like a losing strategy to me.

Alternatively, if the prosecution's best case is that Zimemrman's memory of where the fight started and ended is off by a few feet and he also doesn't remember exactly how many times he was hit and therefor he's a murderer Zimmerman walks.

It's kind of like 9/11 truthers who think Maneta's testimony of certain events being off by an hour proves inside job.

The discrepancies in Zimemrman's story have to have a material inconsistency, not just a trivial one. Hell, they're even trying to claim the flashlight working is a big "gotcha" moment, which is surprising to anyone who's ever owned a fickle flashlight. I have one on my desk right now that I couldn't get to work for days, now it works fine. I hope no juror is stupid enough to send a man to prison over a fickle cheap electronic device.

 

[tsig]

Alternatively, if the prosecution's best case is that Zimemrman's memory of where the fight started and ended is off by a few feet and he also doesn't remember exactly how many times he was hit and therefor he's a murderer Zimmerman walks.

It's kind of like 9/11 truthers who think Maneta's testimony of certain events being off by an hour proves inside job.

The discrepancies in Zimemrman's story have to have a material inconsistency, not just a trivial one. Hell, they're even trying to claim the flashlight working is a big "gotcha" moment, which is surprising to anyone who's ever owned a fickle flashlight. I have one on my desk right now that I couldn't get to work for days, now it works fine. I hope no juror is stupid enough to send a man to prison over a fickle cheap electronic device.

They'll send him to jail for killing Martin.

How can we depend on Zs' memory when he was disoriented from the shock of being hit?

 

[12AX7]

Alternatively, if the prosecution's best case is that Zimemrman's memory of where the fight started and ended is off by a few feet and he also doesn't remember exactly how many times he was hit and therefor he's a murderer Zimmerman walks.

Lucky for you, that's not the prosecution's case. Nice try though.

It's kind of like 9/11 truthers...

Wow. That again.

The discrepancies in Zimemrman's story have to have a material inconsistency, not just a trivial one.

Again, lucky for you they do have material inconsistencies. Another nice try though.

Just stick to music trivia from now on.

 

[WildCat]

They'll send him to jail for killing Martin.

How can we depend on Zs' memory when he was disoriented from the shock of being hit?

If it's established he was assaulted he has a clear claim of self defense. Especially coupled with the witness statements and forensics, none of which supports the murder charge. This prosecution is motivated by politics, not facts. I just hope no one else is killled when they fail to convict him.

 

[WildCat]

Lucky for you, that's not the prosecution's case. Nice try though.

So what is the prosecutor's case?

Wow. That again.

When the shoe fits...

Again, lucky for you they do have material inconsistencies. Another nice try though.

They do? Such as...?

I'm really curious how they're going to simultaneously claim that Martin was terrified of Zimmerman, yet couldn't be bothered to end his phone call to DeeDee to call the police or go back to his dad's place.

 

[This is The End]

Punch someone for looking at you funny (even if they reach into their pocket) or following you gets you charged with assault most anywhere.

That is not true.

If someone follows you. At night. Alone. Just you and the person following you. You try to get away. They keep following you. You then ask them what they want. They say "nothing" (the word) and reach for their pocket. You punch them. It ends there, and you have solid proof that it went down like that.

You would not get charged with assault in that scenario anywhere. Though you could still likely be sued civilly.

Alternately, if it happened in the middle of a busy shopping center full of people you would get charged "most anywhere".

If it's established he was assaulted he has a clear claim of self defense.

We do not have any evidence yet that shows who assaulted whom first.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

You're just making that up. Even he never claimed this, so you're embellishing the story in order to make it fit the facts instead of holding a killer to his word and subjecting it to skeptical analysis.

He clearly said he was rooted in place in the first 3 interviews. He was very specific. Punched once, immediately down to the ground, then held down and pummeled. You don't get to just make up some new testimony since we can all plainly see that his story doesn't add up.

Your post would be less ironic had GZ actually used the words and/or phrases "rooted in place" , "pummeled", or "immediately."

Let's see what GZ actually says: "The suspect punched me in the face . I fell backwards onto my back."

Is it surprising that he uses none of the words you use, yet you accuse someone else of "embellishing" the story ?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

So what we have is one witness who uses the T as a point of reference and in that instance, the witness only hears something that was in the area of the T.

Not exactly compelling evidence that the confrontation began at the T.

No, not exactly ironclad proof, but it's there none the less. They had their patio door open, and the heard the confrontation start at the Tee, and move down the sidewalk. That is contrary to the fight starting 50 feet away, or even starting south and moving north. And what they heard was arguing and scuffling.

And it still creates the problem of the fight moving contrary to Zimmerman's claims of being knocked down and helplessly pinned under Martin.

Only if you focus on certain statements and ignore others, which not all of us feel is necessary.

Furthermore, those two witnesses heard arguing.

Remind me again, when did Zimmerman tell police he was in an argument with Martin?

When both he and witnesses 8 described the exchange of words they had. That could certainly sound like an argument. And then when TM was on top of GZ telling him to "shut up" and GZ was trying to yell for help.

Again, the witness evidence validates GZ story.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

You are SUCH a joy to debate with (lol).

well said

 

[TheL8Elvis]

We do not have any evidence yet that shows who assaulted whom first.

Don't hold your breath waiting.

On a related note ... are you just doing drive-bys now ? Do you have any intentions to ever respond to discussions or questions related to what you post ?

 

[tsig]

If it's established he was assaulted he has a clear claim of self defense. Especially coupled with the witness statements and forensics, none of which supports the murder charge. This prosecution is motivated by politics, not facts. I just hope no one else is killled when they fail to convict him.

How can he establish that with his fuzzy memory after being beaten within an inch of his life?

 

[Dancing David]

That kinda favors GZ in the trial then, doesn't? Beyond a reasonable doubt and all.

Yes but in self defense there is a burden that rests on the defendant claiming self defense as well.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

It's in the audio interview with FDLE, I think. I'll track that down as well.

Here is that he just saw about 10 seconds:
http://cdn.talkleft.com/zimm/johnmarch20fdle.pdf
John W_6: Wearing the black top. 'Cause, from what I saw, ah, which was probably only-- 10 seconds
maybe?

Here is general descriptions of moving around:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/15BAR4U9x0_4RbYXe4sle0KePmSkemoNRmGZ6iu4XQd8/edit?pli=1
So, when they were wrestling, when I said, "Cut it out" and before I turned to go inside, they moved up onto the sidewalk, and they're no longer laying this way, they were this way at that point. So, they had wrestled to that point. They are parallel with the dog walk. This is the sidewalk. They were this way when I first saw them, wrestling and moved to that way.


Here is a more specific description of moving around, that still leaves you guessing. That's why I said "5-10 feet":
http://cdn.talkleft.com/zimm/johnmarch20fdle.pdf
John W_6: You want me to just make another "3" over here and just do it.
Investigator: Ah, just from right here off of the number 2 drawing, where the person on top--
John W_6: The person on top--
Investigator: As per your statement, the person on top was in a sprawled position, not moving. Where
was that location of that person. And if you'll just put a little "3" beside it and circle it so we'll know that
it's a--. Okay. Now, will you initial and date. It is the 20th. 6:53 pm. About how far were they from your -
and we'll walk over there - vantage point to where this was. About how far do you think it was?
John W_6: You're talking about--
Investigator: From-- From where you were looking--
John W_6: Point 3? Or just from where I saw--
Investigator: From-- From 1 and 2, when you were looking, from the pos--
John W_6: Oh, right at the window, and they were right before the sidewalk starts.
Investigator: Ok. And you-- porch light was on, with a white light and a lamp on there. And you indicated
that there was no one else that you could see out there at that point.
John W_6: Correct. Also I don't know if my drawing's going to help, but from what I remember, they
start here when I saw them, it was on the concrete, but then I end up seeing the body of the guy that was
on top farther down in the grass from where I first saw them. I don't know if you want to--
Investigator: And, and right. And we'll walk out--
John W_6: And that's why I put-- Yeah, 'cause it's def-- He's - from the end position - he's definitely
farther from when I stopped seeing them on the sidewalk.

Below is the link for the drawings that go with above
http://www.cfnews13.com/content/dam...uments/2012/09/GZ-Discovery-Redacted-0919.pdf

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Yes but in self defense there is a burden that rests on the defendant claiming self defense as well.

No there isn't. The entire burden is on the prosecution.

 

[Dancing David]

Unless the State of FL is claiming Trevon had a right to "Stand His Ground", I fail to see the relevance.

Well under the common case law standard in self defense case, the SYG would not directly apply to TM, however if the prosecution makes a reasonable case that GZ's behaviors would have caused a reasonable person to reasonably perceive them as threat, then the prosecution can argue TM's attack might seems somewhat more a response to a perceived threat then an unprovoked attack on an innocent citizen.

Now that is one part, the defense will argue otherwise.

 

[Dancing David]

Martin wasn't even concerned enough about Zimmerman that he broke off the phone call to his girlfriend in order to call the police.

Which is not relevant to the argument the prosecution is likely to make, reasonable response to a person in car staring at you: move away. Reasonable response to same person later appearing to be following you: reasonable suspicion and perhaps threat.

 

[WildCat]

That is not true.

If someone follows you. At night. Alone. Just you and the person following you. You try to get away.

He didn't try to get away. If he had tried to get away he would have been inside the house he was staying (or very close to it) before Zimmerman even got to the "T".

And he was clearly not very concerned, since he didn't think it was more important than continuing his conversation with DeeDee, let alone call the police. Fra more likley he was pissed that someone was looking at him funny, and he was going to teach him a lesson.