Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[phonebook]

Perhaps that is why he felt it necessary to hire Baez to represent him.

This attorney he's hired also publicly stated, after he was hired by Serino, that this was the weakest high-profile case he'd ever seen (paraphrased perhaps).

 

[phonebook]

How many burglaries had there been in George's community? Had the perpetrators all been caught or just the ones that were young black males?

8 over the last 14 or 15 months, iirc. There were multiple perpetrators, 2 working together in one instance I believe. There was one arrest, and I'm not sure if he was one of the 2 that were involved in the previous burglary I referred to. All the ones that were seen fleeing the neighborhood (by people other than George), were young black males. Here's a quote from a black neighbor of George's:

"Let's talk about the elephant in the room. I'm black, OK?" the woman said, declining to be identified because she anticipated backlash due to her race. She leaned in to look a reporter directly in the eyes. "There were black boys robbing houses in this neighborhood," she said. "That's why George was suspicious of Trayvon Martin."

A black resident of the RATL felt it was pretty obvious.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/25/us-usa-florida-shooting-zimmerman-idUSBRE83O18H20120425

There's a video of that story too, somewhere on youtube.

 

[sgtbaker]

He wasn't accused of killing. He killed. And I know your laws are insane in general, and when it comes to guns and gun violence in particular. That's why I stated that there is a good chance GZ will get away with it, despite all the lies and contradictions.

I would call a country that skips due process and jumps right to charging a person with a crime and putting them before a judge is far scarier.

I actually meant the demonizing of TM by the likes of you lot. But if you think that GZ would have followed a blue-eyed blond in the same fashion, this conversation is useless, for you're too out there.

Oh, I understand and the second you can find the post where I actually did that, we can talk further. Until then, you are arguing something that someone else may have said, against me.

And BTW, was the nice man that wants to drown black babies involved in that investigation you mentioned? And you don't think that TM's color had anything to do with the charges being suppressed?

A racist on the police department doesn't reflect the entire police department and incase you haven't noticed, he is not on the force anymore. If you want any more information on the investigation, who took part in the case, here is a link to an article discussing what the FBI found.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/07/12/2892510/more-evidence-released-in-zimmerman.html

 

[Rare Truth]

You can't see someone 350 feet away from you at 7pm with "a little bit dripping water" (to use Deedee's phrase) ?

No wondervision required. Just regular human eyes...

....

Watch this.
David Knechel
did a walk through The Retreat at Twin Lakes on February 26 2013

At night. Same paths, same time of year darkness as one year earlier.

You get a pretty good understanding with this of just how dark it was.

http://www.youtube.com/user/marinadedave?feature=watch

 

[phonebook]

Watch this.
David Knechel
did a walk through The Retreat at Twin Lakes on February 26 2013

At night. Same paths, same time of year darkness as one year earlier.

You get a pretty good understanding with this of just how dark it was.

http://www.youtube.com/user/marinadedave?feature=watch

Doesn't accurately reflect how dark it would be to the human eye. Looks MUCH darker on camera (I've seen the video previously).

 

[Amazer]

As far as the evidence is concerned (if you ignore GZ's statements), TM could just as easily have caused the confrontation.

No, because all available evidence (aside from GZ's statements) indicate that TM was minding his own (lawful) business, chatting on his phone while he walked back home from the store.

On the other hand we have the NEN call, from which it's pretty clear that it's GZ who is pursuing TM; First by car and later on foot. He even continues after being told by the NEN operator that he need not leave his vehicle.

So no, TM could not as easily have caused the confrontation as far as the evidence is concerned (ignoring GZ's statements).

 

[sgtbaker]

No, because all available evidence (aside from GZ's statements) indicate that TM was minding his own (lawful) business, chatting on his phone while he walked back home from the store.

You are correct. There is absolutely no evidence at all that TM was doing anything other than walking and chatting on the phone and up until a certain point, blissfully ignorant of George Zimmerman's existence. No one should be claiming otherwise. However, there is a point, in that evening where Trayvon is no longer blissfully unaware. He actually becomes acutely aware of GZ. All evidence confirms this. What happens after that is what is questioned. The fact that at one point in the evening, TM did not know who GZ was is not evidence that he did nothing, after the two path's crossed.

On the other hand we have the NEN call, from which it's pretty clear that it's GZ who is pursuing TM; First by car and later on foot. He even continues after being told by the NEN operator that he need not leave his vehicle.

The NEN never told him he did not need to leave his vehicle and the only "evidence" that GZ continued to follow TM is based on your misinterpretation of events pointed out in the first paragraph.

 

[Rare Truth]

Doesn't accurately reflect how dark it would be to the human eye. Looks MUCH darker on camera (I've seen the video previously).

Just about every witness stated how dark it was. Very dark.

There's that.

 

[phonebook]

No, because all available evidence (aside from GZ's statements) indicate that TM was minding his own (lawful) business, chatting on his phone while he walked back home from the store.

Doesn't preclude him from being angered by GZ's observations and deciding to confront him for any number of reasons.

On the other hand we have the NEN call, from which it's pretty clear that it's GZ who is pursuing TM; First by car and later on foot. He even continues after being told by the NEN operator that he need not leave his vehicle.

GZ was following TM on TM's way home (so it appears). The NEN operator never said anything about GZ not leaving his vehicle. GZ had many opportunities for a confrontation, if that's what he desired, but even when TM was "within arms length" of him (can't remember where I read that), while in the safety of his vehicle, GZ didn't so much as roll down his window to verbally confront him. What sense does it make that GZ now wants to wander down a darkened sidewalk (if he went south down the T), away from the safety of his vehicle, to confront him when he made no efforts to do so before?

So no, TM could not as easily have caused the confrontation as far as the evidence is concerned (ignoring GZ's statements).

Sure he could have. TM disappeared for 2+ minutes during the NEN call, yet somehow there's a confrontation. It was either or. There isn't any evidence on who decided to confront who, or if there was even a decision, for that matter.

 

[phonebook]

Just about every witness stated how dark it was. Very dark.

There's that.

Sure, I agree on that, but the video isn't an accurate representation of actually being there. Too many factors involved in duplicating that lighting situation, such as the camera the guy used, your monitor you're looking at the footage with, the lighting the room you're in while looking at that footage on your monitor, etc.

 

[12AX7]

Very true and if you have evidence that TM was on the receiving end of that angst and not the aggressor, I am sure the prosecution would appreciate that contribution.

You mean other than the fact that an unarmed teenager who was doing nothing wrong and had a right to be where he was is dead?

 

[sgtbaker]

You mean other than the fact that an unarmed teenager who was doing nothing wrong and had a right to be where he was is dead?

*minor correction* Doing nothing wrong until the confrontation. We do not know who started that confrontation. The fact that he was unarmed and doing nothing wrong, prior to the assault is not evidence that he did not commit assault, which is, in fact illegal. That doesn't mean he actually did either but my point is that we don't know who sought out who, at the time of the exchange, and we don't know who assaulted who first.

 

[phonebook]

You mean other than the fact that an unarmed teenager who was doing nothing wrong and had a right to be where he was is dead?

Yes, because that's not the whole story. How did he die? What injuries did he sustain before death? Did he injure someone else? What else lead up to his death?

 

[Dan O.]

8 over the last 14 or 15 months, iirc. There were multiple perpetrators, 2 working together in one instance I believe. There was one arrest, and I'm not sure if he was one of the 2 that were involved in the previous burglary I referred to. All the ones that were seen fleeing the neighborhood (by people other than George), were young black males. Here's a quote from a black neighbor of George's:.

Are you aware of any young white males that were arrested by the police in conjunction with any the burglaries? Or do you filter those out because you feel they are somehow not relevant.

 

[phonebook]

Are you aware of any young white males that were arrested by the police in conjunction with any the burglaries? Or do you filter those out because you feel they are somehow not relevant.

There weren't any, to my knowledge. In fact, there was just one single arrest that I'm aware of (a black male (not sure of his age) in pajama pants, that broke into Taaffe's house, or Taaffe's neighbors house, I believe, that George said "I don't want to approach him, personally" on a NEN call). There weren't any young white males reported, either actually involved in an illegal activity, or just "suspicious" activity, by any of the neighbors either - ETA: that I'm aware of (feel free to direct me to info that disputes this; I'd actually be interested).

 

[Dcdrac]

Bottom inescapable line is, if Zimmerman had stayed put waited for the police none of this would have happened, he HAD NO REAL reason at all for getting out of his car.

 

[remirol]

The NEN never told him he did not need to leave his vehicle

The NEN operator never said anything about GZ not leaving his vehicle.

Source

What does the following snippet mean to you?

Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah
Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that.

Is this a nitpick about the fact that "vehicle" is not included here? If so, would it make you happier if the sentence was:

"On the other hand we have the NEN call, from which it's pretty clear that it's GZ who is pursuing TM; First by car and later on foot. He even continues after being told by the NEN operator that he need not follow TM".

Because then there's no nitpick, and yet the point of the sentence is exactly the same thing. George was pursuing TM.

That's the only fact that needs taking away from that portion. George was pursuing TM despite being told not to. No speculation necessary.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Bottom inescapable line is if Zimmerman hd stayed put waited for the police none of this would have happened, he HAD NO REAL reason at all for getting out of his car.

And if ifs and buts were candy and nuts we'd all have a merry christmas

 

[phonebook]

Bottom inescapable line is, if Zimmerman had stayed put waited for the police none of this would have happened, he HAD NO REAL reason at all for getting out of his car.

Fortunately for him, he didn't need a "REAL" reason to get out of his car. There was nothing illegal about that action, and no proof that he had ill intent when he left his vehicle.

 

[12AX7]

*minor correction* Doing nothing wrong until the confrontation. We do not know who started that confrontation. The fact that he was unarmed and doing nothing wrong, prior to the assault is not evidence that he did not commit assault, which is, in fact illegal. That doesn't mean he actually did either but my point is that we don't know who sought out who, at the time of the exchange, and we don't know who assaulted who first.

Trayvon attempted to remove himself from the altercation. George chose to continue it. At the end of the day, George shot and killed an unarmed teenager.

There is no getting around that, and that's the huge problem George and his fan club have to contend with. You guys can compose whatever "attack" theories you want, but it doesn't change anything.

Trayvon was unarmed. He was where he had a right to be. He was doing nothing wrong. He attempted to flee from Geroge, George chose to follow. Whatever happens after that is on George. George was asked if he was following, and told "we don't need you to do that". George was well aware of his responsibilities as a NW member; specifically not to engage with suspicious persons, but to call law enforcement.

You and the other George fans can spin this as much as you want.

Yes, because that's not the whole story. How did he die? What injuries did he sustain before death? Did he injure someone else? What else lead up to his death?

All we have is George's multiple stories filled with ionconsistencies, physical impossibilities and self-serving dialogue. See, the unarmed teenager that was doing nothing wrong and had a right to be where he was (and attempted to remove himself from George and the altercation) is dead.