Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[phonebook]

Not of that addresses this:

And you didn't address my post, which I put time into. I gave step-by-step directions for you to potentially come to an understanding (even partially) of why I believe many of GZ's inconsistencies and contradictions are a result of his documented issues with memory and his obvious issues with communication.

According to you Zimmerman survived those interviews unscathed, so how are they now evidence that he shouldn't take the stand?

Feel free to quote me where it was my intention to imply the highlighted.

 

[phonebook]

I was replying to this part of his quote specifically: "But when you are recorded actively following a person who was just walking down the street, and you're confessing to shooting and killing that same person minutes later, I think you should go on trial."

Notice he uses no specific actors, and doesn't include Zimmerman and/or Martin. He was presenting a hypothetical situation that he may think closely mirrors this situation, but he didn't specify this situation. I asked why a trial was necessary instead of an investigation, when considering only the above circumstances (which is all the poster I replied to presented as warranting a "trial").

Here is another reason you're incredibly unpleasant to attempt to debate with, or discuss this with. Here you are telling me what my perception of another users post was:

First of all, the previous poster was clearly talking about this case...

And here you are telling me what my intentions were, and essentially calling me a liar:

...so I'm not sure why we're playing that game.

 

[Mister Earl]

Just wanted to address this real quick.

I think the part I highlighted mischaracterizes TM's known actions. Nothing about his path is unique to "moving away from GZ", any more so than it is to him simply continuing on his predetermined path to where he was staying at the time. He was heading directly to his home. Had didn't take any sort of marked detour from a route that would be logically consistent with him simply walking home.

As Rare Truth noted above, Zimmerman said twice over the recorded calls that Trayvon was running away. The context makes it pretty clear he wasn't running towards him.

This is where the (apparent) debate over whether or not TM returned to circle GZ's car comes in. If he returns from the T area, he's now the one going out of his way to actually get closer to GZ, and voluntarily get further away from his stated destination (stated by his parents, Dee Dee, etc.). I feel like GZ's statements, combined with what can be heard on the NEN call, especially the potential third voice (which, IMO, is likely Trayvon), indicates that this happened. This is directly contradictory to the idea that TM's movements had anything to do with getting away from GZ.

I was under the impression that the timeline made the circling impossible. I'll be honest with you... I find this whole circling bit sounds like a badly spun tale. If a youth wants to make someone feel threatened, they don't circle around someone's car. They kick the door, slam the hood, et cetera. You make noise. You don't quietly circle.

Now, not to say that it's impossible. Maybe Trayvon had a penchant for the odd. But again I'll just state my opinion that it sounds more like a really bad hypothetical scenario someone would cook up retroactively to cover their arse.

We'll see. I could be wrong. I have no pretense of knowing any of the specifics for certain.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

Here is another reason you're incredibly unpleasant to attempt to debate with, or discuss this with.

If you think johnny karate is unpleasant to debate with, then why haven't you told Mark O'Mara that? If it is so obvious that he's unpleasant to debate with, it seems like it would be incredibly simple to get him removed from the internet if Mark O'Mara just notified his ISP.

So why hasn't that happened?

Hmmmmmmm.....

 

[Skeptic Tank]

First of all, did you even read the post? A racist does not require them being self aware of the fact. Surprisingly they often aren't.

Yes, I did read the post. It seemed like you likely had a worldview where most people who didn't vote Obama were in some way, to some degree racist. And it also seemed reasonable to assume you probably had the same assumption about most people supporting Zimmerman.

I thought you might find it interesting that someone (me) who strongly supports Zimmerman, and who even talks about riots or the threat of riots in relation to this case (gasp!) voted for Obama. I also fully expected you to say you didn't find it surprising, and to not skip a beat. I still felt it was worthwhile to remind you things can be more complex than you may lapse back into assuming they are, when you haven't been reminded in a while.

Secondly, why do you think it was directed at you?

I didn't think it was directed at me, I thought it was something I felt like replying to.

And finally, why does your response remind me of the classic "I'm not racist I have a black friend!".

Probably because it sounds like you're someone who, for whatever reason, has taken up the hobby of trying to diagnose people you disagree with as being racists, and it also sounds like you've built a pretty fool-proof, evidence-immune construct where you can deem someone to be racist, and they can still be racist even if they do things you'd never expect a racist to do (like have black friends, mentor black kids, start a business with a black partner, vote for Obama as GZ did, etc etc) AND even if they don't realize it.

Sounds pretty airtight. Sounds like you've enabled yourself to view others as racists, and shielded yourself against just about any evidence that might come along to the contrary. You've got your response already prepared and in the can "oh he just doesn't KNOW he's a racist" "oh that's exactly what you'd expect a racist to say!"

Well I have my own little theory and I'd like you to try it on for size...

I think that some of the most racist people are those who fancy themselves to be the least racist. I think a lot of the policies that many progressives implement and support (like affirmative action) or even the apologetics about it being okay and understandable for a young black man to assault someone just for keeping an eye on them... reveal their own attitudes about what sort of behavior they expect from a certain demographic, and what sort of standard they hold that demographic to as compared to their own (usually lilly white) demographic as being quite distinct... and again, quite racist.

How's that for Racist-Inception?

Btw I'm not saying I think you are such a person, just food for thought. Though frankly? I think this thread would be better served by all participants agreeing to stop discussing whether anyone, or anyone's arguments are "racist" - as you yourself proved in the post I'm quoting, it's just too tricky to successfully sniff a racist out!

 

[johnny karate]

And you didn't address my post, which I put time into. I gave step-by-step directions for you to potentially come to an understanding (even partially) of why I believe many of GZ's inconsistencies and contradictions are a result of his documented issues with memory and his obvious issues with communication.

I didn't address your post because you're making an irrelevant argument.

I know you think Zimmerman's inconsistencies can be adequately explained away by his inability to remember stuff good or speak like an intelligent adult.

But that's not the issue we're discussing.

What we are discussing is whether or not those inconsistencies are detrimental to him.

You have repeatedly argued they are not.

Now you want to use those same supposedly insignificant inconsistencies to bolster the argument for why Zimmerman shouldn't take the stand.

Either the inconsistencies matter, or they don't.

If they matter, then they are part of a body of evidence that was sufficient enough to charge Zimmerman.

If they don't matter, then he has nothing to fear in taking the stand.

You can't have it both ways.

Feel free to quote me where it was my intention to imply the highlighted.

Gladly:

There shouldn't be a trial unless there is sufficient evidence to win a conviction. The original investigation didn't find such evidence...

The "evidence" from the "original investigation" to which you are referring included all of those investigator interviews.

So you are simultaneously claiming that the evidence gleaned from those interviews wasn't sufficient to charge Zimmerman with a crime, but is also somehow now an example of how dangerous it is for Zimmerman to speak on his own behalf.

On one hand, Zimmerman did so well he exonerated himself in the initial investigation.

On the other hand, he did so poorly it would be a risk for him to take the stand.

Those are contradictory ideas, and to believe them both is called cognitive dissonance.

 

[johnny karate]

If you think johnny karate is unpleasant to debate with, then why haven't you told Mark O'Mara that? If it is so obvious that he's unpleasant to debate with, it seems like it would be incredibly simple to get him removed from the internet if Mark O'Mara just notified his ISP.

So why hasn't that happened?

Hmmmmmmm.....

I'm not sure how mocking an argument for which you have no rebuttal makes me look bad.

 

[Noztradamus]

.

If Zimmerman was pinned down, how did he move fifty feet?
~~~
We know he wasn't tackled on the grass, given his pristene clothing

~~~~

I don't see much evidence that Zimmerman tried to disengage at all. The debris scattered around gives me the impression that movement DID happen, even though Zimmerman claims everything started and ended on the same spot.
~~~

Easy peasy.

George put away his phone and decided to go back to his truck, so he takes out his keys. At this point Martin emerges from the bushes and demands to know why George is following him.
George is startled and drops his keys. Because he is startled and has ADHD he forgets to answer the question as he takes a step towards Martin.

The creepy man silently closing the distance alarms Martin and he backs up. They proceed in this fashion, now arguing, southward for fifty feet, until the 'Do you have a problem- no I don't have the problem' occurs as George reaches to his pocket for his phone.

Martin believes George is going for his Betsy, and pops him one on the schnoz. This comes a complete surprise to George and he drops the non-functioning flashlight he's been holding all this time as he falls to the ground. They scuffle, scattering debris.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

Those are contradictory ideas, and to believe them both is called cognitive dissonance.

Unless the standard for what constituted sufficient evidence to charge him was somehow changed between when SPD made their determination and when Angela Corey made hers... and if that was the case, no cognitive dissonance would be required at all to hold both of those views (which btw I'm not convinced you've demonstrated phonebook does.)

What reason might there be to think that standard was changed? Well, the fact that SPD's determination was contradicted by a later determination in and of itself seems like it could point in that direction... the fact that prosecutors from another county had to be brought in to give the whole thing another look, would also seem to point in that direction.

Thinking back to the political climate and the protesters outside the SPD building... the Sharptons and Jacksons of the world and what they were saying... what the media was reporting... etc, can be very illuminating about why that standard may have been changed.

I'm not sure how mocking an argument for which you have no rebuttal makes me look bad.

I have a rebuttal, and it is this:

Mark O'Mara is at least as aware as we are of the political climate surrounding this case when charges were brought, and the climate which surrounds it still. He's had some time with Judge Nelson now and has seen her pattern of response to his motions and arguments, and has determined that attempting to get the case dismissed or filing for immunity now isn't fruitful. Based on what he's said, it sounds like he's also considering the financial aspects.

Remember that he has talked about something being "afoot" with regard to this case, and so I don't think it's outlandish to suspect that he may have had roughly this thought process:

Whatever political winds are blowing strong enough to have gotten my client charged in the first place, with this sort of evidence (or lack thereof) are not going to suddenly somehow be weak enough to allow for the case to just get dismissed outright, or immunity to be found by a judge... it seems the powers that be want this to at least make it before a jury so I'd better just plan on that being how this is resolved rather than wasting time, money, and effort on avenues that don't look to be viable in this case. And while Judge Nelson may not be actively involved in some grand conspiracy, she may be able to read the writing on the wall just as I can, and may not be interested in painting a target on her back... and the evidence in this case is debatable enough to provide her cover to ride this out to trial.

That's my impression/speculation.

 

[12AX7]

You're exaggerating. He has a legitimately diagnosed "mental disorder" that he's on medication for, and that has known issues with memory. He has exemplified this poor memory and general poor communication abilities in previous NEN calls, in his television interview with Hannity, in his many interviews with investigators, etc., etc.

He will likely say the same confusing things said in his interviews with the investigators that have lead many, like Unabogie, et al, that he is lying, instead of considering the possibility that it might actually be his memory that's at fault, it might actually be his obviously compromised communicative abilities at fault, or the fact that he might be telling the truth. Someone like him requires some benefit of the doubt, but that has not been given, whatsoever.

And yet Zimmerman claimed he knows every resident in the complex.

 

[KatieG]

And yet Zimmerman claimed he knows every resident in the complex.

Selective memory.

 

[Unabogie]

And yet Zimmerman claimed he knows every resident in the complex.

Selective memory.

And in the walkthrough, he very clearly remembered the name of Twin Trees Lane. And as a matter of fact, I think he's quite quick on his feet. As he told his various embellishments, he's quick to realize when they are not working and makes subtle adjustments from definitive statements to "I don't knows" or "I don't remembers".

He went from "you're gonna die tonight ************" to "you're gonna die" and he couldn't remember if Trayvon said "homie" after all.

He went from admitting to following to saying he didn't follow to saying he did follow but stopped. He made up the lie about looking for an address and made up the story about Trayvon running behind the row houses and circling back out of whole cloth.

I've been saying this since I first heard his account first hand on the walkthrough and his interrogations, but I think it really is as simple as he made some really stupid decisions due to his anger control issues and then lied to cover up his part in what happened.

He chased the suspect even though a prudent and reasonable person would have stayed in his car. He continued to do it after the dispatcher told him not to because he wasn't going to let this ******* get away, since he said it twice: "they always get away". He caught up with Trayvon and started arguing with him. Either he tried to grab him or refused to identify himself and went for his phone/or gun. A fight ensued that he got the raw end of, but was in no way life threatening. He lost control of his temper and shot the kid in anger. Then he lied to the police about what happened to leave out his own culpability and make the kid seem scarier and more aggressive than he was. And some people allowed their biases to take over and believed the implausible story because they instinctively believe young black males are more prone to irrational violence than other people. When police were pressured to take a closer look his story fell apart under scrutiny. That's it. It's not a complicated story. Just a paranoid yahoo with anger issues who made a huge and tragic mistake and he's going to pay for it with his freedom.

 

[12AX7]

I've been saying this since I first heard his account first hand on the walkthrough and his interrogations, but I think it really is as simple as he made some really stupid decisions due to his anger control issues and then lied to cover up his part in what happened.

He chased the suspect even though a prudent and reasonable person would have stayed in his car. He continued to do it after the dispatcher told him not to because he wasn't going to let this ******* get away, since he said it twice: "they always get away". He caught up with Trayvon and started arguing with him. Either he tried to grab him or refused to identify himself and went for his phone/or gun. A fight ensued that he got the raw end of, but was in no way life threatening. He lost control of his temper and shot the kid in anger. Then he lied to the police about what happened to leave out his own culpability and make the kid seem scarier and more aggressive than he was. And some people allowed their biases to take over and believed the implausible story because they instinctively believe young black males are more prone to irrational violence than other people. When police were pressured to take a closer look his story fell apart under scrutiny. That's it. It's not a complicated story. Just a paranoid yahoo with anger issues who made a huge and tragic mistake and he's going to pay for it with his freedom.

This is exactly what I believe as well.

 

[KatieG]

And in the walkthrough, he very clearly remembered the name of Twin Trees Lane. And as a matter of fact, I think he's quite quick on his feet. As he told his various embellishments, he's quick to realize when they are not working and makes subtle adjustments from definitive statements to "I don't knows" or "I don't remembers".

He went from "you're gonna die tonight ************" to "you're gonna die" and he couldn't remember if Trayvon said "homie" after all.

He went from admitting to following to saying he didn't follow to saying he did follow but stopped. He made up the lie about looking for an address and made up the story about Trayvon running behind the row houses and circling back out of whole cloth.

I've been saying this since I first heard his account first hand on the walkthrough and his interrogations, but I think it really is as simple as he made some really stupid decisions due to his anger control issues and then lied to cover up his part in what happened.

He chased the suspect even though a prudent and reasonable person would have stayed in his car. He continued to do it after the dispatcher told him not to because he wasn't going to let this ******* get away, since he said it twice: "they always get away". He caught up with Trayvon and started arguing with him. Either he tried to grab him or refused to identify himself and went for his phone/or gun. A fight ensued that he got the raw end of, but was in no way life threatening. He lost control of his temper and shot the kid in anger. Then he lied to the police about what happened to leave out his own culpability and make the kid seem scarier and more aggressive than he was. And some people allowed their biases to take over and believed the implausible story because they instinctively believe young black males are more prone to irrational violence than other people. When police were pressured to take a closer look his story fell apart under scrutiny. That's it. It's not a complicated story. Just a paranoid yahoo with anger issues who made a huge and tragic mistake and he's going to pay for it with his freedom.

When someone asks me what I think happened that night, I'll refer them to this post by unaboogie. I think this is as close to the truth as anything I've seen anywhere.

 

[Unabogie]

When someone asks me what I think happened that night, I'll refer them to this post by unaboogie. I think this is as close to the truth as anything I've seen anywhere.

I think it's as close as we'll likely be able to get until we hear the witnesses and the state's case.

Another thing that I found interesting is that George's assault on a police officer and an assault on his fiance happened just one month apart. He was really coming unglued that month.

In 2012, he was apparently months behind on his rent, his wife was toying around with online nursing classes, and he was flunking out of school and about to be expelled. Again, not a healthy place in his life and as Frank Taaffe said, "he was mad as hell and not going to take it anymore". I think he was dealing with rage issues and took it out on someone he thought was a predator.

Again, it's a simple story and one that certainly fits the evidence better than any story he fed the police about what happened that night.

I'm sure his defenders will be along shortly to tell me why I'm full of it.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

A fight ensued that he got the raw end of, but was in no way life threatening.

Just a quick, simple question for you:

At the time George Zimmerman fired his gun, did he have A) A less clear idea of how severe his injuries are than we do now, B) Exactly the same understanding of those injuries that we have now or C) A clearer idea of the severity of those injuries than we have now, sitting here with pictures and doctor's reports etc available to us more than a year later?

 

[tsig]

Easy peasy.

George put away his phone and decided to go back to his truck, so he takes out his keys. At this point Martin emerges from the bushes and demands to know why George is following him.George is startled and drops his keys. Because he is startled and has ADHD he forgets to answer the question as he takes a step towards Martin.

The creepy man silently closing the distance alarms Martin and he backs up. They proceed in this fashion, now arguing, southward for fifty feet, until the 'Do you have a problem- no I don't have the problem' occurs as George reaches to his pocket for his phone.

Martin believes George is going for his Betsy, and pops him one on the schnoz. This comes a complete surprise to George and he drops the non-functioning flashlight he's been holding all this time as he falls to the ground. They scuffle, scattering debris.

There's no evidence that that took place.

 

[johnny karate]

Unless the standard for what constituted sufficient evidence to charge him was somehow changed between when SPD made their determination and when Angela Corey made hers... and if that was the case, no cognitive dissonance would be required at all to hold both of those views (which btw I'm not convinced you've demonstrated phonebook does.)

Of course phonebook does.

So do you.

It's the same song and dance since the immunity hearing was cancelled.

We go back and forth between being told how strong the evidence is in Zimmerman's favor (we've now circled back to the argument that he shouldn't have even been charged in the first place) to being told how risky an immunity hearing would because the evidence isn't strong enough.

Either the evidence is strongly in Zimmerman's favor or it isn't.

You lot want to make both arguments simultaneously.

What reason might there be to think that standard was changed? Well, the fact that SPD's determination was contradicted by a later determination in and of itself seems like it could point in that direction... the fact that prosecutors from another county had to be brought in to give the whole thing another look, would also seem to point in that direction.

The standard didn't have to change, only the quality of the investigation.

Thinking back to the political climate and the protesters outside the SPD building... the Sharptons and Jacksons of the world and what they were saying... what the media was reporting... etc, can be very illuminating about why that standard may have been changed.

The Sharptons and Jacksons of the world can't undermine the basic tenets of our legal system and force a murder charge and a subsequent trial where sufficient evidence does not exist to justify either.

So once again, either there is a system-wide conspiracy against Zimmerman (which includes his own lawyer), or your read on the quality of evidence is inaccurate.

Mark O'Mara is at least as aware as we are of the political climate surrounding this case when charges were brought, and the climate which surrounds it still. He's had some time with Judge Nelson now and has seen her pattern of response to his motions and arguments, and has determined that attempting to get the case dismissed or filing for immunity now isn't fruitful. Based on what he's said, it sounds like he's also considering the financial aspects.

Remember that he has talked about something being "afoot" with regard to this case, and so I don't think it's outlandish to suspect that he may have had roughly this thought process:

Whatever political winds are blowing strong enough to have gotten my client charged in the first place, with this sort of evidence (or lack thereof) are not going to suddenly somehow be weak enough to allow for the case to just get dismissed outright, or immunity to be found by a judge... it seems the powers that be want this to at least make it before a jury so I'd better just plan on that being how this is resolved rather than wasting time, money, and effort on avenues that don't look to be viable in this case. And while Judge Nelson may not be actively involved in some grand conspiracy, she may be able to read the writing on the wall just as I can, and may not be interested in painting a target on her back... and the evidence in this case is debatable enough to provide her cover to ride this out to trial.

That's my impression/speculation.

A motion for dismissal doesn't cost anything and carries no risk.

O'Mara could have easily filed one when he first took the case.

He didn't.

You seem to think it's because of politics and Al Sharpton and riots and some conspiracy to make sure Zimmerman goes to trial of which O'Mara is also complicit (any lawyer who doesn't file an immediate motion for dismissal when the charges are supposedly baseless is doing his client an enormous disservice, to say the least).

And that is quite silly.

 

[tsig]

Selective memory.

Probably was pretraumatic shock. Martin's punch was so strong it addled Z's memory before it happened.

 

[Unabogie]

Just a quick, simple question for you:

At the time George Zimmerman fired his gun, did he have A) A less clear idea of how severe his injuries are than we do now, B) Exactly the same understanding of those injuries that we have now or C) A clearer idea of the severity of those injuries than we have now, sitting here with pictures and doctor's reports etc available to us more than a year later?

I think he knew quite well his injuries were minor. That's why he declined to go to the hospital 3 times and only went the next day when his boss made him. the next day, of course, his wife dressed him up in an "injured guy" costume. But we know better than to trust her by now, don't we? She's shown a willingness to lie in order to cover for her husband. I don't blame her, but I certainly think she's show she's not to be trusted.

And for the record, his injuries were indeed minor. Two cuts that didn't even need a bandaid and punch in the nose that even his lawyer is now calling " likely broken".

At the scene, EMTs observed that Mr. Zimmerman had bleeding lacerations to the back of his head consistent with his head being struck on or by a hard object, facial cuts and a swollen, bleeding, and likely broken nose.

See? Even his own lawyer isn't calling his nose factually broken.

So that's it. Two small cuts on his head that didn't require a bandaid, a cut on the nose, and a swollen nose. No bruises on his body. No concussion. No headache the next day. No defensive wounds. No wounds on the victim's hands beyond a tiny, 1/8 inch cut on his off hand. No blood on the victim's sleeves or under his nails, and as we'll soon see, his hands.

None of that says "life threatening" and there's no way he thought so at the time. But he has a motive to lie, of course. His life depends on police believing he killed in self-defense. But his injuries don't support it. And that's that.