Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[Skeptic Tank]

I look forward to the evidence you provide that demonstrates denial of a motion for dismissal can have a negative impact in how the trial turns out.

It should have been obvious that I was talking about the realm of perceptions, not something legally codified. I think you probably knew that, though.

Or maybe there are no grounds for a dismissal and O'Mara knows that.

Notice how my explanation doesn't require several paragraphs of rambling sophistry.

I did notice that your explanation was much shorter and simpler, yes. That doesn't mean it's correct.

There's a good analogy here to some of the arguments you and Unabogie have had with phonebook. Yes, it's a lot simpler to look at apparent problems between one GZ statement and another, be confused by that, and just stamp "Material Lie" on the issue and be done with it... since you guys seem to be invested in viewing GZ as the second coming of Hitler, I can see the appeal of that approach.

Nonetheless, an honest attempt to figure out what's going on, which may even require a bit of reading between the lines in the realm of GZ's poor memory, poor communication skills, or the politics at play behind this case... MAY actually result in answers which are closer to the truth.

But yes, it is simpler and easier to dismiss such attempts with short quips, and stay in the comfortable self-confirming zone of "GZ lied" or "O'Mara knows his goose is cooked."

If you're ever ready to leave that zone, let me know. It could make for some interesting discussions.

 

[KatieG]

Like I said, I hadn't heard it before. Are you saying it is always used in an offensive fashion? Never in jest or affection or friendly contexts?
If you're saying it's always used to be hurtful and offensive, and only said against enemies... then perhaps my apologetics were off the mark.

I heard it used among friends. Close friends or co-workers. Never seen it used in the context it was used here, especially in light of the nature of this case.

My roots are southern also and I'm old enough to remember when that usage would have gotten the the person uttering it in a world of trouble. It's just not something used in casual conversation. It's totally inappropriate here.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

The reason I keep asking is because I enjoy watching you tie yourself in knots trying to explain something while avoiding the simplest and most straightforward explanation because it conflicts with your predetermined conclusions.

Odd that I never see you call out people on your "side" for elaborate excursions into the realm of speculation like this:

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.

As for avoiding the simplest and most straightforward explanations? Isn't that what all of you do by dismissing GZ's testimony and assuming that he didn't shoot the person attacking him in self-defense? That strikes me as the simplest explanation of what happened that night. The police agreed.

As for my "predetermined conclusions"? I started out on this case on the other side. Seems like that alone proves I can change based on the evidence put before me. Can you say the same? Was there ever a time when you believed Zimmerman acted in self-defense? If you check through my post history here you'll see plenty of times when I've expressed uncertainty (whether it be about certain things GZ claims happened actually happening, or why O'Mara hasn't filed something, etc) and times I've admitted to being wrong about something, and times I've conceded apparent flaws in GZ's character. How much time have you spent conceding flaws in TM's character or that he might have had a role in things going the way they did, too?

 

[phonebook]

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.

I didn't realize we were working within such rigid boundaries on what we are permitted to discuss (or that you were solely responsible for defining those boundaries)

To the highlighted: For those reasons and the fact that inconsistencies are actually consistent with what he claims he went through. If his story was a nearly word-for-word carbon copy from one interview to the next, that could be viewed as indicative of a rehearsed story, not a story that is given impromptu, and might be suspect given the trauma he claims to have endured.

I'd love to hear the event sequencing, and details given by multiple witnesses to a traumatic event, maybe a plane crash, or something similar, but one that didn't have video evidence, etc., that the witnesses could later review and use to confirm or clarify what their memories individually are telling them what happened. Then have them be asked to repeat their stories multiple times, and see how consistent they remain. Take the Colorado Theater Shooting for example. It'd be interesting to hear all the variations of what is said to have happened there, and whether there were inconsistencies in the stories of the individuals involved, especially when comparing one retelling to the next.

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

You have repeatedly argued they are not.

I have? Maybe you're misinterpreting what I've said. I think they are absolutely detrimental to him, at least to some degree, especially to the untrained eye of the general public, which is what your average jury member would qualify as.

To a professional, like Serino, he stated that GZ's inconsistencies "don't amount to much".

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.

It's not the inconsistencies (that are present when comparing the different iterations of his story he's already told) that I'm arguing make him a poor candidate for the stand, it's his confused and confusing manner of speaking. I think some may be inclined to interpret that as intentional. He would likely be easily confused or made to look bad on the stand by an aggressive prosecutor, based on his deficiencies in those areas. I cover this further later in this post.

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

I disagree, in that their presence only proves that they exist, and are not indicative of anything beyond that (as far as culpability is concerned). Their presence does not prove what actually happened, it only proves that he's not a particularly good candidate in which to rely upon as the source for some definitive level of certainty of what happened. He is the only resource to draw from for some details though.

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

I disagree, and explained why, above (and below).

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.

It's not about how well GZ did, it's about how his inconsistencies alone are not evidence of what actually happened, like I explained above. I've never stated that I attribute how "well" GZ did in his interviews with the SPD as the reason why he "exonerated himself in the initial investigation". He had help in that area via the ballistics evidence, eyewitness testimony, his "marginally consistent" wounds, etc., etc.

Here, this goes into at least a couple details on why GZ would suck on the stand:

http://www.istilldefendliberty.com/id48.html

Why shouldn't I testify in my own case?

There are very solid reasons why defendants generally shouldn't testify. Your lawyer understands this from his trial experience. He will go over these reasons with you as you weigh the pros and the cons and before you finally decide whether or not you will testify at your trial. Here is a list of reasons that could hurt your case if you do take the witness stand:

Difficulty in Public Speaking: Remember sitting in class and hoping the teacher wouldn't call on you to give your oral book report? The feelings you will experience in taking the stand will be amplified a hundred times. You may lose sleep the week before your testimony. You might go into a panic. The jury might view this fear as your trying to hide the truth.

Inability to Answer Rapid-fire Questions: Lawyers, including the prosecutor, are highly skilled in asking questions. They know how to set you up for a huge fall through their questioning. Even your lawyer would have a hard time under the barrage of the prosecutor's pointed questions. What makes you think you would fare any better?​

 

[johnny karate]

It was politics that led to the grand jury being skipped in favor of an assured charge.

I'd lover to hear an alternate explanation of why the grand jury was bypassed.

I've already said I think politics played a part in Zimmerman getting charged.

But that doesn't make it wrong, or mean the charges are unwarranted.

If you object to the bypassing of the grand jury, I suggest you petition to have the laws changed, because nothing Corey did in charging Zimmerman was illegal or even inappropriate.

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

On March 13, 2012, Chris Serino sent a capias request to the state's attorney recommending charges of negligent manslaughter against Zimmerman, though Serino maintains he did not believe they had the evidence to support those charges and that manslaughter was only included in the capias in order for the prosecutor's office to continue with their own investigation.

So, maybe. Or maybe pressure.

Or maybe a case that warranted a closer look got that closer look, and sets of fresh eyes found probable cause to file charges.

Either way, neither public nor political pressure can make bogus charges stick and force a trial to take place.

It's not impossible that something can still be filed before the trial regarding the charges.

So, what... O'Mara just likes to be dramatic?

It's been almost a year. Significant time and resources have been spent preparing for a trial.

Why would O'Mara go through all that just to wait until the last minute to file a motion for dismissal?

I don't know the legal issues well enough to say if there is an actual controversy about the amount of information that was available at the time, and whether he truly should not have been charged. Just pointing out that there appear to be some questionable elements.

Fortunately for us laypeople, we don't have to be legal experts to get a read on the situation.

We can let reality be our guide.

And what has happened in reality is that despite claims that the affadavit was bogus and the charges filed were meritless, nothing ever came of those claims.

So while we may be ignorant of the nuances of the law, the course of action of those who aren't let's us know exactly what is taking place.

 

[12AX7]

The reason I keep asking is because I enjoy watching you tie yourself in knots trying to explain something while avoiding the simplest and most straightforward explanation because it conflicts with your predetermined conclusions.

Odd that I never see you call out people on your "side" for elaborate excursions into the realm of speculation like this:

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.

The difference is that Unabogie's example above is simple, to the point, and fits the facts. The novels that the George Fan Club write involve conspiracies, incompetence, political agendas, magical self-healing wounds, self-cleaning clothes, etc.

 

[Noztradamus]

How else do you describe it if GZ was no longer being beaten because TM let go and stood up, or because GZ stood up ?

Murder 2

 

[Mumbles]

I'm not sure we have this many fainting couches... can you guys double up?

It's a predictable reaction.

In all seriousness, I had never heard "HNIC" before either. I didn't look it up because I am confident I figured out what it meant just via your reactions.

I admit that when I figured out that's what batvette had said, I had a bit of a "woah, really? ha, wow... he posted that?" moment myself.

I just want to point something out, though. There are a lot of people, even non-black people, these days who use the N word or variants of it in ways which are not intended, at all, to be hurtful or offensive or derogatory. I am not one of them, I avoid that word like the plague, and it makes me uncomfortable.

However, I have seen these types of people before and they are NOT vile racists, or bad people, they are people who exist in a different cultural milieu than many of us do. It might be fair to call it a more blue collar world... hope that's not offensive to batvette. I actually admire blue collar people, a lot. I wish I'd been more of one. Part of why I joined the military some years ago was to get more in touch with that side of myself, to get out of the "ivory tower" and exposed to a more real, immediate world.

That world involves a lot of offensive behaviors and language, and I was as "couch fainty" and "pearl clutchy" as anyone, but thankfully it did harden my skin to it somewhat. Not to the point where I started talking like that, but to the point where it didn't bother me.

If you've seen the comedian Ralphie Mayes, a large very overweight Hispanic comedian... he drops the "N" word a lot. So does someone like Eminem.

Actually, no, Eminem avoids using the word. He's used it a grand total of once in a recording...and some people are still mad about it more than a decade later. Ralphie May likely gets away with it because he's a comedian, on stage - but many people either don't know about him, or hate him.

Ironically, that's just the thing... it is the non-black people who are most intimately tied to the black community (or at least certain parts of that community) which are most likely to use this term. A big tip off is if they're also someone who is using other slang which is associated with black culture. In other words, they're a non-black person who talks in the way which is stereotypical of "urban black culture" and that INCLUDES variations of the N word. Which are spoken a LOT by the black members of that culture themselves.

So the more urban black friends a non-black person has, the higher the likelihood that they'll use that term and think nothing of it, in my experience.

I happen to think this is also why George Zimmerman chose the MySpace handle that he did. Young, Latino guy who has a lot of black friends and feels at ease around them... tries to sound black, with phrases like "soft *** wanna be thugs messin with peoples cars when they aint around (what are you provin, that you can dent a car when no ones watchin) dont make you a man in my book."

I've seen that sort of thing a lot.

Speaking again as a black guy, who grew up in a ghetto, in the Crack era...no. I 've heard the word a lot of times, and am liable to use it myself in casual conversation. I've even joked about stereotypes in other forums, and follow The Black Guy Who Tips. But I wouldn't use it casually in front of non-black folks, and I *certainly* would not give anyone else liscence to use it. It's also certainly not a word I would casually drop here.

I have no idea who Bavette is, or why s/he though that it was a good idea to drop the acronym in reference. But s/he was wrong, the end. This was the wrong time for it, and the wrong place.

 

[remirol]

Those kind of conversations with police are recorded statements. Listen to the very begining of each of the audio files.

As another poster noted, "recorded statements" is to be taken literally here; if there's an audio file and/or police recording, "duh". But there are conversations with police that occur _without_ recording... often pre-Miranda or immediately post-Miranda..., and those would not fall under the DoC. I am unfamiliar with the precise origin of everything George has said in the case, so individual examples will be individual.

However, I think we're largely on the same page here, and the nitpicky details of anything George said that isn't obvious (cf. audio file) will be handled by the court proper at the time as needed. One benefit of an adversarial system such as the USA's is that we can generally trust that O'Mara will be ever-so-aware of which of George's statements are relevant, and be prepared to counter all the cherry-picking that he can. Alternately phrased: the prosecution will still try to cherry-pick, and the defense will invoke the DoC and drag the rest in.

[Or O'Mara will _not_ invoke the DoC and be a colossal failure. Unlikely though; as much as the legal representation for both sides in the case would fall into the "needs work" category on a report card, that sort of thing would surprise me.]

 

[tsig]

This "NW governing body" you speak of, which of these is their logo?

[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/gxyS8Ll.png[/qimg]

There is a national, private organization which uses the orange signage and charges people exorbitant fees to use their logo... and then there are locally organized (through their local police departments) organizations which use the blue sign. Remember the pictures showing that that blue sign was outside RATL? That's the type GZ was in.

Then there are also NW groups which are just citizen run, citizen-organized, and in no way connected to the national private organization, or any police department.

All three are entirely legal, and speaking of a "NW governing body" is silly and betrays a lack of understanding of the truth of the situation. The fact that SPD and RATL referred to George as a "NW Captain" is more than sufficient to establish him as such and justify someone referring to him as such.



[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/CZ07xew.png[/qimg]

OK, he's a NW captain, now all we have to do is to show that he violated the NW rules and it a slam dunk to conviction.

 

[remirol]

In all seriousness, I had never heard "HNIC" before either. I didn't look it up because I am confident I figured out what it meant just via your reactions.

Hockey Night In Canada!

...no?

I admit that when I figured out that's what batvette had said, I had a bit of a "woah, really? ha, wow... he posted that?" moment myself.

I am not surprised. Some posters on this site are already openly racist, and I generally just don't bother responding to them as it's a dead nuts waste of time. Their type is dying off slowly, generation by generation (cf. Thurmond, Helms), and only the slow march of time will finish eradicating the hardcore ones. As some get banned for lack of self-control, new ones will surely arrive to take their place.

So the more urban black friends a non-black person has, the higher the likelihood that they'll use that term and think nothing of it, in my experience.

Speaking as a person from Atlanta, Georgia who lived in the "inner city" for a number of years in various eras: if you run around as a white boy saying "HNIC" or similar things, you will rapidly earn yourself a trip to Grady's trauma center. Non-black, non-Caucasians would be a case-by-case basis, but I can assure you that it doesn't matter how many "urban black friends" I have; that word and all variants thereof are unacceptable for me to say.

 

[tsig]

[qimg]http://i1302.photobucket.com/albums/ag121/thel8elvis/c2a074ab-a671-4192-b75c-3da5634fa123_zpsf465224d.jpg?t=1365393476[/qimg]

A captain who doesn't follow the rules, that shows reckless disregard.

 

[remirol]

if Zimmerman was just ready to kill this kid for no good reason, as many of you claim... why let himself get beaten for a minute or more before defending himself with the firearm? Why wait until the cops were closer to arriving, and potentially every window around them had a neighbor staring out of it watching exactly what took place? Why wait until at least one neighbor had DEFINITELY come out and seen what was going on?

This is at least in part why I ponder whether manslaughter wouldn't have been a better charge, of course. The core of the incident seems to stem from Zimmerman trying to be too much of a vigilante, rather than following NW protocol -- but poor judgment doesn't equate to intent to kill.

I consider it highly unlikely that Zimmerman, when he got out of the car, had anything more on his mind than playing cop and detaining Martin until the police arrived. Circumstances like this, of course, are why the real cops do NOT want civilians doing this sort of thing, and why the NW guidelines all say some variant of "observe, but do not engage".

 

[tsig]

So Trayvon wasn't on his high school team and therefore didn't beat out the top 98 percent of all athletes for his spot? At least tell me he still had MMA skills and eagle eyesight!

He could float like a butterfly and sting like a bee. One look at him and Z was on his back begging for mercy. Faced with such an awesome combination of speed and power poor Z had no choice but to pull the gun that he had deliberately brought along for just such an occasion. How Z had the courage to go out on patrol time after time knowing that he could face a life threatening situation at any moment I can only say "Where does America get such men?"

 

[tsig]

It should have been obvious that I was talking about the realm of perceptions, not something legally codified. I think you probably knew that, though.



I did notice that your explanation was much shorter and simpler, yes. That doesn't mean it's correct.

There's a good analogy here to some of the arguments you and Unabogie have had with phonebook. Yes, it's a lot simpler to look at apparent problems between one GZ statement and another, be confused by that, and just stamp "Material Lie" on the issue and be done with it... since you guys seem to be invested in viewing GZ as the second coming of Hitler, I can see the appeal of that approach.

Nonetheless, an honest attempt to figure out what's going on, which may even require a bit of reading between the lines in the realm of GZ's poor memory, poor communication skills, or the politics at play behind this case... MAY actually result in answers which are closer to the truth.

But yes, it is simpler and easier to dismiss such attempts with short quips, and stay in the comfortable self-confirming zone of "GZ lied" or "O'Mara knows his goose is cooked."

If you're ever ready to leave that zone, let me know. It could make for some interesting discussions.

We're not supposed to read what he actually said but to read what you want him to say?

 

[tsig]

Odd that I never see you call out people on your "side" for elaborate excursions into the realm of speculation like this:



As for avoiding the simplest and most straightforward explanations? Isn't that what all of you do by dismissing GZ's testimony and assuming that he didn't shoot the person attacking him in self-defense? That strikes me as the simplest explanation of what happened that night. The police agreed.

As for my "predetermined conclusions"? I started out on this case on the other side. Seems like that alone proves I can change based on the evidence put before me. Can you say the same? Was there ever a time when you believed Zimmerman acted in self-defense? If you check through my post history here you'll see plenty of times when I've expressed uncertainty (whether it be about certain things GZ claims happened actually happening, or why O'Mara hasn't filed something, etc) and times I've admitted to being wrong about something, and times I've conceded apparent flaws in GZ's character. How much time have you spent conceding flaws in TM's character or that he might have had a role in things going the way they did, too?

Proof?

 

[remirol]

No, I just wonder why you keep posting it when you know that sustaining a certain level of injury is a complete non-factor to the legality of self-defense.

Stop fooling yourself.

[SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1]782.02 Justifiable use of deadly force.—The use of deadly force is justifiable when a person is resisting any attempt to murder such person or to commit any felony upon him or her or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person shall be.[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1]Sim[SIZE=-1]ple battery[SIZE=-1]... [/SIZE]such as a punch in the nose... is not a felony[SIZE=-1] nor is it attempted murder.

[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1]784.03 Battery; felony battery.—(1)(a) The offense of battery occurs when a person:1. Actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other; or
2. Intentionally causes bodily harm to another person.
(b) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person who commits battery commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
[SIZE=-1]...[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]784.041 Felony battery; domestic battery by strangulation.—[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](1) A person commits felony battery if he or shea) Actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other; and
(b) Causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1]A bro[SIZE=-1]ken nose is 'bodily harm' under 784.03, but is none of th[SIZE=-1]e latter[/SIZE] three[SIZE=-1] in .041[SIZE=-1], nor would a reasonable person be expected to conclude so[SIZE=-1]; a[SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1] broken nose i[SIZE=-1]ndicates "[/SIZE]fistfight", not [SIZE=-1]"[/SIZE]life-or-death situation".[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]The TL;DR version: [SIZE=-1]George doesn't have a case[SIZE=-1] under 782.02.

[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE] [/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1]776.013.(3)  A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force [/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself[SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1] or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]Nothing in this statute specifies any level of injuries that must be sustained by the defendant, but to attempt to claim that this makes the injuries George actually suffered a non-factor is a wilful disregard for reality. It's going to be very hard to convince a jury that George had a reasonable belief that he was in danger of "great bodily harm" when the pictures and medical report show that he had no more than a busted nose and a couple of scrapes.

I look forward to any attempt by O'Mara to introduce the "TM was going for my gun" version of events in court, because it will be a experience... probably not so much for George's side though.

I would expect O'Mara to instead go down the road of "George had no idea what TM was going to do to him, all he knew was that he had gotten hit in the nose, so he reacted the only way he could think of at the time". He needs to play on the sympathies of the jury as much as he can, because the bare facts of the case are still that George saw someone he thought was suspicious, escalated the situation in an unwarranted manner even though as a NW member, he was expected to know better, and ended up shooting an unarmed kid. Expect the prosecution to bang on that a LOT, by the way.

 

[Rare Truth]

...
I have no idea who Bavette is, or why s/he though that it was a good idea to drop the acronym in reference. But s/he was wrong, the end. This was the wrong time for it, and the wrong place.

I think we were tipped off early

in a snippet of one of his first steam-barreling posts in this thread

...
I have 700 children, and named them all Trayvon. I set them loose every night and have them beat up anyone who looks at them funny. They're such little angels.
...

.

 

[remirol]

As for avoiding the simplest and most straightforward explanations? Isn't that what all of you do by dismissing GZ's testimony and assuming that he didn't shoot the person attacking him in self-defense?

*sigh* Here's the thing. Only George knows exactly what he did that night. Martin can't give his version of events, because he's dead by George's hand, and that particular fact is not in dispute.

Because of that, the only way George gets out of big trouble on this is if he can convince a jury that it was self-defense. George knows it, everyone knows it, you get the idea. So, of course, George's statements are all completely predictable -- they will always be some form of "I didn't do it", or "I was attacked first", or any of a number of things that would tend to support his claim of self-defense. And they will be that way regardless of what actually happened that night.

In short: George has every incentive to lie, and unlike the state of Florida, _we_ are not obliged to provisionally accept his statements as true. (I can't find the statute right now, but I'm pretty sure there's something in FLA law WRT this sort of thing that says, paraphrased: if there aren't any other witnesses we're going to accept what the only living guy says as true by default)

From my non-obligated perspective, I think that everything George said _after_ he shot TM is not particularly worthwhile for determining the truth of what happened that night, unless it is inherently inculpatory or indicates that George is lying about something else he said. Until TM dies though, George has no reason to lie, so the NEN call is an extremely important piece of information, and probably why Dan O has taken it apart literally piece by piece.

 

[Dan O.]

Oops. On Hannity, George said he wasn't really running. Who to believe? George, or George?

I don't think it sounds like George is in a full run. Perhaps a fast waddle.