Merged Continuation Part 2: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[batvette]

The Florida supreme court has ruled that mere possession of common household items does not count unless there is demonstrated intent to commit a crime. Cops often make that mistake.

If it's this:
http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/pre2004/ops/93592.pdf

That ruling is obviously irrelevant to this discussion. I hope I needn't have to explain why.

 

[batvette]

We'll never know, since George murdered him. He can't defend himself

No we DO know, he claimed it belonged to "a friend" but he refused to name him. Is this a credible explanation?

Who said this? I said that he's told self-serving lies. The fact that before he committed the murder he thought Trayvon was on drugs when he wasn't isn't a lie, it's evidence of faulty cognitive skills and a bias against young black teens.

Why drop the race card when surely what happened is Martin wearing a hoodie concealed the phone and not knowing he was having a phone discussion, would have looked to any reasonable person at a distance to be a person on drugs?

No, I think like most racists, he just assumed that the unarmed black teenager was a criminal. In case you don't know this, he liked to make the vast majority of those 47 calls about black people.

No I DON'T know this because I know the facts unless you want to engage in semantics over what is a vast majority or substantiate that dubious claim.

While those records were still online at SPD's website I read all 47 reports and did a count on the racial demographics of the subject. The number of white and hispanic subjects combined were almost precisely the number of black subjects.

What makes your assertion absurd is not a single one of those reports resulted in a complaint being filed against Zimmerman- by police, the subject, or anyone- that he had engaged in racial profiling to unduly harass anyone.

Can you explain why police would come out 47 times on false pretenses by a racist and you cannot find a single instance of anyone documenting this?

What do you make of police statistics showing 200 reports taken by police from people reporting 200 crimes by blacks? 200 instances of racism by whites?

 

[johnny karate]

Was Trayvon involved in an act of burglary when he was shot and killed as he was walking home from the store?

And that's the one and only important question in this whole pathetic sideshow.

Zimmerman claimed he had to shoot and kill Martin because Martin was trying to kill him, not burglarize him.

Burglary doesn't factor in, and will not be deemed relevant in the trial.

Martin could have been convicted of 50 burglaries and it still wouldn't matter.

 

[johnny karate]

If someone is on trial for burglary, is possession of property reported missing in the crime to be considered by the jury to be evidence of guilt?

Please post the evidence that proves the jewelry found in Martin's possession was reported missing in a crime.

And then, please explain how and why you think any of this will find its way into the trial.

 

[phonebook]

However, there is evidence that Zimmerman repeatedly sexually assaulted his underage cousin. And that evidence is of course the statement of the victim.

So a statement outside a courtroom is evidence that something happened, gotcha.

The reality is that there is no evidence to substantiate Zimmerman's claim that Martin was somehow behaving suspiciously.

And that reality remains a reality no matter how hard you try to dismiss it.

So GZ's statement, outside a courtroom, that TM was acting suspiciously is also evidence then, correct?

The reality is that there is no evidence to substantiate Zimmerman's cousin's claim that he "repeatedly sexually assaulted her", correct?

The reality is that there IS evidence to substantiate Zimmerman's claim that Martin somehow punched him in the nose, and repeatedly bashed his head against the concrete.

 

[Dan O.]

If it's this:
http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/pre2004/ops/93592.pdf

That ruling is obviously irrelevant to this discussion. I hope I needn't have to explain why.

Pffft. Is that the best you can do? Touting out a straw man of your own and claiming it is irrelevant.

Yes, I believe you are going to have to explain why. Starting with why you chose that case which you say is "obviously irrelevant to this discussion".

 

[KatieG]

No we DO know, he claimed it belonged to "a friend" but he refused to name him. Is this a credible explanation?




Why drop the race card when surely what happened is Martin wearing a hoodie concealed the phone and not knowing he was having a phone discussion, would have looked to any reasonable person at a distance to be a person on drugs?




No I DON'T know this because I know the facts unless you want to engage in semantics over what is a vast majority or substantiate that dubious claim.

While those records were still online at SPD's website I read all 47 reports and did a count on the racial demographics of the subject. The number of white and hispanic subjects combined were almost precisely the number of black subjects.

What makes your assertion absurd is not a single one of those reports resulted in a complaint being filed against Zimmerman- by police, the subject, or anyone- that he had engaged in racial profiling to unduly harass anyone.

Can you explain why police would come out 47 times on false pretenses by a racist and you cannot find a single instance of anyone documenting this?

What do you make of police statistics showing 200 reports taken by police from people reporting 200 crimes by blacks? 200 instances of racism by whites?

No matter how much the CTH wants to make this trial about TM and the jewelry, it's not going to happen. It is TOTALLY irrelevant to what happened on Feb 26, when GZ shot TM in cold blood for no reason, other than those known to GZ. GZ didn't know anything about TM that night.

 

[KatieG]

No we DO know, he claimed it belonged to "a friend" but he refused to name him. Is this a credible explanation?

snipped for brevity


Actually, it's a very credible explanation. Few teens are going to give up a friend. That's what teens do. Often, it extends into adulthood.

 

[sgtbaker]

I have been thinking on this for a few days and am genuinely trying to come to a secure position on the relevance of some of the things O'Mara wants to bring to the trial. I hate to pull the race card but under these circumstances, I race is obviously a big part of this case.

When it comes to Trayvon's history, previous fights and even social media behavior can give an indication to his behavior. If everything about his behavior, prior to that night, paints a picture of a shy, timid kid who is typically scared of confrontation, it would give a good indication of who likely started the physical altercation, especially since Zimmerman does not have a squeaky clean history. If he was typically an aggressive kid, impulsive and quick to fly off the handle, it doesn't exactly prove he started the altercation but it would refute the statement, "Trayvon just wouldn't do that." It's not a case closer but it could be part of a greater picture for the defense.

The things that I am less comfortable with are the image Trayvon portrayed, as in fashion choices. It is sad that in 2013 we are still facing this but I am of the opinion that in a random selection of people (especially if the jury is more white than black), there is a greater likelihood that Trayvon's fashion choices; baggy clothes, hoodie, gold teeth, tattoos, etc, are going to be seen as more thug-like simply because he is black.

I agree that the whole jewelry thing is completely irrelevant. Whether he was, prior to this night, some kid who made the mistake of holding stolen jewelry for a friend and refused to give up his friend's name, a full time burglar, or in possession of that jewelry for completely innocuous reasons, there was no reports of burglaries that night and he was not in possession of any stolen property that night. Even if Zimmerman was dead on accurate and Trayvon was "casing" houses, no actual crime was committed, there is no evidence of an intent to commit a crime and his real intention is something that we will never know. There is simply zero evidence that he was doing anything other than walking home, when Zimmerman spotted him. Regardless of how long he took to get there, he was not breaking any laws, choosing to meander rather than briskly walk.

Where I am torn is Zimmerman's right to a defense. I probably wouldn't feel the same reluctance if Trayvon was white. It could me my latent racism and/or it could be the general attitude of whites that I am exposed to. I live one county south of Seminole. In Florida, community characteristics change drastically in short distances so Seminole could be completely alien to me. While Brevard county is predominantly a mix of people from all over the country, it seems to be a little more liberal than say, 1960's Alabama. The prevailing attitude I hear from whites is, "I don't have anything against black people, in general, I just hate those thug- wanna be types who talk in that gutter-slang." On one hand, I don't think it's fair for the defense to hold back a potentially valid defense on the off chance that the jury might be a little racist but on the other hand, the image painted of Trayvon, could really hurt the jury's ability to see him as a typical teenage victim.

I have my opinion on the known facts of this case; regardless of all the suspicion thrown around, I just don't feel that I've seen enough evidence to point in either direction, on what I feel are the deciding factors. I still follow this thread and I will probably follow the case thread more and if I have time to watch the case, I most certainly will. If Zimmerman is found not guilty, I would want it to be because the state failed to prove a case of guilt. I would feel sick if he were to be found not guilty because the jury saw, just another black kid, thug wanna be who dug is own grave. Regardless of my opinion of Crump, I suspect that is the very reason why when he made a public case, he was behind the scenes locking down his social networking persona and trying to get his school records sealed. Any thoughts?

 

[KatieG]

I have been thinking on this for a few days and am genuinely trying to come to a secure position on the relevance of some of the things O'Mara wants to bring to the trial. I hate to pull the race card but under these circumstances, I race is obviously a big part of this case.

When it comes to Trayvon's history, previous fights and even social media behavior can give an indication to his behavior. If everything about his behavior, prior to that night, paints a picture of a shy, timid kid who is typically scared of confrontation, it would give a good indication of who likely started the physical altercation, especially since Zimmerman does not have a squeaky clean history. If he was typically an aggressive kid, impulsive and quick to fly off the handle, it doesn't exactly prove he started the altercation but it would refute the statement, "Trayvon just wouldn't do that." It's not a case closer but it could be part of a greater picture for the defense.

The things that I am less comfortable with are the image Trayvon portrayed, as in fashion choices. It is sad that in 2013 we are still facing this but I am of the opinion that in a random selection of people (especially if the jury is more white than black), there is a greater likelihood that Trayvon's fashion choices; baggy clothes, hoodie, gold teeth, tattoos, etc, are going to be seen as more thug-like simply because he is black.

I agree that the whole jewelry thing is completely irrelevant. Whether he was, prior to this night, some kid who made the mistake of holding stolen jewelry for a friend and refused to give up his friend's name, a full time burglar, or in possession of that jewelry for completely innocuous reasons, there was no reports of burglaries that night and he was not in possession of any stolen property that night. Even if Zimmerman was dead on accurate and Trayvon was "casing" houses, no actual crime was committed, there is no evidence of an intent to commit a crime and his real intention is something that we will never know. There is simply zero evidence that he was doing anything other than walking home, when Zimmerman spotted him. Regardless of how long he took to get there, he was not breaking any laws, choosing to meander rather than briskly walk.

Where I am torn is Zimmerman's right to a defense. I probably wouldn't feel the same reluctance if Trayvon was white. It could me my latent racism and/or it could be the general attitude of whites that I am exposed to. I live one county south of Seminole. In Florida, community characteristics change drastically in short distances so Seminole could be completely alien to me. While Brevard county is predominantly a mix of people from all over the country, it seems to be a little more liberal than say, 1960's Alabama. The prevailing attitude I hear from whites is, "I don't have anything against black people, in general, I just hate those thug- wanna be types who talk in that gutter-slang." On one hand, I don't think it's fair for the defense to hold back a potentially valid defense on the off chance that the jury might be a little racist but on the other hand, the image painted of Trayvon, could really hurt the jury's ability to see him as a typical teenage victim.

I have my opinion on the known facts of this case; regardless of all the suspicion thrown around, I just don't feel that I've seen enough evidence to point in either direction, on what I feel are the deciding factors. I still follow this thread and I will probably follow the case thread more and if I have time to watch the case, I most certainly will. If Zimmerman is found not guilty, I would want it to be because the state failed to prove a case of guilt. I would feel sick if he were to be found not guilty because the jury saw, just another black kid, thug wanna be who dug is own grave. Regardless of my opinion of Crump, I suspect that is the very reason why when he made a public case, he was behind the scenes locking down his social networking persona and trying to get his school records sealed. Any thoughts?

Brava! Totally agree with that.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

snipped for brevity


Actually, it's a very credible explanation. Few teens are going to give up a friend. That's what teens do. Often, it extends into adulthood.

Teens always give up a friend when confronted by authority. See how easy it is to simply assert things without backing them up ?

Unless you think the jewelry was stolen, what would be the issue with naming the "friend" ? And I guess it wasn't really his friends, or his friend would have retrieved it ... So it makes it likely it was stolen, if not by TM, then his friend.

Is that something I should add to the list of "normal teen behaviors" that has been promoted in this thread ?

Get suspended from school frequently, smoke dope, and posses stolen goods and a potential burglary tool. Just your average teen...

 

[TheL8Elvis]

No matter how much the CTH wants to make this trial about TM and the jewelry, it's not going to happen. It is TOTALLY irrelevant to what happened on Feb 26, when GZ shot TM in cold blood for no reason, other than those known to GZ. GZ didn't know anything about TM that night.

Same question for you that JK has been dodging ... if it is "TOTALLY irrelevant" why does the judge grant the motion to photograph and inspect the jewelry ? Why not deny the motion, as it is "TOTALLY irrelevant" ?

 

[Skeptic Tank]

GZ shot TM in cold blood for no reason

 

[johnny karate]

So a statement outside a courtroom is evidence that something happened, gotcha.

So... you think a statement isn't evidence until it's made in a courtroom?

Take some to think about the implications of that, and what a silly notion it is.

So GZ's statement, outside a courtroom, that TM was acting suspiciously is also evidence then, correct?

Yes. Unsubstantiated evidence.

The reality is that there is no evidence to substantiate Zimmerman's cousin's claim that he "repeatedly sexually assaulted her", correct?

Also correct. I am not aware of any evidence that corroborates her claim.

The reality is that there IS evidence to substantiate Zimmerman's claim that Martin somehow punched him in the nose, and repeatedly bashed his head against the concrete.

There is substantiating evidence that Martin punched Zimmerman in the nose. Zimmerman had an injury consistent with being punched in the nose.

There is not substantiating evidence that Martin repeatedly bashed Zimmerman's head into the concrete.

And if you disagree, please provide that evidence.

(And just to save us all a little time, you're going to have to come up with something more than just two small cuts and a complete lack of any other related trauma. Something like the opinion of a verified medical professional that states Zimmerman's injuries were consistent with having his head repeatedly bashed into concrete should suffice.)

 

[Wolrab]

Was Trayvon involved in an act of burglary when he was shot and killed as he was walking home from the store?

No, he was involved in a battery.

 

[batvette]

GZ shot TM in cold blood for no reason, other than those known to GZ. GZ didn't know anything about TM that night.

That's funny. I thought we were discussing a case where a reliable eyewitness places Martin on top of Zimmerman striking him a number of times and not stopping even when the eyewitness yells at him to stop.
I thought we were discussing a case where we have photos of wounds consistent with this kind of beating.

So Zimmerman had no reason to shoot him. Except for that being on his back getting beaten thing we'd like to forget was happening.

By a little child (who was 5 inches taller than he, and kicked out of school for vandalism, truancy and drugs) off to get Skittles and Ice Tea.

 

[batvette]

snipped for brevity


Actually, it's a very credible explanation. Few teens are going to give up a friend. That's what teens do. Often, it extends into adulthood.

It's also the first alibi a thief uses when caught with stolen goods.
But even if we accept your theory this leaves Trayvon Martin having unwavering alliance with burglars and thieves as friends.
Not a convincing argument Zimmerman couldn't have been right and Martin may have been casing homes.

I think that is a point Sgt Baker needs to understand too. We're not trying to ascertain this just to smear Martin. It's claimed Zimmerman had no good reason to follow Martin in the first place and this was probably race motivated. If we can establish a history of Martin engaging in burglary or associating with burglars it makes it a lot more plausible Zimmerman was justified.
Burglary, particularly by non professionals, is a crime of opportunity. Martin staying for a short time in a neighborhood miles away from his own might be prone to look for such an opportunity. Even while talking on the phone to his G/F.
What gets me is that in 47 previous calls, not once did the police come out, find that Zimmerman was complaining about someone just minding their own business, coming back from the store getting Skittles.
One of the subjects in those 47 calls would have come forward by now and said "yeah I got hassled by this guy for just walking through the complex".
Isn't that a little bit of a stretch to believe Zimmerman began such a practice on call #48?
I'll allow the fact that Zimmerman may have been completely wrong and mistook talking on the phone with a hoodie and being preoccupied in a conversation with a G/F to be on drugs looking at houses.
That does not automatically prequalify him as a predator racist as is implied by his critics either.
In any case the eyewitness testimony I believe exists still places Zimmerman on his back being beaten by Martin and I believe legally that will be the crux of his defense.
It is also most plausible it was Martin that initiated the assault. I cannot fathom why Zimmerman would call police, then pursue, then assault Martin. I can easily see Martin assaulting Zimmerman if he felt threatened or even more likely, disrespected.
Not justification for assault. Yet being beaten and scared is justification to shoot, by the law.

 

[johnny karate]

Same question for you that JK has been dodging ... if it is "TOTALLY irrelevant" why does the judge grant the motion to photograph and inspect the jewelry ? Why not deny the motion, as it is "TOTALLY irrelevant" ?

The defense has a right to inspect potential evidence. That doesn't automatically grant them the right to have anything they inspect admitted into the evidence. That is another issue that will be dealt with separately.

And by the way, the prosecution was so terrified by the implications of this motion, that they made no effort to oppose it.

 

[johnny karate]

It's amazing how convinced some people are by a narrative that we know lacks sufficient evidence to merit an immunity hearing.

It gets repeatedly asserted that Martin assaulted and beat Zimmerman as if this was some kind of proven and obvious fact, and yet Zimmerman's defense team is forgoing the opportunity to present these proven and obvious facts and give their guy a free chance at acquittal.

Talk about a disconnect from reality.

 

[This is The End]

No, he was involved in a battery.

You forgot the "possibly in self defense" part.

It wasn't mere battery if M was just trying to protect himself.

We have yet to see any evidence either way.

And yet, according to Z, M first punched Z when Z reached for Z's pocket. For what, M would not know.

So, even according to Z's own story M has reason to defend himself.

If the state can prove even more than that, like that Z had his gun out before Z says it came into play, then Z has big problems.

What we know from Z's own story:

1) M saw someone following him, at night, when no one is around outside at all, just them.
2) M tried to get away from the stranger.
3) Z continued to follow M admittedly after M tried to get away.
4) M, seeing that the stranger was not going to stop following him, asked Z what he wants (using a euphemism "what is your problem").
5)The stranger says "I don't have a problem" while reaching for his pocket.

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hanni...eorge-zimmerman-breaks-silence-hannity?page=3

ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir. And I was wearing a rain jacket, and I had put my cell phone in my jacket pocket, as opposed to my jeans pocket where I normally keep it. And I immediately went to grab my phone to this time call 911 instead of a non-emergency, and when I reached into my pants pocket -- because that's where I keep it out of habit -- it wasn't there, and I was shocked. I looked up and he punched me and broke my nose.

How do we know that the gun in the waist holster was not either showing, or a noticeable bulge?