Merged Continuation Part 2: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[Giz]

snipped for brevity

This is incorrect. From the Orlando Sentinel:

Zimmerman, 28, first enrolled at the college in 2003 and was working toward a vocational certificate to become an insurance agent. He re-enrolled in 2009 and was working toward an Associate in Arts degree in a general studies program, according to the college.

Yes, that is a very important clarification. Only a student of criminal justice would realize how foolish it would be to call the police and then assault someone while the police were just moments away. But that behavior is typical of Art students.

 

[johnny karate]

No, I don't imagine he has any special powers except what we all have, an ability to make observations about people's behavior. In any event, Zimmerman's ovservation that Martin "looks like he may be on drugs" is validated by the Tox report.

Please enlighten me as to what "behavior" Zimmerman observed that indicated to him Martin was on drugs.

And please use direct quotes from Zimmerman.

 

[johnny karate]

This whole reefer madness angle is kind of funny. On the one hand, the defense wants to claim that Trayvon was impaired, swaying, and high on pot at the time George murdered him. In other words, he was so high he couldn't stand straight! He could barely walk! And yet 15 minutes later, this 158 pound pothead got the better of the NON-HIGH, NON-DRUNK, and 50 pounds heavier former bouncer? 15 minutes later he was stronger, faster, more adept, and had perfect reflexes and aim!

Does the claim that on top of being 50 pounds lighter and 11 years younger, Trayvon was also PHYSICALLY IMPAIRED really help George at all?

I don't think they've thought this through.

I hilited the strawmen you are attacking.

Uh... no.

Alleged straw man#1

On the one hand, the defense wants to claim that Trayvon was impaired, swaying, and high on pot at the time George murdered him. In other words, he was so high he couldn't stand straight! He could barely walk!

The defense's motion describes Martin as swaying while he was standing at the counter of the 7-11. A person who lacks the ability to stand up straight would certainly find walking a daunting task. It's quite clear the defense wishes to portray Martin as being intoxicated.

Straw man accusation fail #1.

Alleged straw man #2:

And yet 15 minutes later, this 158 pound pothead got the better of the NON-HIGH, NON-DRUNK, and 50 pounds heavier former bouncer? 15 minutes later he was stronger, faster, more adept, and had perfect reflexes and aim!

Let's just start with some of the claims made on this forum:

...GZ was overweight and out of shape and TM was stronger and faster

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8440768&postcount=1752

Please do provide an argument that Martin lacked the speed and agility to evade George Zimmerman at will, as indicated by his athletic participation, his age, and height and weight, whenever you are ready to do so.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9134644#post9134644

And that's just what a cursory search turned up. It has been argued here ad nauseam that Martin had a physical advantage over the guy who outweighed him by 50 lbs because of his supposed speed, agility and athleticism.

And then there's Zimmerman's account of the altercation in which he is completely dominated by Martin. He was supposedly overwhelmed immediately and rendered completely helpless.

That's very much a description of someone with incredible physical prowess.

Straw man accusation fail #2.

And Unabogie is right. It's laughable that now the defense wants to argue the kid who so totally physically overwhelmed Zimmerman was also so high, he couldn't even stand up straight.

 

[Mumbles]

Yes, the issue of burglary is relevant because it proves Martin might have attacked and assaulted Zimmerman.

Because as everyone knows burglary is a crime in which you attack and assault other people.

What perfectly airtight logic.

There's a much simpler problem with the narrative of Martin as some sort of crazed would-be killer.

According to Zimmerman's own police recording, Martin was simply walking from the local 7-11 to where he was staying, Zimmerman decided to follow him in his car for no apparent reason, and when Martin noticed this and ran away, Zimmerman got out of his car and chased Martin.

Simply put, the notion that Martin was acting aggressively towards Zimmerman is a joke. The strongest evidence Zimmerman had agains Martin at the time, was irrelevant nonsense like "looking at houses", and having his hand in his waistband. Neither is a reason to even be suspicious, much less to chase a stranger in the evening.

 

[Mumbles]

No, I don't imagine he has any special powers except what we all have, an ability to make observations about people's behavior. In any event, Zimmerman's ovservation that Martin "looks like he may be on drugs" is validated by the Tox report.

Actually, it's invalidated by the toxicology report. All we know, as if now, is that Martin did not have enough THC in his body to impair him in any way. And again, we know that Zimmerman got out of his car to chase Martin on foot, so what drugs Martin was on is of no relevance in any event.

Really,no the Zimmerman defenders, I'd love to know what the logic here is. You see a guy walking down the street, he's looking around him...where do you go from there, to "get out of my car and run after him"? No, it's not telling the police where he went, since you have no evidence that he's involved in a crime. And no, it's not "look for a street number" since the evidence clearly shows that Zimmerman was not looking for an address.

 

[Mumbles]

What do we call saying Zimmerman had no reason at all to follow Martin other than he didn't like blacks and because he didn't like black people in his neighborhood and so hunted down Martin, initiated a fight with him and shot him in cold blood for no good reason?

There's more evidence for the above, than for the notion that Martin was contemplating some sort of crime against others when ZImmerman spotted him. The former has the obvious evidence of Zimmerman harassing a young black guy for the alleged crime of "walking around, looking about", while the latter has no evidence whatsoever.

I see nothing in the above points which preclude the possibility Zimmerman's description was correct and Martin was casing the neighborhood looking for an opportunity. Does Martin had to have committed the burglary for him to have intended to do so? Why was he so irritated that George Zimmerman was observing him from a distance? Why did he try to evade Zimmerman?

The most obvious reason is because Zimmerman was stalking Martin for no apparent reason. As I've said several times before, if some random dude starts following me in his car, and jumps out and runs after me when I try to get away from him, I immediately assume that he's out for violence, and I see nothing wrong with assuming such. Normal people simply don't jump out of their car to stalk random strangers walking down the street the way Zimmerman did.

Really. You'd better alert the justice dept, one incident on your record is enough to label you a criminal and will be used in your sentencing on future offenses.
Keep in mind the only reason that Martin's possession of that jewelry was not investigated, the jewelry connected to the break in, and Martin having a burglary or stolen property record, is because of a well documented scandal by MDSDP to fix juvenile crime stats in their area. So if you're saying without a conviction Martin can't be a burglar I will ask, how could he possibly have one?

The only source I've seen from this so far is from the bigots at Conservative Treehouse, and I will not trust them on much of anything.

If people are saying Zimmerman called police, pursued him and killed him for merely being black I think Zimmerman's police call history is extremely relevant. He'd never done that before.

He apparently did it this time, though.

Actually, there are other, also stupid, reasons why Zimmerman may have pursued Martin, such as "wearing warm clothes in winter" or "covering his head in the rain". Nothing pointing to an actual crime in progress, though.

Does it really make sense that Zimmerman would call police THEN initiate the assault with them minutes away? As for Zimmerman holding him there remember he had nearly completed a criminal justice degree, I think he'd know better.

All this indicates to me is that Zimmerman is rather stupid. That's not much of a shock, given his non-emergency police recording.

Actually there is. Coroner's examination of Martin found no evidence of blows to the face and head or any other signs of Zimmerman striking him. In fact IIRC the only damage to Martin was the gunshot wound and some light abrasions or bruising on his hands. Please correct me if that assumption is wrong.

Zimmerman had no such injuries. Just a broken nose, small lacerations on the face, and scrapes and cuts to the back of the head.

This would suggest the only crime going on that night was Martin's brutal assault of George Zimmerman, in which if he had not been legally carrying a firearm, the outcome of which would be wholly different.

Again, running away from someone is not a "brutal assault", and IMO it's perfectly acceptable to strike a stranger who decides to chase you around for no reason. In fact, given that Zimmerman shot him, I'll state that Martin was likely in the right, even if we assume that Martin struck first - which is questionable.

You have to wonder what the world is coming to where a 17 y/o goes to stay with a relative in an unfamiliar neighborhood, where homeowners had asked a responsible adult to take on neighborhood watch duties, and that 17 year old decides that being looked at is due cause to brutally beat a man asked to watch over his own neighborhood- and people (not necessarily you) seem to think that's okay.

Your fictional account is of no importance to the actual matter at hand.

 

[Unabogie]

An interesting comment about the admissibility of trace amounts of THC in a victim's system in Florida case law:

http://frederickleatherman.com/2013...ng-document-in-zimmerman-case/#comment-116401

“The evidence that Madrigal had drugs in his system at the time of his death was also properly excluded. Appellant contends the evidence was relevant to his claim of self-defense, in that it showed Madrigal acted violently and irrationally in attacking him with the knife. But appellant’s self-defense claim was grounded in the notion that Madrigal and Charity conspired to kill him, not that Madrigal attacked him in a drug-induced rage. Therefore, the evidence of Madrigal’s drug use was of dubious relevance from a tactical standpoint.

In addition, while there was evidence Madrigal had trace amounts of cocaine and marijuana in his system, and those drugs could have had a “physiological effect” on him, there was no evidence they were actually inclined to make him act aggressively or violently during his fatal encounter with appellant. Therefore, even if the evidence of Madrigal’s drug use had some bearing on the case, its exclusion would not be cause for reversal. (See People v. Wright (1985) 39 Cal.3d 576, 585-586 [absent evidence regarding the effects of the defendant's drug use, exclusion of drug evidence was not prejudicial].)”.

 

[johnny karate]

Yes, that is a very important clarification. Only a student of criminal justice would realize how foolish it would be to call the police and then assault someone while the police were just moments away. But that behavior is typical of Art students.

What makes me laugh the most about this specious argument is it implies Zimmerman isn't foolish.

The guy who assaults law enforcement agents after they've identified themselves.

The guy who talks with his wife in laughably simplistic code about the money he plans to hide from the court during a phone conversation he knows is being recorded.

The guy who takes a gun and follows around total strangers he suspects of being criminals even though he knows the cops are on their way.

Yeah, that guy clearly wouldn't do something stupid or rash.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

I haven't visited this thread in ages so forgive me if this isn't new info. http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/23/justice/florida-zimmerman-defense/index.html

I just wanted to say I strongly disagree with the release of this information. The fact that TM had taken pictures of a gun with his cell phone does not suggest for one second that he could be anything but an innocent sweet 17-year old. Any consideration that he might have engaged violently with GZ should be summarily dismissed without question.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Case in point: O'Mara manufactured a fantasy about discovery violations that was proven in court to have no legal merit. But there was nothing stopping him from filing those bogus motions in the first place.

http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0513/motion_for_sanctions.pdf

Zimmerman asserts that the SAO lied when claiming to the court that they have no reports regarding Martin's phone data. Zimmerman also asserts that the binary data file does not satisfy the state's Brady obligation to inform Zimmerman about the exculpatory information contained on Martin's phone.

My question for you is this, johnny karate:

Is this motion also "bogus", and a "manufactured fantasy", like the previous motion ? Or does it only become those things if Judge Nelson rules against it ?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Uh... no.
Alleged straw man#1

The defense's motion describes Martin as swaying while he was standing at the counter of the 7-11. A person who lacks the ability to stand up straight would certainly find walking a daunting task. It's quite clear the defense wishes to portray Martin as being intoxicated.

Straw man accusation fail #1.

I agree, the defense wishes to portray submit evidence that visually shows Martin as being intoxicated. impaired. And that is what the video shows. But your claim that swaying means that walking would be "daunting" is ridiculous. And swaying != " barely walk."

It would seem more reasonable to me if it was simply argued that he wasn't swaying when he stood there, or the swaying was not an impairment.

Alleged straw man #2:
Let's just start with some of the claims made on this forum:
<snip>

Why, was Unabogie talking about is claimed on this forum, or what the defense claims ?

On the one hand, the defense wants to claim...

Since it was about what the defense claimed, how is what some poster said here relevant ? It's not.

And Unabogie is right. It's laughable that now the defense wants to argue the kid who so totally physically overwhelmed Zimmerman was also so high, he couldn't even stand up straight.

I don't find the claim that someone who was impaired to some degree could sucker punch and then continue to attack someone else laughable.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Any chance you could provide a few links to some of those experts here who have been making such claims?

Here are two, is that enough ?

It astounds me that although the states on Toxicologist is saying

Actually, it's invalidated by the toxicology report. All we know, as if now, is that Martin did not have enough THC in his body to impair him in any way. And again, we know that Zimmerman got out of his car to chase Martin on foot, so what drugs Martin was on is of no relevance in any event.

So in the absence of any evidence whatsoever, you're holding out for some mythical tox report that will be different from the one they already released which showed that Trayvon had a tiny amount of THC in his system, an amount which precluded him being high that night.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

That's a neat trick, using "high" as if it were a medical term.

/s/high/impaired. It doesn't change the meaning of what I wrote.

<snip>

Finally, let's look at some facts here. Trayvon was at 1.5 ng/ml of THC. Here's what that means.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/People/injury/research/job185drugs/cannabis.htm

I hope you're seeing the problem here for old George.

No, I don't see the problem,, but Dan O may have some questions for you:

Finally we have someone that can provide a proper interpretation of that toxicology report for us.

In your professional opinion, given the levels of THC and metabolites in Trayvon's system, what quantity of marijuana consumption and what time delay would thse readings be consistent with? I assume you have studies and or tables that will support your findings. Could you link to those so that we can confirm your opinion?

 

[johnny karate]

Here's what Gene Nichols, president of the Jacksonville chapter of the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers has to say about O'Mara's latest evidence dump:

There is no reason why this information has been released, other than to affect jurors. The allegation, or what the Zimmerman defense team wants everyone to believe, is that Trayvon was a violent young man. They want you to believe that Trayvon was involved with drugs because maybe he made statements over his texts. These are texts that would most likely never see the light of day in court.

 

[bookworm]

I think that to get from point A) he had potentially stolen jewelry and a burglary tool in his bag to B) reacts violently to being followed requires somewhat of a leap. Again, if his school records, social media accounts, and any other history they can dig up shows he has violent tendencies, I will change my position but at this time, I don't see how possessing stolen jewelry is evidence of violence.

Here's a start.

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/0...about-fighting-marijuana-and-guns?hpt=hln10_3

 

[johnny karate]

http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0513/motion_for_sanctions.pdf

Zimmerman asserts that the SAO lied when claiming to the court that they have no reports regarding Martin's phone data. Zimmerman also asserts that the binary data file does not satisfy the state's Brady obligation to inform Zimmerman about the exculpatory information contained on Martin's phone.

My question for you is this, johnny karate:

Is this motion also "bogus", and a "manufactured fantasy", like the previous motion ? Or does it only become those things if Judge Nelson rules against it ?

Yes. Because that's how these things work.

Here, let me walk you through it:

One team of attorneys files a motion making certain claims.

The other team of attorneys opposes that motion and denies the claims therein.

The judge hears arguments from both sides, and renders a decision based on the evidence presented.

The judge is the sole and final abiter in these matters. The issue ends with the decision the judge renders.

And in case you don't recall, the last time O'Mara brought claims of discovery violations and a request for sanctions to Judge Nelson, she decided his claims were unfounded and denied his request for subsequent sanctions.

That is the one and only legal standard.

Let me know if you understand, or if you need me to further explain.

 

[johnny karate]

I agree, the defense wishes to portray submit evidence that visually shows Martin as being intoxicated. impaired. And that is what the video shows. But your claim that swaying means that walking would be "daunting" is ridiculous. And swaying != " barely walk."

It would seem more reasonable to me if it was simply argued that he wasn't swaying when he stood there, or the swaying was not an impairment.

"Swaying" as a sign of impairment is an indication that the person in question is having trouble keeping their balance. Thus the alleged impairment.

A person who can't keep their balance enough to stand still is not going to be able to keep their balance while walking.

This is quite simple logic, and I am surprised it needs to be explaiend.

Why, was Unabogie talking about is claimed on this forum, or what the defense claims ?
Since it was about what the defense claimed, how is what some poster said here relevant ? It's not.

You argued it was a straw man, not that it was irrelevant.

I don't find the claim that someone who was impaired to some degree could sucker punch and then continue to attack someone else laughable.

Great, but that's not the claim that's being made.

The claim being made is that Martin demonstrated extraordinary physical prowess (he completely overpowered and rendered totally helpless a former bouncer that outweighed him by 50 lbs) while being too high to stand up straight.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Here's what Gene Nichols, president of the Jacksonville chapter of the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers has to say about O'Mara's latest evidence dump:

There is no reason why this information has been released,¹ other than to affect jurors. The allegation, or what the Zimmerman defense team wants everyone to believe, is that Trayvon was a violent young man. They want you to believe that Trayvon was involved with drugs because maybe he made statements over his texts2. These are texts that would most likely never see the light of day in court.³

1. It is discovery. The state filed a motion to insure that the defense complied with discovery, so the defense complied.

2. Is there still someone who doesn't believe TM was involved with drugs ?

3. Apparently discovery is full of things that may never see the light of day in court, like rape allegations, etc. It seems as if that is the nature of discovery...

 

[johnny karate]

Here are two, is that enough ?

It astounds me that although the states on Toxicologist is saying

Except no one said it was "impossible", as you claimed.

What was claimed is what other experts were actually quoted as saying.

To that point, you'll note the defense's motion did not include an affidavit from Dr. Goldberger.

Just their claim of what his conclusions were.

This from the same defense team who also claimed in court documents that their client was indigent and that the prosecution had commited discovery violations. And we all know how those claims fared in the light of closer scrutiny.

I find it surprising anyone would take what they claim at face value.

 

[Cylinder]

Here's what Gene Nichols, president of the Jacksonville chapter of the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers has to say about O'Mara's latest evidence dump:

Gene Nichols is wrong. Not only is this release required by Florida's Sunshine Law, it's also the law of the case.

All documents filed with the Clerk of Court shall remain open for public inspection, with the exception of:

a) Documents addressing the security of the parties, witnesses, or attorneys while at the courthouse; and

b) Documents containing the current address or location of the Defendant or his spouse.

Of course, the state had opportunity to bring this information to the court's attention and ask that it be protected or sealed.

Future documents may be filed under seal if accompanied by a Motion for Protective Order if the filing party has a good-faith belief that the information contained therein may be restricted according to law.

There's a reason the state didn't take that option.