Merged Continuation Part 2: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[ABC10]

Can't we have a discussion without personal remarks? This entire case comes down to who hit who first.

 

[johnny karate]

Yep, she did. Thankfully, the rules of "evidence" also applies to Bernie and will hamstring his case. How Sweet It Is. No doubt in my mind that Bernie will start "flapping" and cross the line giving O'Mara West the opportunity to bring in Martin's stuff. Compared to that, George's little class and dropped girlfriend case is small potatoes.

I have no idea what you are talking about, or what exactly you find "sweet" about the shellacking the defense just took.

For starters, the prosecution have absolutely no reason to bring up anything regarding Martin's character. The trial isn't about him, it's about Zimmerman.

Furthermore, it was the prosecution who introduced these motions to have all this character evidence barred. They aren't going to then turn around and open the door to allow it to be introduced again.

I'm not sure what reason outside of desperate hope anyone would have for thinking otherwise.

 

[phonebook]

The funny thing is that if the scenario included one more gun:

Kid going home from shop; gets tailed by a guy in a car; runs; is followed by the guy on foot; is aggressively confronted by the guy; the guy reaches for is pocket; the kid pulls out a gun and shoots him...
...would have been perfectly legal, and many of the same people now condemning him would probably be defending his right to self-defense... but he punched the guy instead, so he's a thug.

That's your own hypothetical scenario though. You're taking bits and pieces from separate accounts of what happened and putting them together to create a scenario that nobody has claimed took place. What I'm specifically referring to is the "aggressively confronted by the guy" along with "guy reaches for his pocket". Nobody involved in the events that evening has told a story that included both of those elements.

 

[phonebook]

Feel free to explain how running away from someone who is following you, makes you "the aggressor". Because in my view, that's an absurd claim.

GZ was parked on a street, a good distance away from TM (according to the most reliable story we have at this time (like it or not), which is straight from GZ's mouth) before TM "ran".

The reason TM is called the aggressor, is because the aggressive action that lead to physical violence didn't occur til at least 2, perhaps 3 or more minutes AFTER GZ lost sight of TM (when GZ left his vehicle, after TM rounded the corner and headed south down the T), and wasn't anywhere near him (as far as GZ was apparently aware). That leaves plenty of time for TM to return to confront GZ and to then become the "aggressor". The evidence that TM was the aggressor is in GZ's injuries and TM's total lack of injuries (prior to the gunshot, obviously). I guess the jury is out on whether or not "Dee Dee's" claims of what she heard will convince the jury that that will be evidence that GZ was aggressive towards TM.

 

[bookworm]

Oh come on. There's plenty of evidence he wasn't running away. He had plenty of time to get home if that's what he wanted. He made the decision to go back and confront the jerk who was watching him. The girl on the phone knows it too. All the evidence points to this. Why anyone is still denying it is beyond me.

 

[KatieG]

GZ was parked on a street, a good distance away from TM (according to the most reliable story we have at this time (like it or not), which is straight from GZ's mouth) before TM "ran".

The reason TM is called the aggressor, is because the aggressive action that lead to physical violence didn't occur til at least 2, perhaps 3 or more minutes AFTER GZ lost sight of TM (when GZ left his vehicle, after TM rounded the corner and headed south down the T), and wasn't anywhere near him (as far as GZ was apparently aware). That leaves plenty of time for TM to return to confront GZ and to then become the "aggressor". The evidence that TM was the aggressor is in GZ's injuries and TM's total lack of injuries (prior to the gunshot, obviously). I guess the jury is out on whether or not "Dee Dee's" claims of what she heard will convince the jury that that will be evidence that GZ was aggressive towards TM.

That's your own hypothetical scenario though. See how that works? Just because GZ says something, doesn't make it true. No one has any reason to make more self serving statements than GZ.

 

[Megalodon]

That's your own hypothetical scenario though. You're taking bits and pieces from separate accounts of what happened and putting them together to create a scenario that nobody has claimed took place. What I'm specifically referring to is the "aggressively confronted by the guy" along with "guy reaches for his pocket". Nobody involved in the events that evening has told a story that included both of those elements.

Not really... IIRC GZ said he reached for his pocket, and that was when TM smacked him. Also, and again IIRC, there was a witness saying there was shouting before the fight. But johnny karate is right, everything that comes from GZ is gospel, unless it makes him look bad... quite like the real gospel, if you think about it...

 

[sgtbaker]

The funny thing is that if the scenario included one more gun:

Kid going home from shop; gets tailed by a guy in a car; runs; is followed by the guy on foot; is aggressively confronted by the guy; the guy reaches for is pocket; the kid pulls out a gun and shoots him...

...would have been perfectly legal, and many of the same people now condemning him would probably be defending his right to self-defense... but he punched the guy instead, so he's a thug.

I genuinely don't think that is the case. The claim (claim, not fact) is not that Zimmerman shot Trayvon because he perceived Trayvon to be a threat based on non-contact actions. The claim is that Zimmerman shot Trayvon after screaming for help, continuously, to no avail.

 

[ABC10]

Nope, no body tricked me. Thanks to the 12 year old Martin picture, I thought he had some kind of genetic disorder that made his small. I don't know about DeeDee. That whole thing is very questionable. After the exposed lies from her and about her, would anyone believe anything she claims including the letter that someone else wrote. I am afraid DeeDee can only help George. In particular when she confirms that Martin initiated the first verbal contact.

 

[phonebook]

That's your own hypothetical scenario though. See how that works? Just because GZ says something, doesn't make it true. No one has any reason to make more self serving statements than GZ.

How is that my hypothetical scenario? It didn't come from myself, it came from someone that has THE most relevant perspective of the events that night, who may just be telling the truth.

Witches in Salem also could have been said to have "self-serving reasons" to deny that they were witches. Just because you can imagine a reason for someone to lie (a guilty person that has been accused of something), or to otherwise make "self-serving" statements, does NOT mean what they are saying IS self-serving, or otherwise deceitful.

 

[phonebook]

Not really... IIRC GZ said he reached for his pocket, and that was when TM smacked him. Also, and again IIRC, there was a witness saying there was shouting before the fight. But johnny karate is right, everything that comes from GZ is gospel, unless it makes him look bad... quite like the real gospel, if you think about it...

Right, but he also said TM asked him beforehand "You got a problem?" and after GZ said "No, I don't have a problem", that was when GZ went to look where his phone was, and TM said "You do now" and punched him.

You are choosing to include the part where GZ reaches for his phone in his pocket as factual, but dismissing the other parts... why? Do you believe GZ was actually reaching for his weapon? If so, do you really think GZ would have had to search amongst his various pockets to determine where his gun was, when all along he would know it was near his hip, in its holster?

You seem to be choosing to only include the parts that GZ provided that serve to incriminate him, and are arbitrarily removing the parts that take away the justification for TM's actions, or that justify GZ's actions. How is that in any way a logical attempt to figure out what "really" happened? You're selectively taking pieces from the puzzle and arranging it in such a way that is specifically intended to present GZ as guilty.

Edited by Gaspode: 

Edited for moderated thread.

 

[KatieG]

Oh come on. There's plenty of evidence he wasn't running away. He had plenty of time to get home if that's what he wanted. He made the decision to go back and confront the jerk who was watching him. The girl on the phone knows it too. All the evidence points to this. Why anyone is still denying it is beyond me.

Cites or evidence please?

 

[bookworm]

That's your own hypothetical scenario though. See how that works? Just because GZ says something, doesn't make it true. No one has any reason to make more self serving statements than GZ.

But GZ is innocent until proven guilty. And everything he has said is backed by the evidence.

 

[Mumbles]

Oh come on. There's plenty of evidence he wasn't running away.

Well, unless you don't that whole "George Zimmerman repeatedly stated that he ran away, both during and after the encounter" thing. Oh, and the girl that Martin was talking on the phone with saying the same. And the whole thing where Zimmerman exits his car and begins running...somewhere, and miraculously ends up near Martin again.

 

[Dancing David]

Evidence that someone besides the murder victim was involved in a fight?

Exactly, funny how one video becomes a 'preponderance' of behavior needed for character testimony. Especially since it is not a video TM engaged in fighting, multiple times in different settings with different people. Which is exactly what 'character testimony' has to involve.

 

[KatieG]

But GZ is innocent until proven guilty. And everything he has said is backed by the evidence.

Innocent until proven guilty is for the legal system. And no, everything GZ says is not backed by evidence or we wouldn't be here debating it.

 

[johnny karate]

During the last hearing, Mark O'Mara claimed that Trayvon Martin's phone contained a video, presumably taken by him, of a pair of his friends beating a homeless man "senseless."

The video doesn't exist.

O'Mara "unintentionally mischaracterized" a video Martin recorded of two homeless men fighting over a bicycle when he claimed otherwise in court.

 

[KatieG]

O'Mara is going to end up getting sanctioned if he isn't careful. Apologizing is pretty lame and as someone else noted, you can't unring that bell.

 

[Unabogie]

Wow, it looks like O'Mara literally just made up the story that Trayvon had taken video of his friends beating up a homeless man.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...n-martin-fight-video-20130602,0,6996223.story

In court Tuesday, defense attorney Mark O'Mara described it as Trayvon video-recording two friends beating up a homeless man.

But in today's statement, O'Mara apologized and said it really shows Trayvon video-recording two homeless men fighting over a bicycle.

Trayvon, along with a friend, had come upon the fight and Trayvon had merely recorded it, according to the statement.

In his statement today, O'Mara described his mischaracterization in court as unintentional and said he was unhappy about it.

O'Mara is truly one of the sleaziest lawyers I've ever seen. And while I want Mr. Zimmerman to have a fair trial before his conviction, defending a murderer by making up lies about the murder victim and releasing them to the press in order to taint the jury pool really tests my better nature. I would like to see O'Mara get slapped by the bar association for this.

 

[Megalodon]

Right, but he also said TM asked him beforehand "You got a problem?" and after GZ said "No, I don't have a problem", that was when GZ went to look where his phone was, and TM said "You do now" and punched him.

Irrelevant. If TM had a gun and had shot GZ after that exchange and sudden movement, there would be no problem. Because GZ was acting in an aggressive and intimidating way towards TM, and TM had a reason to fear for his life.

You are choosing to include the part where GZ reaches for his phone in his pocket as factual, but dismissing the other parts... why? Do you believe GZ was actually reaching for his weapon?

Not trying to dismiss anything. The exchange changes nothing regarding the scenario I advanced.

If so, do you really think GZ would have had to search amongst his various pockets to determine where his gun was, when all along he would know it was near his hip, in its holster?

No, I'm saying that a lot of people use their guns in their pockets, and a sudden move to the pocket would have been enough reason for TM to shoot him.

You seem to be choosing to only include the parts that GZ provided that serve to incriminate him, and are arbitrarily removing the parts that take away the justification for TM's actions, or that justify GZ's actions. How is that in any way a logical attempt to figure out what "really" happened? You're selectively taking pieces from the puzzle and arranging it in such a way that is specifically intended to present GZ as guilty.

Not at all. I forgot to include the exchange, which in no way makes the situation better for GZ. I was just musing with the idea that, with exactly the same scenario, if TM had shot GZ it would have been a clear case of self-defense.