Merged Continuation Part 2: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Clearly this man has no history of lying and no reason to fabricate anything to cover his arse. We should believe what he has said and will say completely at face value.

He probably knew that people had made recordings of Trayvon screaming for help, and he had the forethought to know that his case would go to trial, so he thought to himself, "If anyone happened to have recorded this, I'll say the person yelling for help was me". He probably punched himself in the nose and smashed his head into the sidewalk. Of course that's what happend. Mmm hmmm.

 

[Bardy]

Hrm. Personally, I would think that they'd have to show that his injuries were consistent with someone taking a beating vicious enough to merit lethal force in self defense.

I see this argument pop up a lot and have to wonder how many fights the people who make it have been in. A beating is not necessarily a smoothly elevating onflict in which, if you are on the receiving end, you can judge the difference between 'severe' and 'moderate' and when that line is crossed. Unless you are a professional fighter, chances are that one clean shot to the jaw will knock you unconscious and in a tussle, that one shot can come at any time (indeed, a single punch can actually kill). The rub here is that once you are unconscious, you are completely at the mercy of your opponent. If they wish to beat you to death, they can.

In short, any beating is potentially life threatening. All one has to do is look at the number of fights caught on cellphones in which the first clean shot results in a KO or a person falling unconscious on to the ground and banging the back of their head. Regardless of the amount of damage I had received to a certain point, were I on the ground being beaten I would certainly consider my life in danger without waiting for a skull fracture to confirm it.

 

[Noztradamus]

The significance is that he said it before he knew there was recordings of the screams made.

How is that significant? He has more motive to claim ownership of ths screams if he believed there were no recordings of then.

 

[WildCat]

Hrm. Personally, I would think that they'd have to show that his injuries were consistent with someone taking a beating vicious enough to merit lethal force in self defense. The laws there and I probably don't agree on that point though.

That is correct. Nothing in Florida law requires you to take a "vicious beating" before defending yourself.

 

[WildCat]

It doesn't rule out the possibility that he was already in "damage control" mode.

Man, it's amazing how all the evidence fits all of the lies Zimmerman told in a sudden "damage control mode".

It looks like all BDLR has left is a statement by Zimmerman that after he shot Martin he climbed on top and spread his arms out when in fact Martin's body had the arms underneath. I'm not sure how such a detail fits the "genius liar" argument, or is relevant in any other way to determining guilt, but it's all he has left.

 

[Mister Earl]

He probably knew that people had made recordings of Trayvon screaming for help, and he had the forethought to know that his case would go to trial, so he thought to himself, "If anyone happened to have recorded this, I'll say the person yelling for help was me". He probably punched himself in the nose and smashed his head into the sidewalk. Of course that's what happend. Mmm hmmm.

I'm kind of disappointed with you, honestly. I thought you were a better skeptic than this. Can you honestly NOT aknowledge the possibility that Zimmerman lied at this point? I'm not saying he did lie or didn't lie, but made the point it was at least a possibility. Is that really so absurd? Why?

 

[Mister Earl]

Man, it's amazing how all the evidence fits all of the lies Zimmerman told in a sudden "damage control mode".

It's possible I'm wrong and Zimmerman didn't lie about some things. I'll admit that. But wouldn't you agree that if someone did something they knew to be wrong, and that it had resulted in a death, that they'd at least be somewhat inclined to lie at some point?

 

[WildCat]

I'm kind of disappointed with you, honestly. I thought you were a better skeptic than this. Can you honestly NOT aknowledge the possibility that Zimmerman lied at this point? I'm not saying he did lie or didn't lie, but made the point it was at least a possibility. Is that really so absurd? Why?

There's just as much evidence that Zimmerman is a space alien.

A skeptic is supposed to look at the totality of the evidence, and I can't think of a single plausible scenario in which Martin is trying to get away from Zimmerman and yet the 2 end up in a fight at the T. They could only meet at the T if Martin wanted to meet there.

Everyone is conceding the "Zimmerman jumped out of his truck and chased terrified Trayvon, gun in hand" argument by now, yes? I'm pretty sure the state won't be arguing that, but nothing would surprise me at this point. They're getting desperate.

 

[WildCat]

It's possible I'm wrong and Zimmerman didn't lie about some things. I'll admit that. But wouldn't you agree that if someone did something they knew to be wrong, and that it had resulted in a death, that they'd at least be somewhat inclined to lie at some point?

Those would have to be some pretty lucky lies, what with all the evidence he couldn't have known about and all.

 

[Mister Earl]

There's just as much evidence that Zimmerman is a space alien.

A skeptic is supposed to look at the totality of the evidence, and I can't think of a single plausible scenario in which Martin is trying to get away from Zimmerman and yet the 2 end up in a fight at the T. They could only meet at the T if Martin wanted to meet there.

I can think of half a dozen plausible scenarios. I do not think you are trying too hard.

I'll give one example. Martin flees between the buildings to get away from the creepy guy in the car. Ducking behind the buildings and out of sight. He stays there, waiting for Zimmerman to drive on so he doesn't encounter him again. Meanwhile he's on the phone with his friend. Suddenly, there's the creepy guy coming around the building.

That's just an easy one.

Everyone is conceding the "Zimmerman jumped out of his truck and chased terrified Trayvon, gun in hand" argument by now, yes? I'm pretty sure the state won't be arguing that, but nothing would surprise me at this point. They're getting desperate.

Maybe. I'm not solid on the law side of the house. Zimmerman may very well walk.

 

[applecorped]

Finally this circus will be over. I hope justice is done.

This means that Zimmerman is acquitted on all charges.

 

[WildCat]

I can think of half a dozen plausible scenarios. I do not think you are trying too hard.

I'll give one example. Martin flees between the buildings to get away from the creepy guy in the car. Ducking behind the buildings and out of sight. He stays there, waiting for Zimmerman to drive on so he doesn't encounter him again. Meanwhile he's on the phone with his friend. Suddenly, there's the creepy guy coming around the building.

That's just an easy one.

Not plausible to me. He would have gone home to "get away from the creepy guy in the car", it's where he was headed anyway. It's not like Zimmerman was between him and his house. Indeed, Martin doesn't go home. He stops for some reason, or he went home and then went back to the T. Didn't one witness from that end report a "shadow" going left to right (toward the T)?

 

[Mister Earl]

Not plausible to me.

Why not? I did it myself when I was younger, and playing hooky from school. If someone's in a car, and you want to lose them, you go somewhere they can't follow and you wait them out. They're not gonna block the road forever. They're going to move on, perhaps assuming you left via the other side. You wait, and then you move on when they're gone.

This is really simple stuff.

 

[bynmdsue]

Why not? I did it myself when I was younger, and playing hooky from school. If someone's in a car, and you want to lose them, you go somewhere they can't follow and you wait them out. They're not gonna block the road forever. They're going to move on, perhaps assuming you left via the other side. You wait, and then you move on when they're gone.

This is really simple stuff.

So if you're doing something wrong and you don't want to get caught...

 

[WildCat]

Why not? I did it myself when I was younger, and playing hooky from school. If someone's in a car, and you want to lose them, you go somewhere they can't follow and you wait them out. They're not gonna block the road forever. They're going to move on, perhaps assuming you left via the other side. You wait, and then you move on when they're gone.

This is really simple stuff.

Once out of sight of the truck at the T he had a clear path home. Martin's road wasn't blocked, the threat was behind him.

 

[bynmdsue]

I think the part about this whole thing I don't like, is how staggeringly subjective it is. You don't have to prove that your life was in danger. You just have to tell someone you were really, really sure it was. That seriously bothers me.

Innocent until proven guilty. But the cops aren't just going to take your word for it and haul the body away like garbage for you. There will be an investigation and if evidence turns up that doesn't match your story you'll be arrested and charged.

 

[bookworm]

Because the law does not require ANY injury at all. If I, a stranger to you, leapt out from behind a tree with an ax, shouting "I'ma keel you!" and start to swing, you would very likely be found justified in using deadly force against me even though I never touched you.

Thanx! You just made me laugh out loud and make a fool of myself!

 

[bookworm]

Not really, no. It sounds like Martin only called Zimmerman a "creepy-ass cracker" because Zimmerman was slowly following him in his car (something the defense agreed with). As in...creeping behind him. And a lot of kids use "The N-word" the way most people use words like "guy" (as well as people older than kids, eg. me), so I'm not shocked that Martin used it for a white guy if he were surprised.

Cracker is a racial slur. And if that's the argument for the n-word, I'd bet a lot of older people would say the n-word was pretty common for their time. That argument doesn't wash for them and it doesn't wash for Trayvon either. This goes both ways. He used racial slurs.

 

[Mister Earl]

Once out of sight of the truck at the T he had a clear path home. Martin's road wasn't blocked, the threat was behind him.

Zimmerman couldn't have beaten him to the other end with his vehicle?

 

[Cavemonster]

Innocent until proven guilty. But the cops aren't just going to take your word for it and haul the body away like garbage for you. There will be an investigation and if evidence turns up that doesn't match your story you'll be arrested and charged.

That's not how innocent until proven guilty works or what it means. He DID kill Trayvon, the prosecution doesn't have to prove that, everyone admits it. It isn't the burden of the state to prove it wasn't self defense. Self defense is an affirmative defense. The burden of proof is on GZ to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was acting in self defense, not on the prosecution to prove he wasn't. If there is reasonable doubt that he was acting in self defense, then his affirmative defense fails.