Merged Continuation Part 2: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[Mumbles]

Let's take your argument to it's conclusion shall we?

A girl walks through a dark park at night and is attacked by a man who tries to rape her, she shots him. By your argument, she is guilty of his manslaughter because by entering the dark park at night she placed herself in a position of potential danger and if she had stayed to well lit streets then none of it would have happened, thus by your argument, it is indisputable that this girl bought the attempted rape about through her actions alone, and should get manslaughter bought on by her own incompetence.

Really?

Ugh, I really hate rape metaphors. But here goes...

You don't seem to get that the apparent victim is Martin. In this case, we're discussing a woman who jumps out of her car to pursue a guy because she thinks he's so hot, and yells "rape" afterwards. In this absurd scenario, I'd vote to acquit. After all, she was literally chasing the guy and begging for sex.

First off, this has nothing to do with most rape cases.

Secondly, it has nothing to do with the Martin case.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....

Yup: GZ stalked TM, assaulted TM's fists with his nose, and then shot him, all because... well, just because. Makes perfect sense.

Makes sense, absolutely not. Fits the evidence, absolutely so.

 

[mikedenk]

There really shouldn't be many people surprised when the verdict "Not Guilty" comes back on all counts.

But there will be... I assume it will mostly come from those who feel that the prosecution's job was to demonstrate inconsistencies in GZ's story, rather than presenting evidence to back up their theory of guilt.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Jury speculation:

After all the talk about "hard working jury" that went on by some of the lawyer talking heads during the case, the jury broke yesterday at 6:00 pm, after only 3.5 hours of deliberation.

I expected we might have had a verdict last night, clearly not, though.

You can read anything you want into the length of deliberation yesterday ... I will read into that they made up their minds, but wanted to sleep on it, and not appear as though the rushed to judgement.

I expect a verdict today.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/...ey-fires-information-techonology-director-who

State Attorney Angela Corey fired her office’s information technology director Friday after he testified last month about being concerned prosecutors did not turn over information to George Zimmerman’s defense team in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin.

On the same day attorneys finished their closing arguments in that nationally watched trial, a state attorney investigator went to Ben Kruidbos’ home about 7:30 a.m. to hand-deliver a letter stating Kruidbos “can never again be trusted to step foot in this office.”

no retribution going on there ....

 

[Dan O.]

As I posted earlier, although the state has not articulated a complete theory in one shot, it seems part of the theory is not that GZ had the gun out prior to TM being on top of GZ (which the state apparently concedes) is that GZ pulled out the gun after TM gave up.

Guy: It is physically impossible GZ could have taken out the gun unless TM was getting off of him, or he had backed up so far. He didn't shoot him because he had to, he shot him because he wanted to

So, can you explain what you think happened that evening , incorporating the states theory above ?

I already did back in May: "This looks like Trayvon was in the process of getting up which gave George access to his gun. George shot Trayvon not out of fear of future injury but out of anger for being beaten."


Did you happen to catch the prosecution making my other two points?

 

[RandFan]

There really shouldn't be many people surprised when the verdict "Not Guilty" comes back on all counts.

But there will be... I assume it will mostly come from those who feel that the prosecution's job was to demonstrate inconsistencies in GZ's story, rather than presenting evidence to back up their theory of guilt.

I expect not guilty. There will be no surprise on my part. That doesn't change the fact that I think GZ made bad decisions that put an innocent person at risk based on the irrational fears of an untrained individual that resulted in the death of Martin. It would be arrogant of me to state that I'm sufficiently informed to say that the law should be changed to ensure that people who act in such a manner are punished. I think him negligent and I think that negligence contribute to the death of Martin. Did GZ's action fit the legal definition of negligent homicide? I honestly don't know but in my unlettered opinion it should.

 

[KatieG]

Did you read the letter detailing his firing? Totally justified after what he did.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Went to post this in the other thread, but got beaten by the lock.

Maybe someone who is a lawyer can clear this up, but doesn't the fact that GZ is making an affirmative defense (self-defense) mean that the burden of proof is really his in this case?

No, which makes sense. Under the legal system the Defendant is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty. The State has to show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If this was switched by a claim of self defence, then no would ever claim such as a defence because all the State would have to do is show reasonable doubt that it wasn't to gain a conviction, totally in opposition to what the legal system requires.

The State must show beyond a reasonable doubt that that a crime was committed and that the defendant was not justified in committing that crime based on self defence.

So basically, if they are doing their job right the Jury have three things to decide, and they really show decide in this order.

1) Based on the evidence presented in court, has the prosecution shown that it is beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime of 2nd Degree Murder as specified by the Law was committed by the defendant?

2) If the answer to 1 is "No", then based on the evidence presented in court has the prosecution shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime of Manslaughter as specified by the Law was committed by the defendant?

3) If yes to either 1 or 2, then based on the evidence presented in court, did the prosecution show that it was beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self defence during the commission of that crime?

If the answer to either of questions 2 or 3 are "No", then the Jury MUST find for Not Guilty.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Ugh, I really hate rape metaphors. But here goes...

You don't seem to get that the apparent victim is Martin. In this case, we're discussing a woman who jumps out of her car to pursue a guy because she thinks he's so hot, and yells "rape" afterwards. In this absurd scenario, I'd vote to acquit. After all, she was literally chasing the guy and begging for sex.

First off, this has nothing to do with most rape cases.

Secondly, it has nothing to do with the Martin case.

Where is your evidence that GZ was literally chasing the TM and begging for a fight?

Where is the evidence that GZ followed after TM after the NEN operator told him that he didn't have to? Where is the evidence that GZ even knew where TM had gone? He told the NEN that he had lost sight of him and didn't know. Are you claiming this was a lie? If so, what is your evidence of this being a lie? What evidence do you have that he was spoiling for, or looking for a fight?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Pretty much. This is how it goes

A girl walks through a dark park at night . Following a man. He notices this and asks "Why are you following me?"
She says "what are You doing here?"

Then ... ah heck, just rent Monster (2003) to see how it plays out.

You seem to have missed out a huge chunk here. There was a large period of time that there was no following being done, unless against the evidence you believe that GZ lied to the NEN operator when he say he had lost sight of TM and didn't know where he was.

Also, RJ states that she heard a blow being struck after that exchange. TM didn't have a mark on him that was consistent with GZ striking him. The only one that had any injury consistent with being punched was GZ. Are you suggesting that it is acceptable to punch someone for following you and asking what you are doing there? Or do you assume that since GZ was such a lousy fighter he could land a punch that is audible over a phone, but does exactly no damage, not even minor bruising?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Given all of that, Rachel's testimony

Let's take her testimony should we?

Who profiled who?

TM - "Crazy ass cracker"
RJ - "Possible sex offender"

Hmmmm?

Where was TM? According to RJ he told her he was "Right by his house." That he was "running home" which was less than 300m from the T. (in fact his father's fiancée's son claimed in his testimony that it was close enough to throw a football, though this is likely a slight exaggeration.)

TM was a fit athletic young man who had four minutes from the time GZ stated "he's running" until the fight was heard starting, and at least a 10 second head start on GZ. According to RJ, he was running to his house which he was right by. Why did he not get there? Why did he encounter GZ back up at the T, which is the testimony of those that heard the confrontation start, not just a claim by GZ. How exactly did he get back to the T if he was running away from this "crazy ass cracker" who was "probably a sex offender"?

and the plain physical fact that the fight proceeded towards Martin's residence, rather than Zimmerman's car, why should I believe him at all?

Really? Really? Because the random movements of the fight when south rather that west Zimmerman is a murderer? Come on, even the Prosecution's arguments were better than that one.

 

[Cylinder]

"You're gonna die tonight honkey?" Really? That's credible enough to ignore every lie Zimmerman is clearly caught telling and proclaim, "see, can't prove beyond a doubt"?

What lacks credibility here is the quote you provided. The article of faith provides that Zimmerman is the evil, therefore we can assert whatever our own irrational bias invents as fact. Evidence is apostasy.

 

[PhantomWolf]

why should I believe him at all?

I should have covered this in the previous post.

You don't have to, but you are going further that "I don't believe him" You are going to "I don't believe him, therefore the opposite of what he say must be true" and "I don't believe him, so I am allowed to fill in the vacuum that exists without his claims with my own made up narrative."

Even without GZ's story there are enough things in evidence to note your narrative is wrong, and in many place there simply is not any evidence to claim to know anything at all.

GZ told the NEN he had lost sight of TM, that he didn't know where he was. There is zero evidence that he was lying at that point. He also told the NEN Operator "Okay" when told he wasn't required to follow, and there is zero evidence that he continued to do so, or look for TM after that point. Any claim otherwise is total and complete speculation. Even according to RJ's testimony TM had lost GZ.

The witnesses who testified to hearing the confrontation place it at the T with the subsequent fight moving down the dog path. RJ claims that TM saw GZ behind him again and turned around and spoke first. We don't need to take GZs word for that.

GZ was the only one with injuries sustained by being beaten in any form. We don't need GZ's word for that, and yet RJ tells us that immediately after the confrontation she heard a blow being stuck. If TM was free of any damage from being hit, who delivered it and who received it?

TM was on top of GZ, his arms moving in a motion that defined an attack of some form according to a witness to the actual fight. We don't need GZ's word on that.

According to the testimony od the experts, the gun was fired touching TM's clothing, but 4-5 inches from his body. What position was TM in for his clothing to be 4-5 inches from his body? We don't need GZ's word for that.

So according to the witnesses, TM lost GZ. TM was running away, heading home according to RJ. 4 minutes later TM was back near the T and according to RJ confronted GZ by questioning him first. That this occurred at the T is backed up by other witnesses. From injuries on both parties, only GZ received punches, yet RJ claims to have heard the blow land after GZ demanded to know what TM was doing there. According to a witness, TM was on top of GZ attacking him while GZ screamed for help. According to the gun experts, the shot was fired when TM was in a position that resulted in his clothing being 4-5 inches from his body.

All of that and no need to take GZ's word on anything.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Since when does a lie have to be believed?

Since when can one not say that it's beyond doubt GZ lied?

I know a lot of people are just so sure there is reasonable doubt. Prosecution has to prove the case, yadda yadda. Well, hate to break it to you but some of us do believe the prosecution did prove its case.

The 2012 Florida Statutes

782.11 Unnecessary killing to prevent unlawful act.—Whoever shall unnecessarily kill another, either while resisting an attempt by such other person to commit any felony, or to do any other unlawful act, or after such attempt shall have failed, shall be deemed guilty of manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
History.—s. 13, ch. 1637, 1868; RS 2388; GS 3213; RGS 5043; CGL 7145; s. 719, ch. 71-136.

GZ claims he felt his life was threatened, but the prosecutor proved he told self-serving lies about everything and his injuries weren't life threatening.

The prosecutor proved GZ profiled and followed TM.

The prosecutor proved the attack did not occur the way GZ claims, it was impossible GZ pulled the gun the way he claims. The gun had to be out sooner.

If he was afraid of Martin, he wouldn't have gone after him. His gun says he was not afraid. TM was shot on the grass not by the sidewalk so GZ could not have been having his head slammed on the cement at the time of the shot.

I fail to see how the jury is required to find reasonable doubt under those circumstances just because GZ claims he feared for his life when all the evidence proves by circumstances he did not.

 

[Metullus]

Looks like there is a verdict...

 

[Metullus]

Not Guilty!

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Jury speculation:

After all the talk about "hard working jury" that went on by some of the lawyer talking heads during the case, the jury broke yesterday at 6:00 pm, after only 3.5 hours of deliberation.

I expected we might have had a verdict last night, clearly not, though.

You can read anything you want into the length of deliberation yesterday ... I will read into that they made up their minds, but wanted to sleep on it, and not appear as though the rushed to judgement.

I expect a verdict today.

DING DING DING

Not guilty.

Not shocking.

There are some things posted in these threads that people should go back and re-read in light of the verdict.

I don't think I can say what I really want without getting carded.

 

[RandFan]

Jury is in

NOT GUILTY

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I already did back in May: "This looks like Trayvon was in the process of getting up which gave George access to his gun. George shot Trayvon not out of fear of future injury but out of anger for being beaten."


Did you happen to catch the prosecution making my other two points?

I agree, you did post something along the lines of TM giving up, then GZ shot him.

Still doesn't sound like a plausible scenario to me.