Merged Continuation Part 2: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[bynmdsue]

So George Zimmerman always wanted to be a cop right? Yet Wendy Dorival the volunteer coordinator of the Sanford PD testified she offered him a marked car and a uniform and would make him an Official Wanna-Be Cop but he turned the opportunity down. Not really the action of a wanna-be cop, is it?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

TheL8Elvis, none of that has anything to do with the incident.. All that's material to this case is what Zimmerman knew, which was that Martin had him trapped and was pummeling him. Who Martin was, all of Martin's actions prior to trapping and beating Zimmerman, are completely irrelevant here. There's a very good reason the jury didn't hear about that stuff, it has no place in a discussion about self defense.

Yes, I understand the reasoning why it was not allowed in the trial (although the toxicology was, it was not brought up by the defense)

But it does have a place when discussing assumptions about TMs character and how he might have reasonably acted, which is the context I put it in.

 

[bynmdsue]

*ahem* he was talking about TM. TM, being dead and all, would not have had bruises form on his hands on the surface because he had no blood pressure.

So it's not false.

I know what she's on about. It's even turned up on CSI programs. A woman is exhumed for whatever reason and bruises that were missed in an autopsy show up after the blood has been removed and replaced with embalming fluid and begun to cure. Or as a body lays in the morgue and the blood settles along the dorsal side the ventral becomes paler and paler so bruises that weren't as apparent become more so with the lack of surrounding color. But these are generally bruises from strangulation or holding someone beneath water, not sharp force bruises but ones resulting frommany, many minutes of pressure.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

The fight ended when Trayvon was shot a bit south of the sidewalk T. We know that Trayvon dropped his phone when the fight started. That was found about 40 ft south of the T, several yards south of his body. A witness telling us that the fight moved from south to north is consistent with this evidence.
<snip>

How do we "know" tm dropped his phone when the fight started ? How do you even know he had it in his hand ? Did he have it in his hand at 7-11 when he was talking on the phone, or in his pocket ? He was talking on headset, why would he need to be holding the phone?

Why do you ignore GZ keys and flashlight found at the TEE ?

Why do you ignore the three witnesses who heard the altercation started at the Tee ?

A witness did not claim "that the fight moved from south to north"
Selene Bahadoor, for the first time in court (as in not in her depositions or previous statements to the police)
, said only she heard 'movement' from south to north. That could have been TM returning from being "by his daddys fiance house" as testified to by Rachel Jeantel.

It seems the reason you are coming to a different conclusion from the jury is that you are simply ignoring evidence that does not comport with your fantasy of what happened.

 

[Ziggurat]

There are a number of plausible scenarios, none of which is conclusively supported by evidence.

Which is why a verdict of "not guilty" is the only legally justifiable verdict. And that is as it should be.

 

[Dan O.]

How did the evidence of George's head being slammed on the concrete get entered in the trial without the witness presenting that claim being subject to cross examination?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Evidence that TM attacked GZ?

That GZ was the only one who had any injuries, minor as they were, is not proof that he was attacked. Multiple posters have already stated that GZ's MMA instructor testified that he was a totally inept fighter, so the fact that he lost the fight, and lost badly, does not prove that he was jumped from behind.

Why did the jury ask for clarification on the manslaughter charge? Because they were convinced that GZ was attacked by TM but wanted to stall to get an extra free meal? Because they were curious in some academic sense about criminal law?
Of course, even if TM threw the first blow how do we know he didn't do it because he was afraid the GZ was going to attack him? Other than. of course, that people engaged in self-defense only use guns to defend themselves?

There are a number of plausible scenarios, none of which is conclusively supported by evidence.

Because the language on the instructions is confusing ? Are you saying that a nebulous jury question is evidence of what happened feb 26th ?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Here is RJ on Piers last night, for the curious;

 

[Kestrel]

You are flagrantly putting words in my mouth, nothing I said remotely implies this. All I said is that if you have someone trapped on the ground, and can pummel them freely, you ultimately have the option of killing them. Many UFC fights could have ended in death if they had happened on the street and the winner decided to kill his opponent. I have no idea if Martin would have killed Zimmerman, Zimmerman had no way of knowing that either.
I'll dignify this question only with wonderment that you get away with this kind of behavior around here.

Thousands of teenaged boys get pummeled every day. But rarely do we hear of one that ends in death.

A witness used the colorful term "MMA style", but we don't see evidence that those devastating blows landed on Zimmerman's body. (Oddly enough, it was George who had been taking MMA classes at the time of the shooting). When further questioned, all the witness really saw was a couple of figures and flailing arms. Entirely consistent with Trayvon on top of George and holding George's arms to keep from being hit. Trayvon may even have been let up on George, assuming he would behave like a kid in a schoolyard fight. Accept that he had lost, leave Trayvon alone, and think twice about trying to grab a "criminal" that he hadn't actually witnessed doing anything wrong.

But we can't believe the witness that said the last words she heard was Trayvon saying "get off, get off". We can't believe the George who had escalated this situation several times escalated it again by trying to physically detain Trayvon. Making sure this ******* didn't get away like all the others.

Is it reasonable to believe that Trayvon would be talking on the phone as he hid in the bushes to ambush George? Even black teenagers are bright enough to know that people can hear them when they talk. So why did George tell that whopper to the police in his description of what happened.

The evidence is entirely consistent with George attempting to grab Trayvon and Trayvon responding in self defense. We didn't find George's blood on the sidewalk showing were his head was being bashed. We didn't find Georges blood on Trayvon's hands. The defense claimed it was washed away by the rain, but Trayvon was found with his hands under his body and covered with a plastic sheet after the police arrived. We don't see the abrasions on Trayvon's hands that would result from being the aggressor in a drawn out bare knuckle fight.

 

[LTC8K6]

Did Georges injuries result from Trayvon pounding his head against the sidewalk, or from the scuffle resulting from when George tried to tackle Trayvon to make sure he didn't get away?

No, Geeorge banged his head against a tree to create the injuries.

Then he hit himself with his gun to make the damage look worse.

Because, having called the police, he knew they wouldn't arrive in time to see him staging the scene.

 

[WildCat]

Did you watch the trial and see the same evidence as the jury and the rest of us, because I don't recall seeing any evidence of that happening ?

Apparently the most plausible scenario the "justice for Trayvon" people can come up with is that Zimmerman called police to the scene where he intended to assault Trayvon Martin, apparently so he could get arrested and jailed for said assault. Because I' pretty sure everyone knows, and especially someone who took a concealed carry course, that you don't get to detain people you merely find suspicious and no police department anywhere will let you get away with such actions.

But hey, it's the best they can do.

 

[lane99]

Appeal to authority

You're right, the guy who performed 9,000 autopsies and wrote the book that the state's own ME relied on has no idea what he is talking about. Sure, sure...

If you're talking about Di Miao, oh, he knows exactly what he's talking about. And if he had been hired by the prosecutors, he likely would have testified Zimmergun's injuries were insignificant and resulted from a minor and brief tussle.

Perhaps it's just a coincidence, but seems curious that his medical opinions always seem to fall in line with whatever the party paying him wants to hear. No matter how far-fetched that makes those opinions. As, for example, when he did his best to help wacko gun-nut Phil Spector beat his murder rap.

From a skeptics point of view, appeals to authority are even more ill-advised when the "authority" has a dog in the race, and even has a financial incentive to help that dog win.
.
.

 

[lane99]

Conspiracy Movie of the Week

...Maybe she was aware that if she claimed to have told someone from the SAO, they would have been required to notify Zimmerman of that change. Maybe... Maybe someone from the SAO told her that if she gave that testimony for the first time, Zimmerman could be caught off-guard. I guess...

Interesting conspiracy theory you've got there. If they wrote a script based on it, perhaps it could be entitled: "The Conspiracy that Makes No Sense since Zimmerman couldn't be "caught off-guard" by something he himself didn't have to answer to at that moment (or, for that matter, ever), and his defense couldn't be caught off-guard because they were well aware another witness had described this movement to the police shortly after the killing".

Well, that could be the first draft of the title. After editing, it would simply become: "The Conspiracy that Never Was".
.
.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Why did the jury ask for clarification on the manslaughter charge? Because they were convinced that GZ was attacked by TM but wanted to stall to get an extra free meal?

According to the interview one of them gave on CNN's AC360 last night they were confused as to the wording of the manslaughter law. Keeping in mind that they are not lawyers this is not too surprising.

According to her:
Vote #1 was:

3 Not guilty
2 Manslaughter
1 Murder 2

Murder 2's view was changed after rereading the laws given to them, then it was 3 for manslaughter and 3 for not guilty. Then they went over the evidence, including that introduced but not seen in the courtroom (specifically the police reports about the crime there). That made it 5 not guilty 1 manslaughter. Then came the question to the judge, however the answer didn't help them so they reread the law repeatedly and the last one decided that manslaughter was out.

As I recall from watching the interview that was the general flow of their deliberations. It wasn't a snap judgement, they went over the evidence and the laws repeatedly to make sure that hey were making the right decisions as they went. They weren't happy about it in the end but they followed the laws and took their responsibility seriously. In other words they did what they were supposed to do.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I know what she's on about. It's even turned up on CSI programs. A woman is exhumed for whatever reason and bruises that were missed in an autopsy show up after the blood has been removed and replaced with embalming fluid and begun to cure. Or as a body lays in the morgue and the blood settles along the dorsal side the ventral becomes paler and paler so bruises that weren't as apparent become more so with the lack of surrounding color. But these are generally bruises from strangulation or holding someone beneath water, not sharp force bruises but ones resulting frommany, many minutes of pressure.

Thanks, I guess I don't watch enough CSI.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

How did the evidence of George's head being slammed on the concrete get entered in the trial without the witness presenting that claim being subject to cross examination?

By the idiot prosecutors entering all of GZ self-serving statements into evidence.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

The way I look at the verdict is, the jury presumably disregarded everything that happened prior to the final encounter. Under Florida law that was probably proper.

Under Florida's enhanced Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground, if Zimmerman thought Martin was breaking the law -- or was planning to -- he had the right to take action above and beyond merely calling the police. Once the fight started, no matter why it started or who started it, Zimmerman had the right to use deadly force if HE (Zimmerman) feared great bodily harm. I agree, consistent with the evidence, I too can believe Zimmerman feared great bodily harm.

That's pretty much it according the a jurors interview. One juror was going with Murder 2 until she reread the laws and realized that what happened before the moment that Zimmerman felt in dire threat was immaterial.

 

[Pooneil]

So we have the claim that there is overwhelming evidence that TM attacked GZ, made by people who can't even agree on what happened.

What we have is a case presented by the prosecution that failed to convince a jury of an alternate theory of the actions on that night that showed beyond a reasonable doubt that GZ violated the law. That is all. What anyone else says or does, or can or cannot agree on does not change the facts and legal theories presented at trial.

 

[WildCat]

Under Florida's enhanced Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground, if Zimmerman thought Martin was breaking the law -- or was planning to -- he had the right to take action above and beyond merely calling the police.

Has nothing to do with this case, as Zimmerman only thought Martin was a suspicious person. That's why he called the non-emergency number instead on 911, and reported a suspicious person.

As I already stated several times there is no right to detain a suspicious person, that will get you an assault charge (aggravated if you use a firearm), not high-fives from the cops. Zimmerman surely knew that, and wasn't calling the cops to the scene of his planned aggravated assault and kidnapping.

And none of that has to do with Castle Doctrine or SYG laws.

 

[RandFan]

Apparently the most plausible scenario the "justice for Trayvon" people can come up with is that Zimmerman called police to the scene where he intended to assault Trayvon Martin, apparently so he could get arrested and jailed for said assault. Because I' pretty sure everyone knows, and especially someone who took a concealed carry course, that you don't get to detain people you merely find suspicious and no police department anywhere will let you get away with such actions.

But hey, it's the best they can do.

FTR: I don't think Zimmerman intended to assault anyone when he got out of his car. I think he was angry and irrational (what I think the evidence shows). If we are going to speculate, had Zimmerman known of the fallout his actions resulted in I'm pretty sure he would have had a much cooler head and just waited for the police. I'm also pretty sure that neighborhood watches around America aren't scrambling to tell their volunteers to arm themselves and to get out of their vehicles when they see people they think are suspicious.

Can we agree on at least that much?