Merged Continuation Part 2: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[triforcharity]

If the DOJ wants to seize property from Zimmerman, they require consent or a warrant. There's a good argument in case law that since the verdict of acquittal SPD has no other choice but turn over the evidence to Zimmerman regardless of the DOJ hold - though that would be an unlikely outcome.

That what I would assume also. What do you mean "unlikely outcome"? My speculation is that Zimmerman already has his gun back, though I don't know one way or another.

 

[triforcharity]

When George turned right onto Twin Trees Lane instead of turning left, he was no longer on his way to go shopping.

Are you saying he then became a member, acting in his official capacity, of the NW program? And you're playing semantics. It's ok, I'll go along with it for discussion's sake.

 

[phillyboy]

Self-appointed leader of all black people

Please...

 

[triforcharity]

By engaging TM in a seemingly reckless manner, didn't GZ provoke the injuries he got?

No.

AS a surrogate authority figure (armed with a deadly weapon, no less!) shouldn't GZ be held to a higher than otherwise standard of responsible behavior? Couldn't he see what a volatile situation he was about to give shape to?

No, not legally. Absolutely not. Ethically and morally, maybe. That's debatable. Me personally, my wife and I had a discussion the other night, and the consensus was that GZ should not have put himself in a situation where he MAY need to use his weapon.

However, that does not in any way absolve him of his right to defend himself from a deadly encounter. Not one bit.

How do posters view the relative expectations of answerable conduct in an incident involving two people: a 16 year old boy and a 28 year old man who appropriates the role of authority figure?

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. Can you elaborate for me sir?

Do people think the spirit of the law was upheld in this case or that justice of a meaningful stripe was served on July 13th?

Yes, absolutely. The intent of the law, and the letter of the law. We are ALL assumed to be absolutely INNOCENT before we're proven guilty in a court of law. The state has the burden to PROVE their case. In this instance, they didn't even come close, and couldn't have from the very beginning. They didn't prove that Zimmerman had ANY ill will or intent to violate the law, nor did they prove anything else that the statutes in Florida require.

 

[triforcharity]

Self-appointed leader of all black people Jesse Jackson calls for the UN to investigate: http://www.suntimes.com/news/jackson/21341420-452/investigate-the-racial-context-behind-martins-death.html

I thought you were joking. You apparently aren't. Holy **** is that one dumbass SOB. The UN governs GOVERNMENTS, not citizens. And this guy is supposed to be a lawyer? Are you kidding me?

 

[triforcharity]

(post transfered from unmoderated thread)

It has been pointed out before that in this case we have clear evidence that George Zimmerman serially stalked Trayvon Martin.
(Snipped by Tri)
While each of these events alone are not illegal, together they form a pattern of stalking which is illegal. (more snipping by me)

Um, no. Not even close. Stalking, under Florida law, is clearly defined as :

(2) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.


My hilite. See the hilited word? This was ONE instance. Not two, not four, not many, not repeatedly. ONE. Not even CLOSE to stalking.

Further, within the statute, it says

"a) “Harass” means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes substantial emotional distress to that person and serves no legitimate purpose."

See that part hilited? What GZ did that night, DID in fact have a legitimate purpose. So, no, GZ did NOT in fact stalk, harass, or commit any other crime whatsoever.

Here's the link. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0784/0784.html

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

President Obama just made a speech on this subject that while I didn't agree with every word of it, I thought was overall outstanding. Those who are desperate to trash him will instantly latch on to a few specific statements and project all types of nefarious motives onto them, but that is to be expected. I was surprised at how clear he was that this is the type of case that the justice department usually doesn't get involved in, that it is usually handled at a state level.

The funny thing is that because it was fairly balanced it won't make either extreme happy. Those that want him to send the justice department down will be upset, and those that hate him and will endlessly complain about his statement that 35 years ago he could have been TM.

 

[Mike!]

Can you please explain why you feel this particular fact is relevant to the discussion? You have brought it up multiple times in this thread as well as in other threads.

It is my understanding that lie detectors are, at best, woo, that they are meaningless and the fact that George "passed" one is completely irrelevant and unimportant.

Surely there are enough real facts in evidence to discuss that we don't need to bring up such a pointless and irrelevant "test."

You haven't been following this thread/story, have you? Facts and evidence are secondary at best, and sometimes, completely irrelevant.
Emotions man! That's what it's all about!
That's what the jury should have been using, feelings, not facts. How dare they look at facts and evidence when they should just 'know' he was guilty.

 

[Kestrel]

Why would you compare my memory to hers? I didn't claim to have a meeting and I wasn't under oath in a murder trial giving testimony about what I recall.

It was just a comment about the nature of human memory. Something that seems lost on the general public, but a skeptic should understand.

Human memory doesn't work like a TIVO machine. We don't just replay the tape from some past event and see it just as it happens. Our memory is associative and reconstructive. We associate facts with an event and reconstruct what we believe happened, our mind fills in the details. The interesting part is that we then have to store that memory again. And when we do, we often add details that we have learned about later as if we witnessed them when the event happened.

The public sees eyewitness testimony as the best type of evidence. Those who have studied how well people recall events know better.

 

[MiloMinderbinder]

I think it's entirely possible Zimmerman decided he wanted to physically detain Martin because "these [expletive] always get away". If Zimmerman grabbed Martin, then Martin would've been well within his rights to punch him in the nose.

That is entirely possible. His anger might have led him to do that, but he didn't sound angry on the phone. But, you never know what might happen when two guys viewing each other as hostile will do when they face off.

I don't buy Zimmerman's story here. He had no reason to leave the car, if his only purpose was to defend the neighborhood against a percieved intruder. The cops were minutes out, they had a description, and the kid was already leaving the area. That would have satisfied that goal completely. That that wasn't good enough for Zimmerman tells me that probably wasn't his only goal.

Again, that's possible. But, considering that he knew the police were minutes away, it doesn't makes sense that he would start some altercation when he could have just waited for the police.

I'm not saying that Zimmerman didn't start the altercation, so just want to be clear about that. It just doesn't make much sense to me that he would have unless he had a strong suspicion that Martin had just robbed a house and had the goods on him. And, when you listen to his NEN call, Zimmerman's grows a bit nervous when Martin comes near his truck and he tells the operator that Martin has his hand in his waistband (seeming to be concerned about a concealed weapon). He sure seems uncomfortable with being close to Martin, even from the protection of his vehicle.

So, if Zimmerman is concerned about Martin, let's say he keeps looking for him anyway and Martin is hiding, and he finally finds him. Do you think he's just going to walk up to Martin, a guy he's nervous about already and suspecting of having a weapon, and grab him or tackle him or something? That's possible, but it doesn't seem too likely.

None of us knows what happened and we can all guess as much as we want about it, but I just don't see any evidence suggesting that Zimmerman would have started the altercation.

 

[sugaree]

As far as Zimmerman's lie detector test, I thought he underwent a voice stress analysis test instead of a traditional lie detector test, and I believe VSA is held in less esteem than are lie detector machines.

As far as Martin being on private property, there is no private property in that development, aside from patios and maybe driveways. The condos consist of the townhouses themselves, not any acreage, and all grounds-keeping is done by the condo association. All the walkways and grassy areas are community property.

 

[sugaree]

In fact, looking at the satellite map of the development, much of the complex doesn't even have sidewalks. To walk through, one must either walk on the grass or on the road. So, of course Trayvon was walking between the buildings and the street. It's safer than walking on the road in the dark, right?

 

[Upchurch]

Well there's the fact that the only person who shows signs of getting hit is Zimmerman. That a witness (state witness btw) saw Martin on top of Zimmerman in a "ground and pound MMA style" position. The state's star witness says she thinks Martin threw the first punch at that "creepy ass cracker" and "*****" who was following him.

Then there's also the complete lack of motive for Zimmerman to assault Martin. Zimmerman called the police, Martin did not nor did he go home despite ample opportunity.

Yeah, that's what I thought. Nothing. An assault doesn't have to actually hurt someone to be assault. The MMA witness did not see who started it, nor did the star-witness. Zimmerman had just as much ample opportunity to head home as Martin, but apparently Hung around for four minutes instead of doing so.

The fact remains that all we really know is that there is a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman assaulted Martin first. You have no evidence that Martin assaulted Zimmerman first despite your speculation to the contrary.

Until you do, you are just as much in the wrong in your claims as others are in theirs about Zimmerman.

 

[Cylinder]

Zimmerman Defense Comments on President Obama’s Remarks

While we acknowledge and understand the racial context of this case, we challenge people to look closely and dispassionately at the facts. We believe those who look at the facts of the case without prejudice will see that it is a clear case of self-defense, and we are certain that those who take a closer look at the kind of person George Zimmerman is -- something we understand the Department of Justice is currently doing -- we are confident they will find a young man with a diverse ethnic and racial background who is not a racist, a man who is, in fact, sensitive to the complex racial history of our country.
It takes courage to talk about race. It took courage for our President to address the Zimmerman Case and candidly discuss how and why people are upset by the verdict. We would like to stress that the verdict was reached fairly and justly and that it reflects the letter of the law and represents the law’s proper application to the facts. While we acknowledge the racial context of the case, we hope that the President was not suggesting that this case fits a pattern of racial disparity, because we strongly contend that it does not.

 

[Toontown]

Can you please explain why you feel this particular fact is relevant to the discussion? You have brought it up multiple times in this thread as well as in other threads.

1. The National Academy of Sciences concluded from studies that the polygraph is unreliable, but better than chance. Any level of significance, when viewed in synergy with all the evidence, makes the polygraph result more significant than the opinions being expressed by posters in this thread as to GZ's truthfulness, IMO.

2. The polygraph result is consistent with the forensic evidence and consistent with all of the testimony except Jeantel's. Consistency of different evidence is mutually reinforcing, aka synergistic. When one piece of information stands out as inconsistent with the totality of the evidence, that piece of information should be thrown out. Conversely, a piece of information that is consistent with the totality of the evidence may have synergistic weight.

3. GZ's willingness to submit to a polygraph suggests an absence of intent to deceive.

4. A polygraph once caught me lying. I lied solely for the purpose of testing it. Nothing was on the line, I wasn't noticeably nervous, but it still caught me.

5. The police used the polygraph in this case as an interrogation aid. If the police can use it, I can use it. This is not a trial. The trial is done. This is an extremely opinionated post-hoc discussion.

It is my understanding that lie detectors are, at best, woo, that they are meaningless and the fact that George "passed" one is completely irrelevant and unimportant.

Unreliable as stand-alone evidence. Not meaningless. The polygraph is widely used by law enforcement as an interrogation aid. Also widely used to screen applicants for sensitive positions when the screening agency doesn't care about false positives.

Surely there are enough real facts in evidence to discuss that we don't need to bring up such a pointless and irrelevant "test."

Is each of those facts in evidence 100% reliable? Can any one fact in evidence be used exclusively to determine GZ's truthfulness on the key issues with greater than 80% reliability?

 

[bynmdsue]

I think it's entirely possible Zimmerman decided he wanted to physically detain Martin because "these [expletive] always get away". If Zimmerman grabbed Martin, then Martin would've been well within his rights to punch him in the nose.

And then run away? Or would he still have been justified in mounting him pinning him to the ground and repeatedly punching him? If he just wanted to escape a perfect time would be when Zimmerman fell down.

 

[Noztradamus]

I never said that the lawns Zimmerman indicated in his video involved the short cut. You said\inferred that on your own. I said that he was cutting across lawns between the sidewalk and the houses, as in across the fronts of them, not in between the houses. If I had meant in between the houses I would have said so.

On Retreat View Circle between the unofficial shortcut entrance and the Community Centre there are no lawns.

On Twin Trees, there are no sidewalks. Pavewalks for the innner blocks meander behind and between the houses (the "dog walk" is part of that system). Dog only knows what George would have thought if he saw Trayvon taking those in the rain instead of the direct route along the street.

As far as Martin being on private property, there is no private property in that development, aside from patios and maybe driveways. The condos consist of the townhouses themselves, not any acreage, and all grounds-keeping is done by the condo association. All the walkways and grassy areas are community property.

^This

 

[triforcharity]

Onlytellstruth in another thread has asked me for conclusive evidence the Zimmerman's life was in fact in danger.

OTT, you've always been a pretty reasonable poster, so I'll take the time to help you understand.

Let's put you in a hypothetical situation. You get into a fight with someone in a parking lot at your favorite restaurant. It's irrelevant how it started or who started it.

The other person has you on the ground, straddled on top of you. They are picking your head up and slamming it onto the sidewalk in between punches. You're starting to bleed and you're unable escape despite your best efforts.

Now, you don't know who this person is, but they're not letting up and your head is slammed More than a few times.

Now, is your life in danger? It most certainly is. Smashing your head on the concrete repeatedly will absolutely kill you eventually. It could be 5 hits, it could be 15 but it will certainly kill you eventually. It can cause bruising and swelling on the brain, it can cause you to lose too much blood thus putting your body into shock (which can kill you) and can even cause spinal injuries and neck injuries that can prove fatal.

These are just a few of the things that can happen if your head is repeatedly slammed into concrete.

In fact there are plenty of evidence showing that head injuries can absolutely be fatal.

Now, did this happen to GZ? Absolutely. In fact, Forensic pathologist Dr. DiMaio (sp?) testified on the stand that the injuries GZ exhibited were absolutely consistent with having his head slammed onto an Immovable non-flexing object consistent with concrete.

 

[Kestrel]

And then run away? Or would he still have been justified in mounting him pinning him to the ground and repeatedly punching him? If he just wanted to escape a perfect time would be when Zimmerman fell down.

Poor George was having his face pounded to mush by that nasty black kid. But on the next day it looked just fine.

 

[Toontown]

The fact remains that all we really know is that there is a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman assaulted Martin first. You have no evidence that Martin assaulted Zimmerman first despite your speculation to the contrary.

Do you really know whether it matters? Where are you going with your line of reasoning?

Is the right of self defense contingent upon not having been a bad boy, or not having been a bad boy first?

Does the more bad boy relative to the less bad boy lose the right of self defense?

Does the most wrong boy in a fight lose the right of self defense?

Or do all boys in a fight, good or bad, have an intrinsic right of self defense? This approach would lessen the confusion as to who had committed sufficient error or wrongdoing to lose the right of self defense. Then the question would simplify to whether the right of self defense was reasonably invoked when one of the two stubborn cusses ends up dead.