Merged Continuation Part 2: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[bynmdsue]

The condensed version of the President's remarks - Everything is about meeee!

 

[newyorkguy]

Zimmerman Defense Comments on President Obama’s Remarks

While we acknowledge and understand the racial context of this case...

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...

I snipped the above text only to make it shorter but still leave in the important parts. To me that's an excellent commentary. This is the way intelligent people discuss this.

It's important for all of us if Zimmerman's supporters would at least acknowledge (as did his attorneys) there is a racial aspect of this case and accept the fact (as do Zimmerman's attorneys) that some people are genuinely upset with the verdict though they're willing to accept it.

If people were willing to do that than some good will come of this, after all.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Then attack my argument. each of those statements in the above posted list are fully supported by the evidence. I believe case law has already been cited that stalking can be a serial instance of a contiguous event. Included in the list are decision points where George chose to continue stalking Trayvon which breaks this into the three separate events instead of a continuation of a single event.

Others have done a pretty good job of pointing it out, I'll just add, that you are arbitrarily separating one on going event into three to try and strangle your facts into a point.

 

[PhantomWolf]

The pamphlet is evidence of the talking points unbiased by the event. The commander would have been familiar with the points George raised in the NEN call. There would be a natural tendency for confirmation bias to match George's points to the talking points used in the neighborhood watch program.

To analyze how these talking points shift by the time they are used in testimony, it would help if there were any recordings of these talking points made prior to the event.

Are those points that have been posted in this thread direct quotes from the commander's testimony or have they been further biased by the poster?

I believe it was TheL8Elvis that posted a link to her testimony. Why not watch it for yourself, the particular part is about 42-44 minutes in, but really her entire testimony is very good, certainly not all beneficial to GZ by any means, but she clarifies many things and clears up a lot of the Myths about NW and what they can or should do.

 

[PhantomWolf]

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.

Quoting the prosecution again?

 

[PhantomWolf]

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.

Okay I really had to laugh at this. Witnesses we can't trust because memory is terribly fallible, at least when they say things we don't agree with, when they back up our bias they are 100% correct. But because GZ was 100% consistent in his 6 recalling's of the story over several weeks, he must be lying.

Of course the fact that the forensic evidence also agrees with the witnesses....

 

[PhantomWolf]

Zimmerman had just as much ample opportunity to head home as Martin, but apparently Hung around for four minutes instead of doing so.

This is incorrect. TM had four minutes because that clock starts when he ran and it goes until the confrontation begins. For much of that time, GZ was still on the phone with the NEN operator. He only had about 2 minutes between the end of his call, and the confrontation, time he claimed he spent looking for a street sign and house number so he could tell the police, then started to walk back towards his truck.

 

[PhantomWolf]

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

Shame no one took a photo of what his face looked like immediately after the assault isn't.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

I snipped the above text only to make it shorter but still leave in the important parts. To me that's an excellent commentary. This is the way intelligent people discuss this.

It's important for all of us if Zimmerman's supporters would at least acknowledge (as did his attorneys) there is a racial aspect of this case and accept the fact (as do Zimmerman's attorneys) that some people are genuinely upset with the verdict though they're willing to accept it.

If people were willing to do that than some good will come of this, after all.

First off, I don't respond as a "Zimmerman supporter". I respond as someone who believes the evidence supported a not guilty verdict.

That said, it depends on what you mean by "acknowledge there is a racial aspect of it". Of course there is a racial aspect of it . However what I don't acknowledge is that this case is a good example of the racism that is still very much present in our society. Meaning:
1. There is no evidence the police just let GZ off because he was a white guy that killed a black kid.
2. There is no evidence that GZ is a racist who shot TM because he was black.

Now it is possible that race factored into this on GZ's part, either consciously or unconsciously? Of course. Just as how he was dressed, how he walked, the fact that he did not recognize him, and the fact that there had been break-ins close by may have factored in.

Is it possible that police or the public would have looked upon it differently if TM where white and GZ were black. Yes, though depending on who you ask that would either mean GZ would have been lynched, or that there never would have even been a trial! That's certainly a good example of the racial aspect of this case and the different views of it depending on ones race and/or political perspective! And I actually think both views have some validity.

But if that type of complex subtle discussion of race has taken place in the media even once, I haven't seen it. Instead all I've seen are outrageous accusations of racism hurled at anyone and everyone who doesn't scream "he's a murderer" at the top of their lungs. "The police didn't prosecute because they were racists". "GZ is a racist". The jury were a bunch of white racists". And on and on.

And as I've said before, sadly this trial also became an excuse for every white bigot to jump on the bandwagon as well, making statements every bit as absurd as the worst "Martin supporters".

Was race part of this trial? YES! But it deserved a lot more intelligent discussion than has taken place and just screaming "racist". I actually thought President Obama did a better job today than any article I've seen.

 

[Mike!]

I have to ask, if it were you (Open question to all, not directed at any individual.) on trial, which of these two would you prefer the jury consider. The facts and the evidence that helps to prove you innocent, or the emotional reactions and pleas of a group that wishes you found guilty?
You don't get to use the option of, 'I wouldn't ever be in such a position' ether, you're already there. The facts and evidence prove innocence, the group doesn't care and wants your head on a pike. Pick one.

 

[This is The End]

he was on drugs, it was odd that someone was out in the rain that night and Martin was most certainly about to be up to no good.

I cannot believe anyone could say those final 2 things are known.

I walk around in the light rain all the time. How is that odd.

And "most certainly" about to be up to no good? How in the world would that have been knowable?

As for your first point, we know for a fact that Z was on drugs that night that affect you way more than pot does. Unless, of course, Z skipped his medications that day, which can be even worse.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

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

Since logic has been innefectual, how about this:
Poor Trayvon should have just kept his hands in his pockets.

 

[MiloMinderbinder]

This is incorrect. TM had four minutes because that clock starts when he ran and it goes until the confrontation begins. For much of that time, GZ was still on the phone with the NEN operator. He only had about 2 minutes between the end of his call, and the confrontation, time he claimed he spent looking for a street sign and house number so he could tell the police, then started to walk back towards his truck.

And, whatever he was doing, he was still waiting for the police instead of going home. For the other poster to suggest that he could have gone home runs contrary to what he was doing there.

Also, let's remember that the NEN operator told Zimmerman that he didn't need to follow Martin, but he also didn't say he should wait in the vehicle with the doors locked.

 

[Upchurch]

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

It's a continuation of a conversation that happened in a different thread.

There are primarily two different sides on the issue: the "Martin is the victim" side and the "Zimmerman is the victim" side. WildCat is in the latter group and, along with others, have been both mocking those who claim that Zimmerman caused the encounter as not knowing the facts of the trial and simultaneously asserting that Martin assaulted Zimmerman for merely following Martin. (All paraphrases and not meant to be exact quotations.)

My point is, and WildCat's examples of evidence supports, is that we don't know who started the physical encounter. It may have been Martin approaching Zimmerman and punching him in the nose. It may have been Zimmerman grabbing Martin in an ill-advised attempt to play cops and robbers. (As a reminder, grabbing someone can also count as assult.)

All we can conclude from the trial is that, legally, there was a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman started it. That, however, does not preclude that he did start it, nor does automatically conclude that Martin did. We don't know. There were only two witnesses to the event. One is dead and the remaining one has every reason to paint himself in a favorable light.

I'm not saying Zimmerman is lying. I'm saying it is anecdotal evidence and we should all know of what value anecdotal evidence is.

So, my ultimate point is that WildCat, et al., are perfectly valid to assert that those who claim to they know it is Zimmerman's fault are basing it on pure speculation. However, it is also perfectly valid to assert that those who claim that they know Martin assaulted Zimmerman first also basing it on pure speculation.

What the evidence actually supports seems to have been lost in all the side-taking.

 

[triforcharity]

Poor George was having his face pounded to mush by that nasty black kid guy. But on the next day it looked just fine. not as bad, which is normal in a fight

I've fixed your statement to more accurately reflect reality.....

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I snipped the above text only to make it shorter but still leave in the important parts. To me that's an excellent commentary. This is the way intelligent people discuss this.

It's important for all of us if Zimmerman's supporters would at least acknowledge (as did his attorneys) there is a racial aspect of this case and accept the fact (as do Zimmerman's attorneys) that some people are genuinely upset with the verdict though they're willing to accept it.

If people were willing to do that than some good will come of this, after all.

What is it exactly you think his attorneys acknowledged ?

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 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.

The problem I see is not that people are upset with the verdict, the problem I see is all the people who don't/won't accept the verdict of the jury, and continue harping on false talking points, and pretending they know better than the jury. Especially people like Tracy "fruit" Martin and Sybrina Fulton:
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/04/11/justice/florida-teen-shooting
"We simply wanted an arrest; we wanted nothing more, nothing less," said Martin's mother, Sybrina Fulton.

 

[triforcharity]

It's important for all of us if Zimmerman's supporters would at least acknowledge (as did his attorneys) there is a racial aspect of this case

Yeah, cause it's our fault that people think this case relies entirely on the race of the people involved....

and accept the fact (as do Zimmerman's attorneys) that some people are genuinely upset with the verdict though they're willing to accept it.

People are going to be upset with just about any verdict, in any court in the US. That's understandable.

The problem I have is with the hilited portion. Many are NOT willing to accept it. NAACP has gone so far as to petition the DOJ to investigate, and Jesse Jackson (IIRC) has even asked the UN to investigate. Yeah, I know, that's a silly proposition, but he's obviously NOT willing to accept it.

It's disgusting to watch the race-baiters like Jackson and Sharpton continue to bitch and complain about the verdict, which basically accusing everyone on the jury of being racist. Sorry, many are NOT willing to accept it.

If people were willing to do that than some good will come of this, after all.

Some good can come of this. However, until the race-baiters Sharpton, Jackson, et al. stop with their rhetoric, nothing will be accomplished. They're a major part of the problem.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

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.

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.

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?

He didn't take a polygraph, it was a voice stress analyzer, and it sounds like woo to me, not something worth bringing up at all.

The one valid point you make is GZ willingness to repeatedly talk to the police multiple times without an attorney, give them his DNA, his cell phone, take the voice stress test can be best explained by an absence of intent to decieve.

 

[Dan O.]

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.

What lawn in front of houses? Have you even seen that area? Just about everything in front of the houses is driveways. The lawn is between the houses and in back. And where is this suposed to have happened? Are you faulting Trayvon for walking on the outer side of Retreat View Circle instead of crossing to the sidewalk on the inner side while there was a creepy ass cracker in a truck driving down that road?

 

[phillyboy]

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?

Sorry for not explaining better. You have a 28 year old man in the role of
NW person. He's armed. These 2 factors raise the standard of what would be commonsense behavior, I would think. I'm not talking about the letter of the law. In daily interactions we have a duty to go beyond merely "not being in violation of the law".