Merged Continuation Part 2: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[Cylinder]

And I gave you a link to transcripts of JM interviews with serino, bdlr, and fdle. If his statement about tossing something isn't in there, where exactly do you think it is ?

Mr. Manalo testified that Zimmerman threw his phone at him and kind of tersely requested that Manalo phone his wife. The state wanted this as evidence of depraved mind but remember that O'Mara did his masterful courtroom demonstration with OFC Raimondo. That's the only reference to throwing or tossing anywhere in Manalo's testimony or statements.

Regarding the issue with OFC Smith, remember that Smith did not recall Manalo - he simply did not remember. When O'Mara questioned him, Smith was confused if O'Mara was referring to Zimmerman or Martin. That's when Smith asked, "Who?" in the quote highlighted above.

 

[WildCat]

Edited by Gaspode: 

Edited for moderated thread.

I never said Zimmerman thought it was a crime-in-progress. I said Zimmerman thought thought Martin was a criminal. From the NEN transcript:


What do you think Zimmerman suspected Martin of? Baking really good cookies and being ******** for getting away with baking really good cookies?

He wasn't suspected of anything, Zimmerman thought he was suspicious. Do you understand the difference?

See how I used evidence to show how Zimmerman described Martin? That's what I would like you to do with your claim that Martin assaulted Zimmerman first. The trouble is that you've stopped considering the evidence and are just buying into the trial defense, which was never meant to get to the truth. Their purpose was to convince the jury that there was a reasonable doubt under Florida law that Zimmerman was guilty of murder. That's it. And they succeeded, but that doesn't mean that the defense's case is 100% true. That's why "it's all in the trial" isn't a valid argument. We can certainly review evidence presented in the trial, but the trial itself doesn't really inform us on what happened.

The jury found Zimmerman was justified in shooting Martin because of self defense laws, and therefore he was "not guilty".

The fact is, so far, we don't have enough information to know exactly what happened with any certainty. If you have any evidence that shows otherwise, please present it here.

We certainly know what is more likely. And I think it's far more likely that the party to a "fight" who didn't call police prior to walking out of his way to confront the guy who did call the police is the guy who initiated it. YMMV

 

[Nessie]

You know why the "Zimmerman grabbed Martin to keep a criminal from getting away" scenario is completely implausible? Because Zimmerman never had the belief that Martin was a criminal. That's why he called the non-emergency number to report a suspicious person, not a crime in progress.

Your highlighted claim is not true. According to Zimmerman

"Hey we've had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there's a real suspicious guy..." so criminal there.

"....looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about." so three options there, criminal, drug user or just out for a walk.

"Somethings wrong with him. Yup, he's coming to check me out, he's got something in his hands, I don't know what his deal is." so criminal there.

"These (expletive) they always get away" so criminal there.

Fact is GZ had no idea why TM was there and he made the assumption he was there to commit crime, which was wrong and based on this "It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about." It is a huge leap from walking in the rain looking around you to criminal activity. But GZ made it.

I can guess why Martin didn't call the cops.

What is your guess?

 

[WildCat]

Your highlighted claim is not true. According to Zimmerman

"Hey we've had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there's a real suspicious guy..." so criminal there.

"....looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about." so three options there, criminal, drug user or just out for a walk.

"Somethings wrong with him. Yup, he's coming to check me out, he's got something in his hands, I don't know what his deal is." so criminal there.

"These (expletive) they always get away" so criminal there.

Fact is GZ had no idea why TM was there and he made the assumption he was there to commit crime, which was wrong and based on this "It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about." It is a huge leap from walking in the rain looking around you to criminal activity. But GZ made it.




What is your guess?

My guess is he reported a suspicious person, not a crime in progress or a criminal on the loose. That's why he called the non-emergency number, rather than 911 which you call to report criminal activity.

And IMHO it's ludicrous to think Zimmerman, or anyone else for that matter, thought he could detain someone just on the basis that he found them suspicious.

 

[Kestrel]

About 13 minutes into this video, George said that after shooting Martin he got on top of him and spread his hands out because he thought Martin had a weapon. How did Martin's hands end up back under his body?

 

[Upchurch]

He wasn't suspected of anything, Zimmerman thought he was suspicious. Do you understand the difference?V

Oh, please do explain why Zimmerman called the police, mentioning recent burglaries, of Martin being suspicious if he didn't suspect him of preparing to burglarize a house? How does one appear suspicious if you don't suspect them of something nefarious?

The jury found Zimmerman was justified in shooting Martin because of self defense laws, and therefore he was "not guilty".

Juries listen to opposing arguments and judge how the apply under a certain sets of laws. They do not determine truth. See the Scopes Trial. If I trial sided with a psychic in a libel case, does that prove that psychic powers exist?

If you have evidence, provide it. Trial decisions are not evidence.

We certainly know what is more likely. And I think it's far more likely that the party to a "fight" who didn't call police prior to walking out of his way to confront the guy who did call the police is the guy who initiated it. YMMV

Speculation, hunches, and confirmation bias. You have an opinion about what happened, not evidence.

 

[Upchurch]

I can guess why Martin didn't call the cops.

What is your guess?

I also have guess why a young black man in Florida might not consider calling the local police for help, but I will freely admit that it's just a hunch.

 

[Dan O.]

Mr. Manalo testified that Zimmerman threw his phone at him and kind of tersely requested that Manalo phone his wife. The state wanted this as evidence of depraved mind but remember that O'Mara did his masterful courtroom demonstration with OFC Raimondo. That's the only reference to throwing or tossing anywhere in Manalo's testimony or statements.

Regarding the issue with OFC Smith, remember that Smith did not recall Manalo - he simply did not remember. When O'Mara questioned him, Smith was confused if O'Mara was referring to Zimmerman or Martin. That's when Smith asked, "Who?" in the quote highlighted above.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1306/28/cnr.07.html

DE LA RIONDA: Could you tell the jury what happened when the officer arrived?

MANOLO: He says for my safety I'm going to handcuff you. He says okay. He had his cell phone in his hand so he kind of like tossed it on the ground. He says can you call my wife.

DE LA RIONDA: Let me interrupt you. You say he had the cell phone, are you speaking of the defendant George Zimmerman?

MANOLO: Yes.

DE LA RIONDA: You said when the officer came he tossed it on the ground, he being Mr. Zimmerman tossed it on the ground?

MANOLO: Yes.
​

 

[WildCat]

Oh, please do explain why Zimmerman called the police, mentioning recent burglaries, of Martin being suspicious if he didn't suspect him of preparing to burglarize a house? How does one appear suspicious if you don't suspect them of something nefarious?

He reported a suspicious person, which is not the same as a criminal suspect.

Edited by LashL: 

Moderated thread.

Juries listen to opposing arguments and judge how the apply under a certain sets of laws. They do not determine truth. See the Scopes Trial. If I trial sided with a psychic in a libel case, does that prove that psychic powers exist?

If you have evidence, provide it. Trial decisions are not evidence.

The jury listened to all the evidence. It's painfully obvious that you haven't bothered to watch any of the trial testimony or weighed any of the evidence presented. You're still operating like it's February 2012, when little was known other than "white man kills unarmed little black kid, look at this picture of him when he was 12".

Speculation, hunches, and confirmation bias. You have an opinion about what happened, not evidence.

 

[Dan O.]

On the subject of where was Zimmerman when the officers arrived, we have Joe Manalo's testimony:


http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1306/28/cnr.07.html

DE LA RIONDA: Do you recall approximately when you came into contact with the defendant when he was walking towards you where approximately you would have had contact with him? And I'm going to move the arrow around and you tell me where to stop.

MANALO: A little higher.

DE LA RIONDA: Higher?

MANALO: At the T.

DE LA RIONDA: Right here?

MANALO: Yes.
​

-----

DE LA RIONDA: And is this the area approximately where you came into contact with the defendant, George Zimmerman?

MANALO: Yes.

DE LA RIONDA: OK. Near where the T is or the dog trash receptacle?

MANALO: Yes.
​

----

DE LA RIONDA: Do you recall the position that you would have taken this photograph? it shows the back of the defendant Mr. Zimmerman's head. Was he sitting down, standing up, or how was he?

MANALO: He was squatting.

DE LA RIONDA: Was that after the officers came?

MANALO: This was before.
​

I mentioned the photographic evidence in an earlier post. This photograph taken with George squatting on the sidewalk. In the background of that photo there is a clear view of one of the cracks in the sidewalk. There is enough detail to identify with certainty exactly which crack this is and thus identify exactly where George was at the time that photograph was taken.

 

[ABC10]

Your highlighted claim is not true. According to Zimmerman

"Hey we've had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there's a real suspicious guy..." so criminal there.

"....looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about." so three options there, criminal, drug user or just out for a walk.

"Somethings wrong with him. Yup, he's coming to check me out, he's got something in his hands, I don't know what his deal is." so criminal there.

"These (expletive) they always get away" so criminal there.

Fact is GZ had no idea why TM was there and he made the assumption he was there to commit crime, which was wrong and based on this "It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about." It is a huge leap from walking in the rain looking around you to criminal activity. But GZ made it.




What is your guess?

My guess is that Martin was dressed in the hoodie which has a negative image.

 

[Nessie]

Wildcat, what about your claim "Zimmerman never had the belief that Martin was a criminal."?

My guess is he reported a suspicious person, not a crime in progress or a criminal on the loose. That's why he called the non-emergency number, rather than 911 which you call to report criminal activity.

That is not what you were talking about, you said "I can guess why Martin didn't call the cops." So answer the question, what is your guess?

And IMHO it's ludicrous to think Zimmerman, or anyone else for that matter, thought he could detain someone just on the basis that he found them suspicious.

Agreed and it has nothing to do with your post and my reply.

 

[Cylinder]

About 13 minutes into this video, George said that after shooting Martin he got on top of him and spread his hands out because he thought Martin had a weapon. How did Martin's hands end up back under his body?

That's probably the best illustration in the case of filtering witness statements through evidence to arrive at a probable narrative of events. You are correct that Zimmerman claims that he got on top of Martin, spread his arms to check them for weapons, then walked away from Martin when he saw the approaching flashlight. Mr. Manalo's photograph of Martin clearly shows that one arm is underneath his body and the other seems to be alongside. Since we've identified a discrepancy, we can track what we know about the series of events through the witnesses to come to a likely conclusion.

Two witnesses (Mora and Surdyka) saw Zimmerman on top of Martin directly after the gunshot. That seems to confirm that Zimmerman was in that position at the time he claims. John Good, after seeing Martin atop Zimmerman and what appeared to Good as Martin "raining down blows,", stepped back inside, turned around, dialed 911 and started climbing his stairs when he heard the gunshot. He continued to an upstairs bedroom window, looked outside and saw Martin, alone and face down of the grass with his arms spread like he was swimming - one pointed up and the other pointed down. Again, very shortly after and before Martin was contacted by SPD, Mr. Manalo photographed Martin with his arms in.

Those narratives seems to establish that Zimmerman was in the position he claims after the gunshot and a witness saw Martin's arms in the position Zimmerman claims after Zimmerman left Martin's body. Of course, Zimmerman never asserted what position the arms were in when police arrived, he simply claimed that he moved them out. I think a reasonable conjecture is that Martin himself moved his arms inward before expiring. It has to be conjecture, though, because no one saw his arms move, and no one saw Zimmerman or anyone else move them after Zimmerman left the body.

 

[Cylinder]

On the subject of where was Zimmerman when the officers arrived, we have Joe Manalo's testimony:

That really doesn't change the fact that Jeantel, Lauer and Zimmerman claim the altercation started with the 3-exchange confrontation, that Jeantel and Zimmerman both claim Martin spoke first and Lauer and Zimmerman both claim that confrontation occurred at the T and moved south.

 

[WildCat]

Wildcat, what about your claim "Zimmerman never had the belief that Martin was a criminal."?

Suspicious person <---> suspected criminal

Not the same thing.

That is not what you were talking about, you said "I can guess why Martin didn't call the cops." So answer the question, what is your guess?

My guess is you don't call the cops when you're going to take care of it yourself. And we know who called the cops, and who didn't.

 

[Upchurch]

He reported a suspicious person, which is not the same as a criminal suspect.

Okay, what Zimmerman suspicious of Martin for? He mentioned "break-ins" and "suspicious guy" in the same breath, but you don't think Zimmerman thought Martin was suspicious in relation to a potential break-in?

The jury listened to all the evidence.

No, they didn't. They listened to, and were only allowed to consider in their judgement, those bits of evidence that is admissible under Florida law. We are not hindered by such constraints, FWIW.

It's painfully obvious that you haven't bothered to watch any of the trial testimony or weighed any of the evidence presented. You're still operating like it's February 2012, when little was known other than "white man kills unarmed little black kid, look at this picture of him when he was 12".

Well, that certainly is a lovely strawman

Edited by LashL: 

Moderated thread.

You know very well that I didn't watch the trial because I told you I hadn't. However, that should not prevent you from providing the evidence to support your claims yourself.

Assuming, of course, there is any and that you didn't just buy into the defense's arguments which, I'll remind you, was to persuade the jury to find their client not guilty. Not that they are necessarily incorrect, but neither should their arguments be taken as gospel.

 

[Dan O.]

That really doesn't change the fact that Jeantel, Lauer and Zimmerman claim the altercation started with the 3-exchange confrontation, that Jeantel and Zimmerman both claim Martin spoke first and Lauer and Zimmerman both claim that confrontation occurred at the T and moved south.

Please, don't just change the subject. Do you accept that George was at the tee when he was met by Joe Manalo and when he was placed in handcuffs by officer Tim Smith? Does anybody still contend that George was 30 feet south of the tee when these events occured?

 

[WildCat]

Okay, what Zimmerman suspicious of Martin for? He mentioned "break-ins" and "suspicious guy" in the same breath, but you don't think Zimmerman thought Martin was suspicious in relation to a potential break-in?

He said on the phone call what made him suspicious. And it wasn't break-ins. It was his mannerisms, the way he was walking and looking around.

No, they didn't. They listened to, and were only allowed to consider in their judgement, those bits of evidence that is admissible under Florida law. We are not hindered by such constraints, FWIW.

True, we know that Martin liked to fight, he had been caught with jewelry and a large screwdriver he couldn't explain, liked to smoke pot and was looking to get a gun. The jury didn't hear any of that.

Well, that certainly is a lovely strawman

You've yet to demonstrate any knowledge of the case that isn't the original meme of "white guy chased down black kid and shot him for wearing a hoodie and carrying skittles".

You know very well that I didn't watch the trial because I told you I hadn't. However, that should not prevent you from providing the evidence to support your claims yourself.

I summarized the trial evidence. I'm not going to transcribe 3 weeks worth of testimony for you, the whole thing is up on youtube.

Assuming, of course, there is any and that you didn't just buy into the defense's arguments which, I'll remind you, was to persuade the jury to find their client not guilty. Not that they are necessarily incorrect, but neither should their arguments be taken as gospel.

There was far more supporting evidence supporting the defense's theory of what happened than the prosecution's "theory". In scare quotes because the prosecution didn't have any theory at all, just hints and innuendo and appeals to emotion.

The defense's theory was supported by eyewitnesses, forensics experts, the medical examiner, and crime scene investigation. In fact nearly all of the prosecution's own witnesses ended up discrediting the prosecution's points and buttressing the defense.

 

[Cylinder]

Suspicious person <---> suspected criminal

Not the same thing.

Yup - that was covered by Wendy Dorival, the NWP coordinator. Zimmerman was instructed to call NEN for instances of suspicious behavior and 911 in instances where a crime was suspected.

 

[Wolrab]

Please, don't just change the subject. Do you accept that George was at the tee when he was met by Joe Manalo and when he was placed in handcuffs by officer Tim Smith? Does anybody still contend that George was 30 feet south of the tee when these events occured?

30 feet? Do you realize how short that is? Ten big steps or a couple of seconds of pacing. Recalling your exact position even minutes after an event is difficult. We move constantly and don't even realize it. What difference would 30 feet make?