Merged Continuation Part 2: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[beren]

Incorrect, the US legal system has no definition of "not proven guilty". It has two settings "Guilty" and "Innocent". When not proven guilty, Innocence is assumed.

Here is what the jury instruction in the Zimmerman trial said. Emphasis mine.

If you find that no offense has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then, of course, your verdict must be not guilty.

Source: http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/Zimmerman_Final_Jury_Instructions.pdf


Zimmerman is "not guilty" because his guilt was not proven. This does not mean that he did not commit murder. It merely means, that it has not been proven.

Yes, legally, this means that he cannot be considered to have done it, but this does not make him "innocent." It means he has not been proven to have done it.

 

[This is The End]

Highlighting mine.
Any evidence to back up the claim that Zimmerman chased Martin around and refused to explain why?

I believe the "refused to explain why" is referring to "refused to explain why to Trayvon". Which is evidenced by Z's own story.

I have a feeling you are reading it as "refused to explain why" to everyone else but Trayvon.

Could you clarify this please, as it doesn't appear to match any statement that Zimmerman made that I've seen.

Are you trying to claim that Z explained to M why Z was following M.

Even Z says that he did not explain to M why he was following him.

 

[Mumbles]

Leaving aside your rather creative version of events, none of those things is evidence for your assertion that Zimmerman chased Martin around and refused to explain why.

No, you're clearly wrong. For example, when Zimmerman says "he's running" and leaves his car, and affirms that he is in fact, running after Martin, this is obviously a "chase". And we know, from Witness 8's testimony, that Zimmerman continued to pursue Martin, that Martin asked why he was under pursuit, and that Zimmerman's response did not explain why.

Sorry, but there's no real room for interpretation here. You are factually incorrect, and calling me "creative" somehow, will not change that.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Incorrect, the US legal system has no definition of "not proven guilty". It has two settings "Guilty" and "Innocent". When not proven guilty, Innocence is assumed.

Wrong.

No, you're off one. It's "Guilty" or "Not Guilty". The courts don't pronounce "Innocence".

<snip>
This is year one law. People are found "not guilty". People are specifically not found "innocent".

It's as if you all think PhantomWolf claimed the courts pronounced GZ innocent.

Read what he wrote again.

"When not proven guilty, Innocence is assumed."

This is absolutely correct.

Legally, he has the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty (presumption of innocence). IE -innocence is the assumed, the default position.

You all may argue you are not the government, and do not need to assume anything, and that is correct. It also doesn't change the fact that GZ is legally innocent, and that means you all are simply asserting your opinion he is not innocent. And there is a saying about opinions....

 

[PhantomWolf]

Wrong.

No, you're off one. It's "Guilty" or "Not Guilty". The courts don't pronounce "Innocence".

Here is what the jury instruction in the Zimmerman trial said. Emphasis mine.



Source: http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/Zimmerman_Final_Jury_Instructions.pdf


Zimmerman is "not guilty" because his guilt was not proven. This does not mean that he did not commit murder. It merely means, that it has not been proven.

Yes, legally, this means that he cannot be considered to have done it, but this does not make him "innocent." It means he has not been proven to have done it.

So I take it that you all agree then that everyone and anyone who is ever charged with a crime and taken to court is now no longer Innocent, just "not proven guilty." So therefore the only innocent people are the ones the police haven't caught yet?

 

[johnny karate]

It's as if you all think PhantomWolf claimed the courts pronounced GZ innocent.

Read what he wrote again.

"When not proven guilty, Innocence is assumed."

This is absolutely correct.

Legally, he has the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty (presumption of innocence). IE -innocence is the assumed, the default position.

You all may argue you are not the government, and do not need to assume anything, and that is correct. It also doesn't change the fact that GZ is legally innocent, and that means you all are simply asserting your opinion he is not innocent. And there is a saying about opinions....

Wrong.

The presumption of innocence, an ancient tenet of Criminal Law, is actually a misnomer. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the presumption of the innocence of a criminal defendant is best described as an assumption of innocence that is indulged in the absence of contrary evidence (Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478, 98 S. Ct. 1930, 56 L. Ed. 2d 468 [1978]). It is not considered evidence of the defendant's innocence, and it does not require that a mandatory inference favorable to the defendant be drawn from any facts in evidence.

Hope that clears things up.

 

[Dissolution]

No, you're clearly wrong. For example, when Zimmerman says "he's running" and leaves his car, and affirms that he is in fact, running after Martin, this is obviously a "chase".

Except that this didn't happen. Zimmerman never said that he was running after Martin.

And we know, from Witness 8's testimony, that Zimmerman continued to pursue Martin, that Martin asked why he was under pursuit, and that Zimmerman's response did not explain why.

Rachel Jeantel? Awful, awful witness supposedly reporting a conversation heard over the phone.
Also a proven and admitted liar.

Sorry, but there's no real room for interpretation here. You are factually incorrect, and calling me "creative" somehow, will not change that.

Clearly not. Fact free claims, I'm afraid.

 

[quadraginta]

So I take it that you all agree then that everyone and anyone who is ever charged with a crime and taken to court is now no longer Innocent,

Begging the question. What do you mean by "no longer". Nothing has changed.

just "not proven guilty."

Yes.

So therefore the only innocent people are the ones the police haven't caught yet?

No.

How did you manage to come up with that?

 

[johnny karate]

Rachel Jeantel? Awful, awful witness supposedly reporting a conversation heard over the phone.
Also a proven and admitted liar.

You ask for evidence.

You are provided evidence.

You dismiss the evidence based of your judgement of its quality.

So maybe your original request should have been for evidence of which you personally approve.

 

[Dissolution]

Are you trying to claim that Z explained to M why Z was following M.

Even Z says that he did not explain to M why he was following him.

No, I'm trying to find out if there's any reliable evidence that Zimmerman "refused to explain why he was following Martin", as there doesn't appear to be any.
Zimmerman himself doesn't appear to have made a statement confirming it.

No, you're clearly wrong. For example, when Zimmerman says "he's running" and leaves his car, and affirms that he is in fact, running after Martin, this is obviously a "chase". And we know, from Witness 8's testimony, that Zimmerman continued to pursue Martin, that Martin asked why he was under pursuit, and that Zimmerman's response did not explain why.

Sorry, but there's no real room for interpretation here. You are factually incorrect, and calling me "creative" somehow, will not change that.

Zimmerman didn't affirm "that he is in fact, running after Martin", though.
He was asked if he was following him and he confirmed that he was.
There was no mention of Zimmerman himself running and he doesn't sound out of breath at all, despite continually talking on the phone and being rather overweight.
He also says quite clearly that he doesn't know where Martin is.
That's not a chase.

Rachel Jeantel's testimony was appalling, inconsistent and unbelievable. She admitted to lying, so I don't give it any credibility whatsoever.
What made it made convincing for you?

 

[johnny karate]

So I take it that you all agree then that everyone and anyone who is ever charged with a crime and taken to court is now no longer Innocent, just "not proven guilty." So therefore the only innocent people are the ones the police haven't caught yet?

No.

It's really quite simple actually.

If a person is charged with a crime, our legal system is designed so that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. And in the course of doing so and for that purpose only, the defendant is afforded the presumption of innocence.

The actual determination of innocence is never a factor, and not at all relevant to the proceedings. And it certainly isn't proven or established by a "not guilty" verdict. That's how someone can be found "not guilty" of a crime, but still be held legally responsible for the consequences of that crime (see: O.J. Simpson).

 

[johnny karate]

No, I'm trying to find out if there's any reliable evidence that Zimmerman "refused to explain why he was following Martin", as there doesn't appear to be any.
Zimmerman himself doesn't appear to have made a statement confirming it.

Incorrect.

"Investigative findings show that (Zimmerman) had at least two opportunities to speak with (Martin) in order to defuse the circumstances surrounding their encounter," Serino wrote in the report. "On at least two occasions (Zimmerman) failed to identify himself as a concerned resident or a neighborhood watch volunteer."

 

[Dissolution]

You ask for evidence.

You are provided evidence.

You dismiss the evidence based of your judgement of its quality.

So maybe your original request should have been for evidence of which you personally approve.

Or evidence that anyone could take seriously, perhaps? The jury clearly didn't.
Even Jeantel herself didn't think that she'd witnessed anything relevant, according to her own testimony.

 

[Dissolution]

Incorrect.

There's nothing there that either contradicts my comment or supports the one that I was responding to.
Failing to offer information to somebody is not the same as failing to respond to them.

Serino testified that Zimmerman's account was completely consistent with the evidence though, didn't he?
Didn't want to file charges and said that he thought that he was telling the truth.

 

[johnny karate]

Or evidence that anyone could take seriously, perhaps? The jury clearly didn't.
Even Jeantel herself didn't think that she'd witnessed anything relevant, according to her own testimony.

Your original request:

Any evidence to back up the claim that Zimmerman chased Martin around and refused to explain why?

Evidence for both claims has been provided.

That you choose to dismiss that evidence does not mean it doesn't exist.

 

[eirik]

No.

It's really quite simple actually.

If a person is charged with a crime, our legal system is designed so that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. And in the course of doing so and for that purpose only, the defendant is afforded the presumption of innocence.

The actual determination of innocence is never a factor, and not at all relevant to the proceedings. And it certainly isn't proven or established by a "not guilty" verdict. That's how someone can be found "not guilty" of a crime, but still be held legally responsible for the consequences of that crime (see: O.J. Simpson).

So what you're saying is that Zimmerman, and no one else in the universe is technically proven innocent of the alleged murder of Martin. Ok. Where are you going with these platitudes?

 

[johnny karate]

There's nothing there that either contradicts my comment or supports the one that I was responding to.
Failing to offer information to somebody is not the same as failing to respond to them.

The original claim (bolded):

I mean the real world, where Martin was walking home from the store and talking on his cell phone, when some random dude started chasing him around, and refused to explain why.

The evidence to support it:

"On at least two occasions (Zimmerman) failed to identify himself as a concerned resident or a neighborhood watch volunteer."

Your request has been fulfilled. Now we're just engaged in a rather tedious exercise of pointless hair-splitting.

Serino testified that Zimmerman's account was completely consistent with the evidence though, didn't he?
Didn't want to file charges and said that he thought that he was telling the truth.

Not at all relevant to the specific point we are discussing.

 

[Dissolution]

Your original request:


Evidence for both claims has been provided.

That you choose to dismiss that evidence does not mean it doesn't exist.

There's no evidence that Zimmerman chased Martin around, at all.

The only evidence that's been provided that Zimmerman refused to explain his actions came from a self-confessed liar who didn't believe that she'd witnessed anything.
Why would anyone believe that?

 

[johnny karate]

So what you're saying is that Zimmerman, and no one else in the universe is technically proven innocent of the alleged murder of Martin. Ok.

No, I'm saying exactly what I said in my post you quoted.

Where are you going with these platitudes?

To the end of the last sentence in my post you quoted.

 

[johnny karate]

There's no evidence that Zimmerman chased Martin around, at all.

The alleged chase is detailed in Rachel Jeantel's testimony, which is evidence by any legal standard. That you personally disbelieve the testimony does not automatically render that evidence into a state of non-existence.

The only evidence that's been provided that Zimmerman refused to explain his actions came from a self-confessed liar who didn't believe that she'd witnessed anything.
Why would anyone believe that?

No, there is also the evidence contained in Detective Serino's report. It has already been quoted and cited in this thread. Please feel free to peruse that last few posts if it helps to refresh your memory.