Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[Mister Earl]

I think the part I'm getting hung up on here is everyone seems to be arguing with different objectives. I think I'm looking at this more along the lines of a right / wrong fashion, and others are arguing from legal / not legal fashion.

 

[Darkman]

At least I can spell.

This is not some sort of a spelling bee forum / thread here ... and it doesn't break forum rules "to misspell".

If we worried much about our spelling, we would go join some "spelling" forum, where when someone misspells, others are wecome to let them know about it, with someone saying "thank you" in reply.

 

[phonebook]

But there was a right for Z to shoot him in the heart because he felt afraid?

That will be up to the judge and/or jury to decide if his fear of great bodily harm or death was reasonable given the circumstances at the time he fired his weapon.

 

[Mister Earl]

I personally think he'll be in trouble there. All the prosecution has to say is "Would circumstances have been different if Zimmerman didn't persue Trayvon on foot?" What's the defense going to say about that?

 

[WildCat]

You state that like it's fact. Weird.

But I guess asserting things that are factually inaccurate or just completely made up is a habit.

Oh dear, I confused Duane Allman's crash with fellow Allman Brother's Band member Berry Oakley's crash. If this was an Almman Brother's Band trivia contest you'd have a point, but as it is my point stands.

Yeah, because what really happened is the totally believable scenario in which a young black thug viciously attacked and tried to murder the perfectly innocent and upstanding white citizen for no apparent reason.

That doesn't sound like something out of a bad movie at all.

The facts support that Martin assaulted Zimmerman. Even Rare Truth has conceded that, and is now trying to justify the assault under "stand your ground" laws.

 

[WildCat]

Who has said George was chasing Trayvon with "gun in hand"?

The narrative given was that Zimmerman was chasing Martin in order to kill him. Of course he'd have his gun out if that was his intent.

 

[Mister Earl]

Who argued that it was Zimmerman's intent to kill from the start?

 

[WildCat]

Nice imagination you got there.

So do explain how Zimmerman caught up to Martin when Martin was running away, had a big head start, and Zimmerman never ran?

And I know this because when Zimmerman said "he's running" he was still sitting in his truck, and Zimmerman is clearly not running for the duration of the phone call.

Like I said, this is B-movie horror flick scenario where the victm can't escape the barely-moving monster. And then there's the bit where DeeDee says Martin confronted Zimmerman, not the other way around.

 

[WildCat]

Who argued that it was Zimmerman's intent to kill from the start?

Unabogie:

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we'll never know who threw the first blow. We can't ever know, because the defendant murdered his victim and his side will never be told. But we'll show here today is that it doesn't matter. George Zimmerman stalked his victim, never identified himself, and chased him into a dark area. You'll hear a lot about 'standing your ground' in this trial, but it was the victim who had that right. He was in legitimate fear for his life, and he was right. We're going to ask you to put yourselves in his shoes. You're walking home alone, talking on the phone to your wife or husband, when a strange man starts to follow you. You run away. He follows you. You try and go where his car can't follow, and he runs out of the car after you. When he catches you, there in the dark, and won't tell you why he's chasing you, how would you feel? Would you be scared? Would you punch him and run? Because that may be what happened here. But again, we'll never know, because the defendant shot him in the heart, shattering his heart and lungs, and he died. And Trayvon Martin died not ever knowing who this stranger was, or why he wished him harm".

eta: and once again, in this scenario Martin is terrified for his life, but doesn't even bother end his phone call to DeeDee to call the police, and doesn't get away despite the fact Zimmerman is still sitting in his truck and never runs after him. It makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[12AX7]

The narrative given was that Zimmerman was chasing Martin in order to kill him. Of course he'd have his gun out if that was his intent.

Oh, OK. So nobody actually said George was chasing Trayvon with "gun in hand"; that was something you made up.

Got it.

 

[WildCat]

Oh, OK. So nobody actually said George was chasing Trayvon with "gun in hand"; that was something you made up.

Got it.

Why would the gun be anywhere else if the intent was to kill him, as claimed?

 

[Mister Earl]

It's your claim that someone else said he intended to kill during the persuit. Your rationale behind that claim is exceedingly poor, Wildcat! Honestly, I'm kind of disappointed in you. I don't expect to see you twisting the words of others to fit your own arguments.

 

[johnny karate]

5. no evidence exists Trevon was 50' from the Tee prior to the fight. Witness accounts prove otherwise

I'm not sure to what witness accounts you're referring, but Martin got there somehow. And that isn't accounted for in Zimmerman's version of events.

6. there was no bodily harm happening for Trevon to defend himself from

It's a very interesting needle which Zimmerman's defenders try to thread in which they hand-wave away the paucity of his injuries while alleging significance of the lack of Martin's injuries.

First of all, Martin doesn't need to have injuries to demonstrate he was assaulted or threatened by Zimmerman. Zimmerman's behavior is enough on its own to demonstrate Martin very reasonably could have found Zimmerman threatening.

Secondly, Martin's lack of injuries extends to his hands. The same hands he supposed used to repeatedly pummel Zimmerman. Nothing on them but one tiny scratch.

If we're going to argue a lack of injuries means somethings, what do you say we do so consistently?

8. it's been explained why it matters who started the fight. You have provided no evidence Trevon had any reason to stand his ground.

We know Martin ran away from Zimmerman.

We know Zimmerman went after him. And the evidence demonstrates he did so beyond the point he is willing to admit.

That alone is enough to cast Zimmerman in the light of the aggressor.

10. GZ was under no obligation to wait until he was severely injured

But he is under an obligation to substantiate his story about getting repeatedly punched and have his head repeatedly slammed onto the pavement and otherwise being the helpless victim of a brutal assault.

Because you can bet the prosecution is going to tear that story to shreds.

There is no right for Trevon to "punch him in the nose " because he felt scared of GZ.

Not according to the law:

A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force.

Martin is walking home alone at night.

A total stranger is following Martin in his car and watching him.

Martin flees the area.

The stranger gets out of his car and pursues Martin.

Now the stranger is approaching him in a dark isolated area while reaching into his pocket for... something.

I don't think the prosecution will have a difficult time establishing that Martin might have had a reasonable belief Zimmerman intended him harm.

 

[johnny karate]

Oh dear, I confused Duane Allman's crash with fellow Allman Brother's Band member Berry Oakley's crash. If this was an Almman Brother's Band trivia contest you'd have a point...

No, I have a point.

My point is that you have a habit of asserting things that are demonstrably untrue because you either can't be bothered to verify information or you simply manufacture them out of whole cloth.

The facts support that Martin assaulted Zimmerman. Even Rare Truth has conceded that, and is now trying to justify the assault under "stand your ground" laws.

No one denies Martin punched Zimmerman. And there is plenty of evidence to indicate he might have done so out of self-defense.

That you conflate that with assault is disingenuous and - once again - factually unsupported.

 

[johnny karate]

Perhaps he's aware about the 2(3?) chances to get the case dismissed mentioned here: http://www.talkleft.com/story/2013/3/6/5418/05480

So O'Mara decided to drag this thing out for year and prepare for a costly and risky trial rather than simply filing a motion for dismissal last April?

Is that seriously the argument you're making?

 

[johnny karate]

Oh, OK. So nobody actually said George was chasing Trayvon with "gun in hand"; that was something you made up.

Got it.

It's your claim that someone else said he intended to kill during the persuit. Your rationale behind that claim is exceedingly poor, Wildcat! Honestly, I'm kind of disappointed in you. I don't expect to see you twisting the words of others to fit your own arguments.

Par for course:

Upthread johnny karate claimed you had to be a medical expert and conduct tests to determine if the red stuff coming out of a wound was blood.

 

[phonebook]

No one denies Martin punched Zimmerman.

Well... I'm not sure if anybody here denies that, but there are quite a few people out there following this case, on other forums at least, that claim GZ got the nose injury/injuries from the gun recoil, and the ejected bullet casing.

 

[Mister Earl]

Well... I'm not sure if anybody here denies that, but there are quite a few people out there following this case, on other forums at least, that claim GZ got the nose injury/injuries from the gun recoil, and the ejected bullet casing.

I would have to say that they are silly.

 

[johnny karate]

Well... I'm not sure if anybody here denies that, but there are quite a few people out there following this case, on other forums at least, that claim GZ got the nose injury/injuries from the gun recoil, and the ejected bullet casing.

I'm sure I could find equally silly arguments from Zimmerman's defenders without too much effort.

But I don't see the relevance of pointing out what silly people some place are arguing.

 

[phonebook]

So O'Mara decided to drag this thing out for year and prepare for a costly and risky trial rather than simply filing a motion for dismissal last April?

Is that seriously the argument you're making?

With your "rather than" statement, are you implying that the pre-trial hearing wouldn't also be "costly and risky"? As the burden is on the defense at the pre-trial hearing, and that burden being the relatively steep "preponderance of the evidence" standard, there is nothing "simple" about that. In fact, the pre-trial hearing, with the burden being on the defense, might actually cost the defense more money, if a greater number of experts are needed to be hired to argue to that elevated standard. Much of the exact same evidence that the defense would/will present at the jury trial would have been presented at the pre-trial hearing as well. The biggest difference is that there is a much greater burden on the defense in proving self-defense, and zero burden on the prosecution to prove any crime was committed. It's my understanding that only the prosecution has the power to present any of GZ's previous statements (interviews, reenactment, etc.) in court. In order for the defense to argue GZ was justified in using self-defense, especially to the preponderance standard, it's going to be awfully hard to do so without presenting GZ's story of what happened. The prosecution won't need to present any of GZ's statements to police in an effort to prove he committed a crime, they will only need to present it if it seems to support that GZ did NOT act in self-defense. That's going to leave the defense with rather slim pickings, if they're left with much of anything, as far as GZ's statements, and thus his story, goes. With that said, GZ would most likely have to take the stand. Anything he says on the stand can be used by the prosecution at the jury trial against him; they'll be able to twist it in whatever manner they desire to assist them in getting a guilty verdict, and that's quite risky. I'm unsure whether or not the defense can volunteer those same statements at the jury trial or not.

Re: April: O'Mara took over the case on April 11th of last year, so I don't imagine ~19 days would be sufficient for a lawyer to review ALL the evidence. When did the discovery portion of the case even start? It's clear that in April, O'Mara wouldn't have had all the evidence the prosecution had (a year later, they still don't), but did they have any of it at that point? No one is going to seriously put all the blame on O'Mara for "dragging this thing out for a year". The prosecution's seemingly intentional delays with regards to sharing their portion of the discovery evidence with the defense has accounted for a significant portion of that "dragging out" process.

Back to the original link I shared: http://blog.richardhornsby.com/2012/04/who-was-the-first-aggressor/

My purpose for sharing that link was to share a "Criminal Lawyer's" input on how to determine who was the aggressor, sufficient/insufficient provocation, and disproportionate force. I wasn't attempting to create an argument about the current state of this case, as that blog article was written/posted on April 21st of 2012, but the generalities he goes over regarding the previous things I mentioned are still relevant today.