Latest GeorgeZimmerman News

[bobdroege7]

What definition of "racist" are you using?

The one where one's motives and actions are based on race.

I know it's not the standard superiority of one race over another definition.

 

[bobdroege7]

Assumes facts not in evidence.


Apart from the bullet hole. There is also no evidence that Martin assaulted Zimmerman first.

You have to be kidding, Martin was on top of Zimmerman and could have stopped beating him and got up and walked home.

Those facts are a matter of public record.

There is no evidence Zimmerman assaulted Martin, but there is evidence that Martin assaulted Zimmerman.

So the preponderance of the evidence indicates Martin assaulted Zimmerman first.

We just don't know how the encounter went down, but we do know the result.

There is just no justification for Martin's actions once he knocked Zimmerman to the ground.

Maybe Zimmerman provoked him, but that does not justify what he was doing when he got shot.

 

[Jules Galen]

You have to be kidding, Martin was on top of Zimmerman and could have stopped beating him and got up and walked home. Those facts are a matter of public record.

There is no evidence Zimmerman assaulted Martin, but there is evidence that Martin assaulted Zimmerman.

So the preponderance of the evidence indicates Martin assaulted Zimmerman first.

We just don't know how the encounter went down, but we do know the result.

There is just no justification for Martin's actions once he knocked Zimmerman to the ground.

Maybe Zimmerman provoked him, but that does not justify what he was doing when he got shot.

I don't know, man. If I were on top of Zimmerman and beating him in the head and face, I would be extremely reluctant to stop. I mean, that's the stuff of dreams!

But that's just me.

Seriously. I wish Trayvon had chosen to go home and tell his dad. Sometimes, I dream of being there and telling Trayvon, "Don't go back there and face that cracker Trayvon, he's setting a trap for you!"

 

[Fast Eddie B]

I wish Trayvon had chosen to go home and tell his dad.

On that, at least, we can easily agree.

 

[Upchurch]

I see now that you simply meant that there was a reasonable probability that Zimmerman was lying (or even just remembering incorrectly).

I simply mean that Zimmerman's version is anecdotal evidence, which is of very limited value and certainly shouldn't be the basis of any conclusions.

Because attacking first gives a huge advantage in a fight, provided that the opponent isn't expecting to be attacked. At the very least, the attacker has a decent probability of leaving a mark on his opponent. So the fact that Martin didn't have a scratch, other than the bullet hole in his chest, and that Zimmerman had a broken nose, deep cuts in the back of his head, and wet grass all over his back, shows that he lost the fight big time and therefore lowers the probability that he was able to gain the advantage by attacking first.

You are assuming that the only forms assault are those that leaves a mark. Based on Zimmerman's phone conversation with the police operator, Zimmerman was acutely concerned about " punks. These . They always get away." It is entirely plausible that Zimmerman did not want Martin to get away might attempt to physically restrain him, which would be attempted assault and not necessarily leave a mark on Martin.

On top of that, it also shows that Zimmerman isn't a particularly good fighter, which he undoubtedly knew. People who know they aren't good fighters tend to avoid fights rather than instigate them.

Zimmerman had been taking MMA lessons for a year prior to his encounter with Martin. As I have explained to you before, there is a tendency, especially among unskilled individuals, to overestimate their own abilities. Do we really know that Zimmerman "undoubtedly knew" he wasn't a particularly good fighter?

As somebody who was acting as a self-appointed watchman, Zimmerman couldn't really afford to be aggressively confrontational.

He already showed some verbal aggression toward Martin that evening on the phone with police operator. He continued to follow Martin after being told the police would not need him to do so. I don't know how you come to the conclusion that Zimmerman through he could not afford to confront Martin. Many posters in this thread have suggested that it was absolutely his right to do so.

It is not rational to put oneself in a dangerous confrontation several times a month, because, inevitably, something bad will happen (as, actually, it did in this case). The only tenable protocol for Zimmerman was to call the police and try to keep an eye on the suspect until they arrived.

You are assuming he was acting rationally. Most people don't on a good day. There was, for example, no rational reason for Zimmerman to suspect Martin up to anything nefarious.

As for the imminent arrival of the police, I see that as a reason not to initiate a confrontation. It's a reason to try to maintain sight of the suspect but not to get too close.

It would also be reason to make sure the " punk" didn't get away this time before the police arrived, would it not? After all, "These . They always get away."

 

[Fast Eddie B]

He continued to follow Martin after being told the police would not need him to do so.

While the dispatcher said it was not necessary for him to follow Martin, part of being in a "Neighborhood Watch" mode is to continue to "watch" someone who you feel might be suspicious. That part of it seems perfectly natural to me, and not a sign of aggressiveness or stalking.

 

[Jules Galen]

While the dispatcher said it was not necessary for him to follow Martin, part of being in a "Neighborhood Watch" mode is to continue to "watch" someone who you feel might be suspicious. That part of it seems perfectly natural to me, and not a sign of aggressiveness or stalking.

Well, then take a look at how George Zimmerman describes it to the detectives as he drives and walks through the crime scene with them. It was Stalking alright.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_2NeMrGCvg

 

[Thermal]

Source

OK, your source (Wikipedia) says 'anecdotal evidence is evidence from anecdotes'. Clicking on 'anecdotes' for its definition, it reads:

An anecdote is a brief, revealing account of an individual person or an incident.[1] Often humorous, anecdotes differ from jokes because their primary purpose is not simply to provoke laughter, but to reveal a truth more general than the brief tale itself, such as to characterize a person by delineating a specific quirk or trait, to communicate an abstract idea about a person, place, or thing through the concrete details of a short narrative.[2] An anecdote is "a story with a point'

Yeah, that's far more similar to a 'short, funny story' than witness testimony under oath. Your source elaborates:

Witness testimony is a common form of evidence in law, and law has mechanisms to test witness evidence for reliability or credibility. Legal processes for the taking and assessment of evidence are formalized. Some witness testimony may be described as anecdotal evidence, such as individual stories of harassment as part of a class action lawsuit. However, witness testimony can be tested and assessed for reliability. Examples of approaches to testing and assessment include the use of questioning, evidence of corroborating witnesses, documents, video and forensic evidence. Where a court lacks suitable means to test and assess testimony of a particular witness, such as the absence of forms of corroboration or substantiation, it may afford that testimony limited or no "weight" when making a decision on the facts

I wont argue the point with ya anymore.

 

[Ziggurat]

You are assuming that the only forms assault are those that leaves a mark. Based on Zimmerman's phone conversation with the police operator, Zimmerman was acutely concerned about " punks. These . They always get away." It is entirely plausible that Zimmerman did not want Martin to get away might attempt to physically restrain him, which would be attempted assault and not necessarily leave a mark on Martin.

It's plausible even under this scenario that Zimmerman was legally justified in shooting Martin. You can attempt to restrain someone with force, and have that force be non-deadly force. If someone uses non-deadly force on you, that is assault, and it entitles you to use non-deadly force in response. It does not justify using deadly force in response. If Zimmerman tried to use non-deadly force against Martin and Martin knocked Zimmerman to the ground and started punching him (deadly force), then Zimmerman is now legally entitled to use deadly force in self-defense.

But it doesn't even matter, since we don't know. Plausibility isn't enough to convict. The jury made the right decision. There is no reasonable alternative verdict the jury could have rendered given the facts available.

 

[Upchurch]

OK, your source (Wikipedia) says 'anecdotal evidence is evidence from anecdotes'. Clicking on 'anecdotes' for its definition, it reads:


Yeah, that's far more similar to a 'short, funny story' than witness testimony under oath. Your source elaborates:


I wont argue the point with ya anymore.

Yes, words have more than one meaning. I was clear that wasn't referring to a "short, funny story".

 

[Upchurch]

But it doesn't even matter, since we don't know.

Indeed. This is why I've been arguing that drawing conclusions like Zimmerman attacked Martin first or Martin attacked Zimmerman first are erroneous. We don't know. People are putting forth unsupported claims.

 

[Thermal]

Yes, words have more than one meaning. I was clear that wasn't referring to a "short, funny story".

Yes, I know. That's why I specifically asked you to provide an external definition that supported your use. Instead, you provided a source that supported mine. Note that your source provided no substantially different meanings, although you now claim there are more.

 

[Thermal]

It's plausible even under this scenario that Zimmerman was legally justified in shooting Martin. You can attempt to restrain someone with force, and have that force be non-deadly force. If someone uses non-deadly force on you, that is assault, and it entitles you to use non-deadly force in response. It does not justify using deadly force in response. If Zimmerman tried to use non-deadly force against Martin and Martin knocked Zimmerman to the ground and started punching him (deadly force), then Zimmerman is now legally entitled to use deadly force in self-defense.

But it doesn't even matter, since we don't know. Plausibility isn't enough to convict. The jury made the right decision. There is no reasonable alternative verdict the jury could have rendered given the facts available.

As assault is a state crime, from Florida statutes:

An “assault” is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String&URL=0700-0799/0784/Sections/0784.011.html

 

[Mumbles]

I apologise for the request, but I'm genuinely interested to know if there were prior similar incidents with Zimmerman.

No need to apologize. This would be easy for any ordinary person. I guess this is a start, but I'll try harder.

Ok, what do you consider to be facts supporting this conclusion, specifically?

I'd consider Zimmerman's own call to support it.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

As assault is a state crime, from Florida statutes:



http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String&URL=0700-0799/0784/Sections/0784.011.html

In FL, an "assault" is basically a threat combined with some action that puts the victim in fear.

As soon as there is any unlawful touching, it becomes a battery.

And either assault or battery can be simple or aggravated, depending on the specifics.

 

[Thermal]

It's plausible even under this scenario that Zimmerman was legally justified in shooting Martin. You can attempt to restrain someone with force, and have that force be non-deadly force. If someone uses non-deadly force on you, that is assault, and it entitles you to use non-deadly force in response. It does not justify using deadly force in response. If Zimmerman tried to use non-deadly force against Martin and Martin knocked Zimmerman to the ground and started punching him (deadly force), then Zimmerman is now legally entitled to use deadly force in self-defense.

But it doesn't even matter, since we don't know. Plausibility isn't enough to convict. The jury made the right decision. There is no reasonable alternative verdict the jury could have rendered given the facts available.

In further support, from the Florida statutes on use of lethal and non-lethal force in self defense:

(1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use 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. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.
(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.012.html

 

[Thermal]

In FL, an "assault" is basically a threat combined with some action that puts the victim in fear.

As soon as there is any unlawful touching, it becomes a battery.

And either assault or battery can be simple or aggravated, depending on the specifics.

Right, and I threw in the relevant statues for full context in the appropriate jurisdiction.

 

[Upchurch]

Yes, I know. That's why I specifically asked you to provide an external definition that supported your use. Instead, you provided a source that supported mine. Note that your source provided no substantially different meanings, although you now claim there are more.

There were several different versions given in that article. I pointed to the version I was using and specifically said I didn't a short, funny story. Don't be dishonest.

 

[Thermal]

There were several different versions given in that article. I pointed to the version I was using and specifically said I didn't a short, funny story. Don't be dishonest.

If so, please cite the one that supports your use, as I requested.

Quick edit: the one you used skipped the actual definition, defined earlier which I quoted for you. Coupled with the actual definition, your use is not supported. Contrary to your assertion, only one definition of anecdote is given, and it is the short, funny story (with a point). Since you claim otherwise, and now call me dishonest, please cite

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Right, and I threw in the relevant statues for full context in the appropriate jurisdiction.

Understood.

I was expanding upon, rather than correcting.