Latest GeorgeZimmerman News

[Thermal]

We know they fought. To my knowledge, no one is questioning that. The question that isn't settled is who assaulted whom first.

Are you joking? It is has been questioned repeatedly. If you want to champion critical thinking: the evidence shows only a brutal beating delivered by Martin prior to the shooting. That is very consistent with an attack, as testified to by GZ. There is no evidence whatsoever of any fight, just of Zimmerman being violently beaten, and if you continue to speculate on one we may just as well speculate that a roving band of drag queens beat Zimmerman with baseball bats. You can't just keep dancing around the evidence in favor of unsupported hypotheses. If Zimmerman could bob and weave like you Trayvon Martin would still be alive.

But let's entertain your unsupported hypothesis: Zimmerman calls 911 and then runs over to start a fight (we'll treat this as plausible for the sake of argument). He is immediately overpowered and Martin delivers his evidenced brutal beating. Do you contend that Zimmerman had no right to defend himself even in this borderline fantasy scenario? I assume you assert that he had to submit to being beaten to death, because he grabbed Martin or whatever?

(Kudos for the Slaughterhouse Five reference btw)

 

[Belz...]

But let's entertain your unsupported hypothesis: Zimmerman calls 911 and then runs over to start a fight (we'll treat this as plausible for the sake of argument).

I think it's very plausible in real life, even if the evidence doesn't support that except circumstantially. That's why it's so important to be aware of one's own biases when dealing with situations like this: I fully suspect that Zimmerman confronted Martin and initiated the confrontation (against what the police told him), physically or otherwise, and that he is a dangerous individual, but the evidence only shows that Martin assaulted Zimmerman and that the latter's claim of self-defense is a reasonable conclusion. Ergo he should be acquitted, which is exactly what happened. My belief doesn't change the facts. Maybe I'm right and Zim is responsible, but we don't know that.

Do you contend that Zimmerman had no right to defend himself even in this borderline fantasy scenario?

Under that scenario, he has a right to defend himself with proportional force. However, in that scenario he could be judged to have initiated and escalated the confrontation, which might, I think, lead to a manslaughter conviction.

 

[johnny karate]

George Zimmerman, shortly after his "brutal beating":

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/02/15/article-2560283-1AC192E8000005DC-704_634x805.jpg

 

[Belz...]

That looks terribly painful.

 

[Thermal]

George Zimmerman, shortly after his "brutal beating":

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/02/15/article-2560283-1AC192E8000005DC-704_634x805.jpg

I already cited the Wiki page, which shows pics with the blood still running and with the hospital report noting treatment for fractured nose, two black eyes etc. No cherry picking, ducky.

Quick edit: if you were pinned down and straddled by a young, strong guy who is aggressively pounding on you, how much would you be minimizing the situation? Honestly, now.

 

[Thermal]

Under that scenario, he has a right to defend himself with proportional force. However, in that scenario he could be judged to have initiated and escalated the confrontation, which might, I think, lead to a manslaughter conviction.

If he was pinned down and being worked over, he would not have the option of proportional force. I think that perhaps Martin's beating would be out of proportion with whatever ineffective assault by Zimmerman is being theorized, making Martin somewhat more responsible for escalating the conflict to lethal levels.

 

[Belz...]

Yes, that is another possibility.

In your opinion, when does lethal force become justified?

 

[Babbylonian]

Whether one believes or does not believe there was enough evidence to convict Zimmerman in the murder of Trayvon Martin at the time of the trial, it's ridiculous to defend his actions after he has proven time and time again to be a violent bully who thinks that his gun is the answer to any conflict.

It might not be admissible when he inevitably ends up in criminal court again but he's an animal, and his testimony of what happened when he murdered Martin is absolutely unbelievable at this point.

 

[Belz...]

Whether one believes or does not believe there was enough evidence to convict Zimmerman in the murder of Trayvon Martin at the time of the trial, it's ridiculous to defend his actions after he has proven time and time again to be a violent bully who thinks that his gun is the answer to any conflict.

There's a difference between defending someone's actions and reaching a conclusion based on the available evidence.

It's clear that, since then, he has proven himself to be a dangerous individual, in my view. But that doesn't change the facts of the case. After all, a dangerous criminal and convicted murderer can still be victim of a crime afterward, etc.

 

[Thermal]

Yes, that is another possibility.

In your opinion, when does lethal force become justified?

I agree with my states interpretation: when you have reason to believe that you are in danger of death or serious bodily harm. Convincing a jury that this belief was justified becomes separate battle.

 

[johnny karate]

I already cited the Wiki page, which shows pics with the blood still running and with the hospital report noting treatment for fractured nose, two black eyes etc

The black eyes were symptomatic of the broken nose, and not themselves separate injuries. This was noted in the initial medical report and should already be known to anyone interested in the facts.

Quick edit: if you were pinned down and straddled by a young, strong guy who is aggressively pounding on you, how much would you be minimizing the situation? Honestly, now.

I don't know what you're asking, or why you're asking it. Nor do I wish to engage in pointless hypotheticals with someone who disingenuously refers to a guy being punched in the nose as a "brutal beating".

 

[Babbylonian]

There's a difference between defending someone's actions and reaching a conclusion based on the available evidence.

It's clear that, since then, he has proven himself to be a dangerous individual, in my view. But that doesn't change the facts of the case. After all, a dangerous criminal and convicted murderer can still be victim of a crime afterward, etc.

**** that. His actions since show what kind of human being he is, and they show that it's far more likely that everything he said about his confrontation with Trayvon Martin consisted of lies.

 

[Thermal]

I don't know what you're asking, or why you're asking it. Nor do I wish to engage in pointless hypotheticals with someone who disingenuously refers to a guy being punched in the nose as a "brutal beating".

It's not pointless: Put yourself in Zimmerman's position, on your back being straddled and pounded. Would you feel in danger of death or serious bodily harm?

 

[johnny karate]

It's not pointless: Put yourself in Zimmerman's position, on your back being straddled and pounded. Would you feel in danger of death or serious bodily harm?

No, it is pointless, because:

1) It has nothing to do with the specific issue we were discussing, i.e. your rather disingenuous and factually-unsupported use of the term "brutal beating".

2) We can play the silly hypothetical game all day. To wit: Put yourself in Martin's position, walking home at night being stalked and confronted by an armed stranger. Would you feel in danger of death or serious bodily harm?

 

[Upchurch]

Are you joking? It is has been questioned repeatedly.

"Had a physical encounter" or "struggle" rather than "fight", then.

If you want to champion critical thinking: the evidence shows only a brutal beating delivered by Martin prior to the shooting. That is very consistent with an attack, as testified to by GZ. There is no evidence whatsoever of any fight, just of Zimmerman being violently beaten,

No violence except for, you know, Zimmerman pulling his gun and eventually shooting Martin, both of which are assault and violent acts. It still indicates nothing about how the struggle began.

and if you continue to speculate on one we may just as well speculate that a roving band of drag queens beat Zimmerman with baseball bats. You can't just keep dancing around the evidence in favor of unsupported hypotheses. If Zimmerman could bob and weave like you Trayvon Martin would still be alive.

Well, the lack of any evidence of roving band of drag queens means that hypothesis doesn't fit the evidence. How does Zimmerman assaulting Martin first, perhaps by attempting to grab Martin and Martin defending himself, not fit the evidence?

Let me be very explicit: Zimmerman being no good in a fight does not indicate that he couldn't or didn't assault Martin first. Martin winning the fight, up until Zimmerman shot him, does not indicate that Martin must have assaulted Zimmerman first. We don't know.

But let's entertain your unsupported hypothesis: Zimmerman calls 911 and then runs over to start a fight (we'll treat this as plausible for the sake of argument). He is immediately overpowered and Martin delivers his evidenced brutal beating. Do you contend that Zimmerman had no right to defend himself even in this borderline fantasy scenario? I assume you assert that he had to submit to being beaten to death, because he grabbed Martin or whatever?

Careful. You're starting to appeal to emotion fairly heavily.

Change "start a fight" with "assault (or attempt to detain) Martin" and you'll have a much more accurate version of the possible scenario I'm suggesting is equally valid. As for your question, the answer depends largely on who the aggressor is, which is to say, who assaulted whom first. That, of course, is the question.

Likewise, do you contend that Martin had no right to defend himself?

 

[Upchurch]

It's not pointless: Put yourself in Zimmerman's position, on your back being straddled and pounded. Would you feel in danger of death or serious bodily harm?

Counterpoint: Put yourself in Martin's position: walking home, in the dark, a strange adult following you in a pick-up, who then gets out and begins following you on foot. Would you feel in danger of death or serious bodily harm?

These appeals to emotion are logical fallacies for a reason.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

It's not pointless: Put yourself in Zimmerman's position, on your back being straddled and pounded. Would you feel in danger of death or serious bodily harm?

OK, I am putting myself in his position. "Gee, I'm not really that good a fighter, but luckily I have my trusty firearm. No harm in appearing threatening and provoking an altercation with this black-looking guy, never liked the look of'em, I can always shoot him if it starts going south."

Seriously, in what civilized country can an armed bully appear threatening, provoke an altercation, shoot the other guy, and not even get time for manslaughter? The fact that Zimmerman provoked and appeared threatening to Martin with the knowledge that he had a gun and was willing to use it, and that Martin could have reasonably assumed that to be the case, also means that whatever force Martin used was certainly not in excess with regard to the danger posed by Zimmerman. Even if Martin attacked him physically, it's not unreasonable for someone in Martin's situation to presume that Zimmerman might be a trigger-happy, bullying nutso looking for an opportunity to shoot a black guy becaused he made a funny move. Considering the objective facts of who Zimmerman was, Martin would certainly have been right in fearing for his life, whether he made the first move or not.

 

[deadrose]

That looks terribly painful.

I've come home from shows looking worse than that!

The amount of blood that was running down his face is not a good metric, really. Even tiny facial & scalp lacerations bleed profusely. I've personally seen worse injuries inflicted with a single facial slap (wearing a ring).

 

[Ziggurat]

Seriously, in what civilized country can an armed bully appear threatening, provoke an altercation, shoot the other guy, and not even get time for manslaughter?

How did Zimmerman provoke an altercation? People can speculate that he did, but it's only speculation. If he merely followed Martin, that doesn't suffice to be considered provocation in any legal sense, and it doesn't suffice to justify Martin using force against him.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

To the Zimmerman fans - again, your main problem with me is simply that I'm not an idiot. We know that Zimmerman basically chased down Martin. The idea that Zimmerman suddenly just gave up his chase for no reason, and Martin just suddenly, and simultaneously flipped out, and ran up and attacked Zimmerman, is incredibly stupid, and at odds with all evidence we have.

You do know the trial transcripts are available online, right? I know it frustrates you that people might read them, instead of just believing what they hear on Oprah.