Latest GeorgeZimmerman News

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Never mind...

Why'd I bother even attempting to talk to you?

Translation: No

 

[Belz...]

**** 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.

Isn't that just like saying that you don't care about the facts of the case because of your general assessment of the dude?

 

[Belz...]

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?

I don't think Martin knew that Zim had a firearm. Otherwise I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have used his fists.

 

[sunmaster14]

No reason? How very skeptical of you.

How about responding with an actual reason, rather than smugness?

Which information is it consistent with, exactly?

His story, his injuries, the eyewitness testimony, the fact that he ended up on his back with Martin on top. The fact that Zimmerman knew the police were coming, and Martin didn't. The fact that, being a self-appointed security guard, Zimmerman couldn't afford to have a protocol of physically confronting every stranger in the neighborhood. He would find himself in a physical confrontation quite often, which is a bad idea in general, and a particularly bad idea for a fat, non-athlete like himself. There was also no history of him getting into fights. I believe there was one instance of a domestic fight and one instance where he pushed an undercover policeman who was potentially abusing his friend. Hardly a long record of provoking fights. Also, Martin could have easily gone home to avoid a confrontation, but he evidently chose not to (which is suspicious).

As I've said before, if you can provide evidence that Martin assaulted Zimmerman first, you'd be the first to do so on this board.

See above. That's all evidence. Although, because you don't understand what evidence is, you'll probably dismiss it.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

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.

We know that Zimmerman, armed, followed Martin in order to intercept him, for no apparent practical reason. They ended up in some manner of physical struggle that ended with Zimmerman shooting Martin, who to my knowledge had no known history of violent outbursts.

All the facts point clearly to Zimmerman provoking the ensuing violence either physically or by acting in a threatening manner. What is the alternative hypothesis, that Martin jumped Zimmerman for no apparent reason and beat him up for fun?

More likely, Zimmerman was running after him, yelling in a threatening manner, and Martin reacted forcefully in a split-second decision like you might do when chased by someone, who you might reasonably presume to be armed and having racially profiled you, acting like an aggressive bully in the middle of the night.

If that was the case, that Martin reacted forcefully rather than stopping and trying to de-escalate (and we don't know that), that might well be because he felt that with most people acting like Zimmerman did in that area under those circumstances, doing that would be a death sentence.

If that cannot be made to hold legal water for a manslaughter case at least, then there is ultimately a problem with the law. No one should be able to act like Zimmerman did, escalating a calm situation wtih the reassurance that he can employ lethal force, and ending up doing so, for no practical reason, and get away with it. It creates a perverse incentive to use lethal force and reduces the barrier to escalate situations unnecessarily.

 

[johnny karate]

How did Zimmerman provoke an altercation? People can speculate that he did, but it's only speculation.

Same goes for the belief that Martin provoked the altercation.

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.

Zimmerman also stated that upon coming face to face with Martin he made no attempty to identify himself and "immediately" reached for the phone in his pocket. Quick motions towards your pocket are enough to get you shot by the cops in this country. Zimmerman got off lightly with a punch in the nose.

 

[Mumbles]

I'm no fan of the Zimmer, here, but how is that "racist"?

Also, the jury was correct: there was not enough evidence to convict. We can suspect that we know the answer, but the fact of the matter is that we don't know why Martin attacked Zimmerman. Did Zim actually attack him first? Did he provoke him (that's where my money would be)? We'll probably never know.

That's simple, really.

Zimmerman was calling police on black people just walking around long before he murdered Martin. In one call, you can actually hear a woman saying "don't follow him".

And I disagree with the jury. He should have been sent to jail. When the juror went on tv and said that she just ignored Rachel Jenteal's testimony, I was disgusted. No, we know that Zimmerman attacked first - or at least, we have enough evidence to say "know".

So yeah, I'll laugh at every bit of harm that comes to him. I hope he falls down.

 

[johnny karate]

I don't think Martin knew that Zim had a firearm. Otherwise I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have used his fists.

There's always the possibly Zimmerman brandished his gun or somehow Martin caught sight of it before the altercation began.

Not that I'm arguing either. I just mentioned it in the context of illustrating the futility of playing the "what if" game.

 

[Upchurch]

His story, his injuries, the eyewitness testimony, the fact that he ended up on his back with Martin on top.

This has been gone over already and recently. All this happened after the encounter began and provides no insight in who assaulted whom first.

The fact that Zimmerman knew the police were coming, and Martin didn't.

Which indicates what? How would that prevent Zimmerman from, for example, attempting to keep Martin from leaving before the police did arrive?

The fact that, being a self-appointed security guard, Zimmerman couldn't afford to have a protocol of physically confronting every stranger in the neighborhood. He would find himself in a physical confrontation quite often, which is a bad idea in general, and a particularly bad idea for a fat, non-athlete like himself.

He also expressed dismay that "...they always get away."

There was also no history of him getting into fights.

I was using "fight" as an overly broad term and corrected myself above. Consider, rather, "struggle"

Also, Martin could have easily gone home to avoid a confrontation, but he evidently chose not to (which is suspicious).

Unless, of course, he didn't want to let the strange adult following him know where he lived, which wouldn't be suspicious at all. Unfortunately, we'll never know.

See above. That's all evidence. Although, because you don't understand what evidence is, you'll probably dismiss it.

No, the grand majority of it is speculation, non sequiturs, double-standards, and confirmation bias. While some of it is evidence, it isn't relevant to the question of who assaulted whom first.

 

[bobdroege7]

Actually, I don't need to concede that point at all. And I think you are wrong.

It's obvious that Zimmerman shot and killed Martin because he was a black kid walking down the street. Martin was fighting for his life, and he lost.

I have no clue why Martin is portrayed as a racist, when his attacker literally got out of his car and chased him down just for being a black guy walking around.

Martin's actions were to walk home, and to defend himself from an attacker. Everything he did was reasonable. And Zimmerman clearly murdered him.

Martin could have walked home after sucker punching Zimmerman.

I for one, think it's racist to assume Zimmerman killed Martin because he was black.

Zimmerman's call to the cops where he reported a suspicious individual, not just a black kid.

There is no evidence Zimmerman attacked Martin.

It is reasonable and legal to ask someone in your neighborhood, whom you don't know, who they are and what they are doing. Especially in a neighborhood which had a number of burglaries.

 

[johnny karate]

His story, his injuries, the eyewitness testimony, the fact that he ended up on his back with Martin on top.

Neither the eyewitness testimony nor Zimmerman's injuries indicate he was "sucker punched". And of course without those, Zimmerman's "story" is useless.

The fact that Zimmerman knew the police were coming, and Martin didn't.

So?

The fact that, being a self-appointed security guard, Zimmerman couldn't afford to have a protocol of physically confronting every stranger in the neighborhood. He would find himself in a physical confrontation quite often, which is a bad idea in general, and a particularly bad idea for a fat, non-athlete like himself.

You're assuming rational behavior from someone who has repeatedly engaged in irrational behavior.

There was also no history of him getting into fights. I believe there was one instance of a domestic fight and one instance where he pushed an undercover policeman who was potentially abusing his friend. Hardly a long record of provoking fights.

That's a weird hair to split. Zimmerman has a documented history of violence and confrontational behavior, both before and after his encounter with Trayvon Martin.

Feel free to catalog Martin's history of violence.

Also, Martin could have easily gone home to avoid a confrontation, but he evidently chose not to (which is suspicious).

Martin could have also been standing his ground against the stranger who was following him. As was his right.

See above. That's all evidence. Although, because you don't understand what evidence is, you'll probably dismiss it.

I noticed in one of your earlier posts you brought up the old "MMA ground and pound" canard. You should perhaps better acquaint yourself with the evidence in this case before criticizing someone else's lack of understanding.

 

[johnny karate]

It is reasonable and legal to ask someone in your neighborhood, whom you don't know, who they are and what they are doing. Especially in a neighborhood which had a number of burglaries.

I agree. When did Zimmerman do any of this?

 

[Upchurch]

Martin could have walked home after sucker punching Zimmerman.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

There is no evidence Zimmerman attacked Martin.

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

 

[Mumbles]

Martin could have walked home after sucker punching Zimmerman.

I see no reason at all to think that Martin "sucker punched" Zimmerman.

I for one, think it's racist to assume Zimmerman killed Martin because he was black.

Then you don't know the definition of the word "racism".

Zimmerman's call to the cops where he reported a suspicious individual, not just a black kid.

And what was so suspicious about Martin - who according to Zimmerman was just "walking around, looking about", and who we know was walking home from a local convenience store?

There is no evidence Zimmerman attacked Martin.

False. We know that Zimmerman pursued Martin, we know Martin ran away, we know the two fought, we know that Zimmerman pushed Martin (from Jenteal).

It is reasonable and legal to ask someone in your neighborhood, whom you don't know, who they are and what they are doing. Especially in a neighborhood which had a number of burglaries.

Well, if you think it's reasonable to get out of your car to chase people down, then...that's you. I'd certainly never do that, and I'd immediately be on the defense if anyone did that to me.

 

[Mumbles]

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?

Again, why would I put myself in Zimmerman's position? I would never get out of my car to chase someone down, unless I saw that person actually committing a serious crime. Certainly not because they were just walking down the street, as Martin was when Zimmerman decided to pursue him.

 

[Ziggurat]

That's simple, really.

Zimmerman was calling police on black people just walking around long before he murdered Martin. In one call, you can actually hear a woman saying "don't follow him".

No. You are wrong. The 911 dispatcher never said "don't follow him". Go read the transcript.

 

[Jules Galen]

No. You are wrong. The 911 dispatcher never said "don't follow him". Go read the transcript.

Yes, they said just that. Go read the transcript.

 

[Ziggurat]

We know that Zimmerman, armed, followed Martin in order to intercept him, for no apparent practical reason.

No, we do not know that. We do not know that Zimmerman planned to intercept, rather than simply keep eyes on, Martin.

They ended up in some manner of physical struggle that ended with Zimmerman shooting Martin, who to my knowledge had no known history of violent outbursts.

But he did. Does this prove Martin started the fight? Of course not. But for the same reason you can't reasonably use this to conclude Martin started the fight, you can't reasonably conclude from anything else that Zimmerman started the fight. Neither of them is an angel.

All the facts point clearly to Zimmerman provoking the ensuing violence either physically or by acting in a threatening manner.

No, they do not all point clearly in that direction. The facts do not tell us who started the fight. It's possible Zimmerman did, but it's also possible Martin did. And under those circumstances, you can't convict.

What is the alternative hypothesis, that Martin jumped Zimmerman for no apparent reason and beat him up for fun?

Martin might have jumped Zimmerman because he didn't like being followed. He might have considered that a provocation. But the law doesn't.

More likely, Zimmerman was running after him, yelling in a threatening manner,

You may consider that more likely, but you have no evidence that this is what happened. It's just speculation.

If that was the case

But we don't know that it was. That's the point. Maybe it was, but maybe isn't good enough. Even probably isn't good enough.

If that cannot be made to hold legal water for a manslaughter case at least, then there is ultimately a problem with the law.

If what you THINK happened is what actually happened, AND if there was sufficient evidence that this is what happened, then maybe things would be different. But there isn't sufficient evidence (or really much evidence at all) that that's what happened.

No one should be able to act like Zimmerman did, escalating a calm situation wtih the reassurance that he can employ lethal force

You are still taking your speculation as if it were established fact. And it's not.

and ending up doing so, for no practical reason,

If someone is on top of you, pounding your head against the pavement, there's a very practical reason for using deadly force. And BTW, that's the legally relevant term here: deadly force, not lethal force. Now, whether or not the use of deadly force is legally justified does depend upon how you got in that situation to begin with, but then we're back to speculation (not established fact), and practical reasons are not synonymous with legal justification.

It creates a perverse incentive to use lethal force and reduces the barrier to escalate situations unnecessarily.

The law of self defense is pretty well established. Controversial aspects like "stand your ground" didn't play a role in this case (Zimmerman had no duty to retreat when he fired his gun because he had no ability to retreat). So what exactly are you objecting to here? Do you not think people have a right to use deadly force in self defense? Or do you not think that the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard shouldn't be used in criminal trials? Because unless you're prepared to abandon one of those things, I don't see how you can reasonably argue that the jury should have reached any other verdict.

 

[Babbylonian]

Isn't that just like saying that you don't care about the facts of the case because of your general assessment of the dude?

It's called context. We have lots of context that wasn't present the first time around. I tend to disbelieve psychopaths with guns when they claim that someone else started a fight.

I'm not suggesting that he should be put in jail for it after being acquitted. I'm not even saying that people would be justified in punching him for what he did (in fact, I've argued before that anyone who does so is scum). What I am suggesting is that no one should be able to accept as truth anything he said in an effort to avoid responsibility for murdering Mr. Martin, not given the context we have to evaluate who he is and his subsequent violent encounters.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes, they said just that. Go read the transcript.

I did just before I posted that, to double-check my memory. You obviously didn't. And my memory was correct.