ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags George Zimmerman , shooting incidents , Trayvon Martin

Closed Thread
Old 7th April 2013, 02:03 PM   #9201
TheL8Elvis
Illuminator
 
TheL8Elvis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 4,860
Originally Posted by Amazer View Post
I've got little doubt the governor did what he did due to public pressure.

I don't think i mentioned conspiracy theory... but anyway.
No, that was a general "it's not a conspiracy theory" waiver for me.

I find the fact that the normal judicial process was short-circuited due to public pressure troubling. IOW - there was no way GZ was not going to be charged.

Originally Posted by Amazer View Post
What is shocking to me is that none of the PIP's seem to have any trust that a judge would grant immunity or dismiss the case even if the case is as weak as you make it out to be.
The case is weak in both directions. There is a lack of evidence on both sides that makes it difficult to make a positive case. This makes it more difficult for the defense to prove by preponderance of the evidence GZ is not guilty. Conversely, that makes it difficult for the prosecution to prove guilt, much less beyond a reasonable doubt.
So while the prosecutions case is weak, that doesn't necessarily make the defense case strong in an immunity hearing.

I think MOM should have filed for immunity. I admit his not filing does appear to give some credence to those who claim it's because the case is weak. But there may be other reasons. One of them is tied to the political pressures discussed above. Because a "preponderance" of the evidence is somewhat arbitrary, I think any judge with ambition oh higher office would have a reason for ruling against GZ. That judge is going to feel the same pressure as the governor did. And I really don't think the public wants a judge to decide this case, but a jury.

Additionally, if MOM files for immunity during the trial ( and there is no legal reason he can't ) he gains an advantage by not revealing any of the defenses strategy prior to the trial. If he doesn't want GZ to take the stand, he can wait and see if the jury fails to convict GZ. If they fail to convict, MOM then files for immunity, and there is suddenly no pressure on the judge to not grant it.

Last edited by TheL8Elvis; 7th April 2013 at 03:03 PM.
TheL8Elvis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th April 2013, 02:09 PM   #9202
phonebook
Critical Thinker
 
phonebook's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 438
Originally Posted by Mister Earl View Post
No, what you quoted above is all completely independant of whether or not Zimmerman is innocent or not.
You're right. I could have expressed myself more appropriately had I said: "I know, I know... you don't buy any of it. That might point to GZ's arrest and subsequent trial being unjustified, and you won't have any of that."

Originally Posted by Mister Earl View Post
There's circumstantial evidence that injury happened. It's just heresay to suggest Trayvon was the one who initiated the assault, and completely contradictory to the actions of both on everything leading up to that point.
I suppose it's hearsay absent GZ's testimony/statements. Otherwise his statements alone, once submitted by the prosecution (I believe the defense can't volunteer any statements, only the prosecution can), count as direct evidence. I'm not sure if it's completely contradictory. GZ had two golden opportunities to confront TM (the first at the clubhouse (before he was on the phone with dispatch), when TM walked past GZ, and the second, near the T, where GZ ultimately parked his vehicle, when TM circled his car), but he didn't. He goes on in his subsequent interviews with investigators that he didn't want a confrontation, but I understand that that requires granting him more benefit of the doubt.

Originally Posted by Mister Earl View Post
I can only explain in as I see it. And to be fair, I'm looking at this in a moral and ethical light rather than a purely legal one. We have one man who unnecessarily went out of his way to initiate a confrontation with a presumeably innocent bystander. That bystander was then shot to death.
Presumably innocent to whom? Us, with the benefit of hindsight? He went out of his way? What about the two golden opportunities to confront that I mentioned above? In what way was confronting him outside of his truck, in a darkened walking path more desirable? If anything, there were more potential witnesses (houses flanking both sides), so that's not why he would have opted for it there instead of at the clubhouse, with fewer homes nearby. What about the fact that the "innocent bystander" was seen on top of the shooter, moments prior to the shot, either hitting him, or at least pinning him down, keeping him from moving? What about the screams? Do you think it was the guy with the broken nose, abrasions on his face, and lacerations on the back of his head, seen underneath the guy who was ultimately shot? Or the guy who had zero injuries at that time?

Originally Posted by Mister Earl View Post
The claim of self defense fails in that the trivial wounds Zimmerman had were nowhere near at the level that would make lethal force acceptable.
You call them trivial, yet a broken nose is considered "great bodily injury" in some states (in California it is, though I'm unsure about Florida). Legally speaking, he had the right to shoot. Since you're speaking from a moral standpoint though, what is your opinion on when GZ would have been morally justified to shoot? Did he need to hear his skull crack first? Did he need to first lose consciousness, and then regain it and realize he was still being beaten first? How much damage does one need to take to be morally justified in defending themselves from their attacker?


Originally Posted by Mister Earl View Post
His story has enough plot holes in it to make Bollywood look like Shakespere. He has since engaged in various forms of suspicious behavior, which in my opinion, appear to be the actions of a person looking to dodge the hammer when it falls, rather than an innocent person waiting for reality itself to intervene on his behalf in the courtroom.
Creative, but specifics would be more appreciated. What sort of suspicious behavior? You mean the bond and passport stuff? Yeah... I'm unsure what my opinion is on that at this point. I imagine if GZ's wife's perjury case goes to trial I'll learn much more about that. It definitely appears shady, but I'm not ready to conclude that it was shady until I hear them at least attempt to explain themselves.

Originally Posted by Mister Earl View Post
I wish to make the point that those medications would also not prevent him from willfully lying to cover himself when he has every reason to do so.
Nor would they preclude him of trying to tell the truth as best as his memory allowed him to. I'd argue he has every reason to tell the truth too, IF the truth is the story he describes, and would exonerate him.

Originally Posted by Mister Earl View Post
I give him the benefit of a doubt. I'm completely prepared to be proven wrong. If I am proven wrong, I will consider making a sandwich. That is the depth of my concern as far as how correct I might be. But I'm still very skeptical. And frankly, baffled as to how anyone can consider the lethal force used and think mere head scratches and a whinged nose justifies it.
It wasn't just the injuries sustained up to that point, it was the unknown of what would happen next. Like I said above, how much was he required/expected to take, morally speaking? What if TM was going for his gun? Was GZ supposed to allow TM to take it, and wait and see what this unknown person who (allegedly) had just been pounding on him for the last minute or so would choose to do with it?

Last edited by phonebook; 7th April 2013 at 02:15 PM.
phonebook is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th April 2013, 02:10 PM   #9203
Cylinder
Philosopher
 
Cylinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,281
Originally Posted by Unabogie View Post
The night of the shooting? They hadn't even notified the victim's parents yet. Are you suggesting there was some sort of political outcry on the 26th?
That's ridiculous. SPD didn't have Martin's identity at that point. He had no ID, no fingerprints on file and none of the witnesses could identify the post-mortem photo. Why should SPD suspend its investigation of Zimmerman because of that fact?
__________________
If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed ; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves. - Winston Churchill, The Gathering Storm
Cylinder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th April 2013, 02:12 PM   #9204
Cylinder
Philosopher
 
Cylinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,281
Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths View Post
Right but wouldn't they normally wait until office hours if it was after office hours? Or are you literally saying that calling at 11:45 PM on a Sunday would be normal?
Normal. I would be shocked if it wasn't required in cases of homicide.
__________________
If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed ; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves. - Winston Churchill, The Gathering Storm
Cylinder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th April 2013, 02:33 PM   #9205
Rare Truth
Graduate Poster
 
Rare Truth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,373
Originally Posted by Mister Earl View Post
No and yes. Unfortunately, this country has a history of favoritism and unequal treatment, especially so across racial lines.
...
I've made it clear I do not think Zimmernan profiled him because he was racist. I do think there is an issue with the "good ole boys" in many police departments and Sanford had a particularly bad reputation for that, in fact why Chief Lee was there had to do with a cover-up prior involving a black man that was killed and they covered it up.

But I don't want to bog down with that, and I do think we have come a long way on our history. I just wanted to mention (and please forgive the following off topic comment) -- a statistic I found stunning recently.

It has to do with the defacto slavery that went on for some 80 plus years after the civil war. Up until the 50's, 60's. (please don't all hitchy, folks, on the mention of that "s" word...)

I am a history buff, but was completely unaware of this. It was from a PBS documentary based on the Pulitzer Prize winning book Slavery By Another Name. (well worth watching).

CLICK --> http://www.pbs.org/tpt/slavery-by-another-name/watch/

LINK <- link to synopsis.

This was the stunning stat that blew me away:

In 1921 John Williams, former plantation owner, became the 1st Southern white man since 1877 to be indicted for 1st degree murder of an African American and it would not happen again until
1966.

I am NOT drawing any references to today with that, but it was a stat I found so unreal, so powerful, and so sad -- upon reading your comment, I couldn't help but want to share what is a very hidden part of history.

Again, apologies. </off topic>
Rare Truth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th April 2013, 02:37 PM   #9206
Mister Earl
Illuminator
 
Mister Earl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,442
Originally Posted by phonebook View Post
You're right. I could have expressed myself more appropriately had I said: "I know, I know... you don't buy any of it. That might point to GZ's arrest and subsequent trial being unjustified, and you won't have any of that."
It still doesn't make any sense. The actions of others in bringing attention to the situation have no bearing whatsoever in whether or not Zimmerman committed murder. Additionally, I'm skeptical that so many people would put their careers in jeapordy just to curry a miniscule amount of favor in railroading Zimmerman.

Originally Posted by phonebook View Post
I suppose it's hearsay absent GZ's testimony/statements. Otherwise his statements alone, once submitted by the prosecution (I believe the defense can't volunteer any statements, only the prosecution can), count as direct evidence. I'm not sure if it's completely contradictory. GZ had two golden opportunities to confront TM, the first at the clubhouse (before he was on the phone with dispatch), when TM walked past GZ, and the second, near the T, where GZ ultimately parked his vehicle, when TM circled his car.
True, Zimmerman could have confronted him more directly at previous times, but did not. That tells me that Zimmerman was just trying to maintain contact, not force a confrontation. Only when Trayvon went where Zimmerman couldn't follow in his vehicle did he get out and persue. Then the confrontation happened. It's going to be tough to say who initiated the confrontation. I'm not so certain that it will ultimately matter, however.

Originally Posted by phonebook View Post
Presumably innocent to whom? Us, with the benefit of hindsight? He went out of his way? What about the two golden opportunities to confront that I mentioned above? In what way was confronting him outside of his truck, in a darkened walking path more desirable? If anything, there were more potential witnesses (houses flanking both sides), so that's not why he would have opted for it there instead of at the clubhouse, with fewer homes nearby. What about the fact that the "innocent bystander" was seen on top of the shooter, moments prior to the shot, either hitting him, or at least pinning him down, keeping him from moving? What about the screams? Do you think it was the guy with the broken nose, abrasions on his face, and lacerations on the back of his head, seen underneath the guy who was ultimately shot? Or the guy who had zero injuries at that time?
Both parties are presumed innocent until proven guilty. The issue we're grappling with here (or at least I am) is whether or not Zimmerman was justified in escalating to lethal force. I do not believe he was justified. Zimmerman's injuries were slight. I've seen worse injuries get treated with Motrin on a military depot. If Zimmerman was pinned down, how did he move fifty feet? How did Trayvon get shot the way he did? I don't particularly care who was screaming and why. Screaming isn't a factor in the escalation of force. The main issue I'm dealing with as far as this whole case goes is I still see no reason, imagined or otherwise, that justifies use of deadly force.

Originally Posted by phonebook View Post
You call them trivial, yet a broken nose is considered "great bodily injury" in some states (in California it is, though I'm unsure about Florida). Legally speaking, he had the right to shoot. Since you're speaking from a moral standpoint though, what is your opinion on when GZ would have been morally justified to shoot? Did he need to hear his skull crack first? Did he need to first lose consciousness, and then regain it and realize he was still being beaten first? How much damage does one need to take to be morally justified in defending themselves from their attacker?
I disagree. I do not believe he had the right to shoot. The police were summoned and on their way, Trayvon was heading out of the area, so Zimmerman could have achieved his goal of neighborhood safety simply by staying where he was. He did not. He got out of his vehicle and ended up in a confrontation with Trayvon. We do not have solid evidence as far as who initiated that confrontation, but given Zimmermans' decisions to continue to follow Trayvon, and Trayvon's decisions to keep moving away from Zimmerman, that makes me more inclined to believe that it was Zimmerman who initiated the confrontation. I'm willing to change my mind when something solid shows otherwise.

As far as when he should've escalated to lethal force, that's for when danger of life and limb is immenent. We only have one side of that story, given the other participant is dead, and the events he described don't match to what we know. We know he wasn't tackled on the grass, given his pristene clothing. We know that his head wasn't slammed into the sidewalk over and over again, given the minor contusions. His injuries look more consistent with being popped in the nose and then bumping the back of his head on the sidewalk once. That's about it. That is not danger enough to merit lethal force.

Originally Posted by phonebook View Post
Creative, but specifics would be more appreciated. What sort of suspicious behavior? You mean the bond and passport stuff? Yeah... I'm unsure what my opinion is on that at this point. I imagine if GZ's wife's perjury case goes to trial I'll learn much more about that. It definitely appears shady, but I'm not ready to conclude that it was shady until I hear them at least attempt to explain themselves.
Fair enough. I'm all about innocent until proven guilty. But if the events happened as described, I would find that really damaging to his credibility.

Originally Posted by phonebook View Post
Nor would they preclude him of trying to tell the truth as best as his memory allowed him to. I'd argue he has every reason to tell the truth too, IF the truth is the story he describes, and would exonerate him.
Possible, though I personally think this unlikely. Zimmerman's actions per the previous put everything he says in a suspicious light.

Originally Posted by phonebook View Post
It wasn't just the injuries sustained up to that point, it was the unknown of what would happen next. Like I said above, how much was he required/expected to take, morally speaking? What if TM was going for his gun? Was GZ supposed to allow TM to take it, and wait and see what this unknown person who (allegedly) had just been pounding on him for the last minute or so would choose to do with it?
He should've let the law enforcement deal with it from the get-go. Given he got himself in that situation, it does not give him carte-blanche to crank off rounds the second someone scuffs his shoes. He should have done what Trayvon kept trying to do: Get away. Law enforcement was already on its way. Witnesses were there at least part of the time. I don't see much evidence that Zimmerman tried to disengage at all. The debris scattered around gives me the impression that movement DID happen, even though Zimmerman claims everything started and ended on the same spot. And if I'm remembering the timelines posted by others correctly, then if Zimmerman WAS trying to detach and get away, then he was doing it in the same line of retreat Martin was trying to use.

So the questions here are, Did Zimmerman try to detach? Did Zimmerman try to defuse the situation? Did Zimmerman inform Trayvon who he was and why he was following him? Did Zimmerman inform him he was armed? Did Zimmerman try to solicit aid from the witnesses? Did Zimmerman do literally ANYTHING to try to prevent lethal force from being used? Or did he shoot first and then enable storytime mode after?

On a side note, I'm still amazed that there wasn't footage of this confrontation. I would've bet heavily, at the start of this, that some CCD system somewhere would have caught some or all of this. Especially in a neighborhood with a history of robberies.
Mister Earl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th April 2013, 03:08 PM   #9207
phonebook
Critical Thinker
 
phonebook's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 438
Originally Posted by Mister Earl View Post
We do not have solid evidence as far as who initiated that confrontation, but given Zimmermans' decisions to continue to follow Trayvon, and Trayvon's decisions to keep moving away from Zimmerman, that makes me more inclined to believe that it was Zimmerman who initiated the confrontation.
Just wanted to address this real quick.

I think the part I highlighted mischaracterizes TM's known actions. Nothing about his path is unique to "moving away from GZ", any more so than it is to him simply continuing on his predetermined path to where he was staying at the time. He was heading directly to his home. Had didn't take any sort of marked detour from a route that would be logically consistent with him simply walking home. This is where the (apparent) debate over whether or not TM returned to circle GZ's car comes in. If he returns from the T area, he's now the one going out of his way to actually get closer to GZ, and voluntarily get further away from his stated destination (stated by his parents, Dee Dee, etc.). I feel like GZ's statements, combined with what can be heard on the NEN call, especially the potential third voice (which, IMO, is likely Trayvon), indicates that this happened. This is directly contradictory to the idea that TM's movements had anything to do with getting away from GZ.
phonebook is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th April 2013, 03:16 PM   #9208
remirol
Senior Wrangler
 
remirol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,133
Originally Posted by phonebook View Post
I suppose it's hearsay absent GZ's testimony/statements. Otherwise his statements alone, once submitted by the prosecution (I believe the defense can't volunteer any statements, only the prosecution can), count as direct evidence.
The defense can volunteer any of George's statements they want, as long as they put George on the stand to do the telling... which will be fatal to their case.

The defense CANNOT call any of the people who questioned George and ask them about anything George said, because that is hearsay. The prosecution, on the other hand, can call those people and cherry-pick the hell out of George's statements.

If you think that anything George said that would tend to exonerate him is going to make it into evidence without George taking the stand, you are sadly mistaken. The prosecution is very definitely not going to introduce any more than it has to, and i'm sure that you can see from what happens in this thread just how badly cherry-picking can make someone look.

Originally Posted by FRE801
(d) Statements which are not hearsay.
A statement is not hearsay if--
(1) Prior statement by witness. The declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement is (A) inconsistent with the declarant's testimony, and was given under oath subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in a deposition, or (B) consistent with the declarant's testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against the declarant of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive, or (C) one of identification of a person made after perceiving the person; or
(2)Admission by party-opponent. The statement is offered against a party and is
(A) the party's own statement, in either an individual or a representative capacity or

(B) a statement of which the party has manifested an adoption or belief in its truth, or
(C) a statement by a person authorized by the party to make a statement concerning the subject, or
(D) a statement by the party's agent or servant concerning a matter within the scope of the agency or employment, made during the existence of the relationship, or
(E) a statement by a coconspirator of a party during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy.

__________________
Roguelike player? Info: http://sporkhack.com -- Public server: telnet://sporkhack.com
--
The church is near but the road is icy; the bar is far away but I will walk carefully. -- old Russian proverb
remirol is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th April 2013, 03:16 PM   #9209
Rare Truth
Graduate Poster
 
Rare Truth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,373
"he ran"

"****, he's running."
Rare Truth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th April 2013, 03:25 PM   #9210
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 9,048
Originally Posted by phonebook View Post
Correction... an investigation was done, charges were not filed... the attorney for the family of the victim then went on a PR campaign (even hiring a PR firm), public outcry ensued, that reached all the way to the president of the United States, a "special" prosecutor was assigned, more evidence was apparently uncovered, or re-imagined, and THEN charges were filed.
So are you back to alleging that the charges are bogus?

What can you point to in the process that was illegal, unethical, or illegitimate?

Quote:
Is that how the system works?
Yes, it is.

The only other explanation is that somehow all this happened in defiance of the system, and everyone involved - including Zimmerman's attorneys - just decided to go along with it.

Quote:
I know, I know... you don't buy any of it. That might point to GZ's potential innocence and you won't have any of that.
No, I don't buy it because it's a bunch of ignorant, conspiratorial nonsense.

Zimmerman will get his day in court.

If he's innocent, the facts will bear that out.

Quote:
Sure there is, but it's all circumstantial in nature.
You do understand that circumstantial evidence is perfectly legitimate, and can even be used to get a conviction, right?

Quote:
There's also circumstantial evidence that TM assaulted GZ, bashed his head against the concrete, etc.
Martin hasn't been charged with a crime, so I'm not sure how that's relevant in determining if the evidence to charge Zimmerman was sufficient.

Quote:
I feel like I've explained myself sufficiently in this regard already. There shouldn't be a trial unless there is sufficient evidence to win a conviction.
I don't even know what you're talking about here.

The standards of evidence for a criminal charge and a conviction are very different, and the assurance of a conviction is most certainly not a requisite for a trial.

Quote:
The original investigation didn't find such evidence, and it wasn't until a very political process occurred that somehow the evidence status changed, with the imposition of a "special" prosecutor who was actually able to find additional evidence, or interpret the existing evidence in the right way to go straight to 2nd Degree Murder. Was it DD's testimony that pushed it over the edge? If not, what was it?
I don't know.

Why don't you ask Mark O'Mara?

Because whatever the prosecution has, it's sufficient for him to not bother with an immunity hearing or even a motion for dismissal.

O'Mara is preparing for trial. So apparently he thinks the prosecution has something.

Quote:
Do you really think that Angela Corey, the State Attorney who chose to charge a 12 year-old as an adult for 1st degree murder, was chosen with the notion that she potentially wouldn't find a reason to convict?
What I think is that no matter how mean and awful Angela Corey is, she can't manufacture evidence to prop up a bogus charge under the scrutiny this case has had and get away with it.

Why, something like that would require some sort of conspiracy to pull off.

Quote:
In what way is it nonsense? Be specific.
I already was.

Quote:
You're exaggerating. He has a legitimately diagnosed "mental disorder" that he's on medication for, and that has known issues with memory. He has exemplified this poor memory and general poor communication abilities in previous NEN calls, in his television interview with Hannity, in his many interviews with investigators, etc., etc.

He will likely say the same confusing things said in his interviews with the investigators that have lead many, like Unabogie, et al, that he is lying, instead of considering the possibility that it might actually be his memory that's at fault, it might actually be his obviously compromised communicative abilities at fault, or the fact that he might be telling the truth. Someone like him requires some benefit of the doubt, but that has not been given, whatsoever.
In your attempt to explain how Zimmerman is too confused and mentally unstable to do something as simple as tell the truth, you're contradicting your previous arguments.

You have asserted that the initial investigation - which included all those interviews with investigators you refer to above - it was determined there was not enough evidence to charge Zimmerman.

You have repeatedly argued that there is nothing incriminating in any of those interviews.

You have expressed incredulity that the prosecution would be able to use any of the evidence from the initial investigation - which again, included all those interviews with the investigators - to charge Zimmerman.

And now suddenly those same interviews that provided nothing incriminating enough to even merit a charge are evidence that Zimmerman can't be trusted to speak on his own behalf?

How did you make that leap?
__________________
Lost your faith in humanity?

Click here to have it restored.

Or here.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th April 2013, 03:28 PM   #9211
Unabogie
Philosopher
 
Unabogie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 9,368
Originally Posted by Rare Truth View Post
"he ran"

"****, he's running."
Yeah, both George and the dreaded witness 8 agree on one thing, and that's that Trayvon ran away from George. George assumed it was because Trayvon was fleeing the law, while Trayvon thought he was fleeing a creepy man who meant him harm.

Obviously Trayvon was the correct one, since George was wrong and Trayvon wasn't fleeing the law, while Trayvon was right and George meant him harm, based on his cussing about him being a punk, calling the cops on him, chasing him, and eventually murdering him.
Unabogie is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th April 2013, 03:35 PM   #9212
Cylinder
Philosopher
 
Cylinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,281
Originally Posted by remirol View Post
The defense CANNOT call any of the people who questioned George and ask them about anything George said, because that is hearsay. The prosecution, on the other hand, can call those people and cherry-pick the hell out of George's statements.
No. The doctrine of completeness doesn't allow that. Any statement by Zimmerman profferred by the state enters the whole statement into evidence - not just the parts the state wishes. Zimmerman can also impeach testimony on one statement with the contents of another. I'm pretty confident that if the case survives the immunity motion and motion to dismiss, Zimmerman will testify unless the state has some dramatic meltdown.
__________________
If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed ; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves. - Winston Churchill, The Gathering Storm
Cylinder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th April 2013, 03:41 PM   #9213
phonebook
Critical Thinker
 
phonebook's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 438
Originally Posted by Mister Earl View Post
He should've let the law enforcement deal with it from the get-go.
Deal with what? What part did he take upon himself to "deal with" that should have been left up to law enforcement? I thought that's what he was trying to do. Isn't that why he called the police? Why do you think he got out of his vehicle? Do you think he suddenly decided to confront TM now that TM was somewhere that required him to exit his vehicle to maintain a visual? He had been avoiding a confrontation up to that point, so why does he want a confrontation now, when he's at a much greater disadvantage out of his vehicle, etc.?

Originally Posted by Mister Earl View Post
Given he got himself in that situation, it does not give him carte-blanche to crank off rounds the second someone scuffs his shoes.
I feel like your categorization of him getting his shoes scuffed is a tad disingenuous. He had two lacerations on the back of his head (one larger than the other). He had many scrapes/abrasions elsewhere on his face. He suffered all of that after first suffering a fractured nose, and screams for over 40 seconds and still this beating carries on. Imagine what GZ describes, that TM is on top of him, slamming his head against the ground, and punching him repeatedly. Now, listen to Witness 11's 911 call HERE. Tell me, do those screams not sound like the screams of someone being struck? Does that sound consistent with someone simply being held down? Did TM have carte-blanche to continue beating on GZ until he decided to stop?

Originally Posted by Mister Earl View Post
He should have done what Trayvon kept trying to do: Get away.
If you believe that's what TM was trying to do, what prevented him from doing so? Was it time, was it distance, what? 2 minutes transpire from the time GZ says "****, he's running", til the call concludes. For two minutes GZ doesn't have a visual on TM, where TM is slightly over a football field away from his supposed destination. Another 2 1/2 minutes go by before the first 911 call comes in (or maybe it's the shot, I'm not sure).

Originally Posted by Mister Earl View Post
Law enforcement was already on its way. Witnesses were there at least part of the time. I don't see much evidence that Zimmerman tried to disengage at all.
Disengage from what? What was there that he needed to disengage from? Keeping an eye on someone he felt was suspicious?

Originally Posted by Mister Earl View Post
The debris scattered around gives me the impression that movement DID happen, even though Zimmerman claims everything started and ended on the same spot.
He didn't claim that. He claimed he was punched, and fell to the ground. He claims he was continually trying to shimmy or scoot out from underneath TM. In the reenactment, actually being on the scene again, he suggests that he may have been trying to push him away from him. I don't think he remembers exactly what happened in the moments immediately after the first punch to be honest, and I think that's perfectly understandable. I believe movement happened as well.

Originally Posted by Mister Earl View Post
And if I'm remembering the timelines posted by others correctly, then if Zimmerman WAS trying to detach and get away, then he was doing it in the same line of retreat Martin was trying to use.
You mean the path that lead to TM's house? Why is that his line of retreat? That assumes TM was trying to retreat.

Originally Posted by Mister Earl View Post
So the questions here are, (1)Did Zimmerman try to detach? (2)Did Zimmerman try to defuse the situation? (3)Did Zimmerman inform Trayvon who he was and why he was following him? (4)Did Zimmerman inform him he was armed? (5)Did Zimmerman try to solicit aid from the witnesses? (6)Did Zimmerman do literally ANYTHING to try to prevent lethal force from being used? (7)Or did he shoot first and then enable storytime mode after?
1 - Detach when? 2 - What situation, and when? 3 - Did TM give him the opportunity to do that? 4 - GZ claims he didn't recall having his gun until just before TM supposedly reaches for it, or towards it, or sees it. Considering he was likely screaming for help for over 60 seconds before the gunshot went off, and there's no evidence to suggest TM was aware of the gun at any point in time before the shot, or in the few seconds before the shot, I'd say that seems to be plausible. 5 - Does screaming for help and pleading with John to help him when John comes out and yells at them to stop count? 6 - What was he supposed to do? If what he says is true. 7 - I dunno... all we have are the ballistics and GZ's word to on as far as that is concerned.

Originally Posted by Mister Earl View Post
On a side note, I'm still amazed that there wasn't footage of this confrontation. I would've bet heavily, at the start of this, that some CCD system somewhere would have caught some or all of this. Especially in a neighborhood with a history of robberies.
Wouldn't that have been sweet?
phonebook is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th April 2013, 03:51 PM   #9214
remirol
Senior Wrangler
 
remirol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,133
Originally Posted by Cylinder View Post
No. The doctrine of completeness doesn't allow that. Any statement by Zimmerman profferred by the state enters the whole statement into evidence - not just the parts the state wishes. Zimmerman can also impeach testimony on one statement with the contents of another.
Doesn't that apply only to written and/or recorded statements, though -- NOT conversations with the police?

Originally Posted by FLA statutes
90.108 Introduction of related writings or recorded statements.—(1) When a writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced by a party, an adverse party may require him or her at that time to introduce any other part or any other writing or recorded statement that in fairness ought to be considered contemporaneously. An adverse party is not bound by evidence introduced under this section.
(2) The report of a court reporter, when certified to by the court reporter as being a correct transcript of the testimony and proceedings in the case, is prima facie a correct statement of such testimony and proceedings.
I believe this varies by jurisdiction; in some jurisdictions conversations would be admissible under this rule. But it doesn't look like that's true in Florida.

Originally Posted by Cylinder
I'm pretty confident that if the case survives the immunity motion and motion to dismiss, Zimmerman will testify unless the state has some dramatic meltdown.
The insurance company settling for seven figures tells me that while there may be a token immunity motion and a token motion to dismiss, the case will be surviving those just fine.

And from what I have read of Zimmerman's statements, I will stick with this prediction: If he gets on the stand, he will go to jail.
__________________
Roguelike player? Info: http://sporkhack.com -- Public server: telnet://sporkhack.com
--
The church is near but the road is icy; the bar is far away but I will walk carefully. -- old Russian proverb
remirol is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th April 2013, 03:51 PM   #9215
AlBell
Philosopher
 
AlBell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,362
Originally Posted by Mister Earl View Post
I can see why there's this much interest in the case. On the face of it, it appears to be a brazen murder that the local law enforcement didn't bother to investigate. People think Zimmerman got away with murder.
WRT guilty-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt on murder 2, not so much when facts are observed.
AlBell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th April 2013, 04:06 PM   #9216
AlBell
Philosopher
 
AlBell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 6,362
Originally Posted by Mister Earl View Post
...

I give him the benefit of a doubt. I'm completely prepared to be proven wrong. If I am proven wrong, I will consider making a sandwich. That is the depth of my concern as far as how correct I might be. But I'm still very skeptical. And frankly, baffled as to how anyone can consider the lethal force used and think mere head scratches and a whinged nose justifies it.
Since that is not the justifying cause it doesn't seem you are giving any benefit of doubt.
__________________
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." M. Thatcher, Economics: Share The Wealth. Obamanomics: Share The Pain.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Stay well back: I'm allergic to Stupid.
AlBell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th April 2013, 04:17 PM   #9217
phonebook
Critical Thinker
 
phonebook's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 438
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
And now suddenly those same interviews that provided nothing incriminating enough to even merit a charge are evidence that Zimmerman can't be trusted to speak on his own behalf?
I didn't imply he's "mentally unstable", at least those aren't words that I would use. He has ADD, ADD has a significant effect on memory. He has attempted to detail what he remembers of that night. Many things are consistent from interview to interview; sometimes things aren't totally consistent, or even contradictory. If you actually look at all the statements combined, you can begin to piece together a somewhat coherent story of what likely actually happened. I don't think this is him being intentionally deceitful, I think this is him struggling with his memory, and being a poor communicator in general. Listen to all the times he seems to give absent minded "Yes ma'ams" or things of that nature, when it doesn't even appear that he knows what the investigator is referring to.

Listen to this excerpt here, especially from the beginning to about 52:29, and even moreso from 51:52 to 52:02. Listen to how much Singleton stutters/stumbles with her words when she's trying to ask GZ a question. How could he understand what she's saying? At 52:02 he just politely says "Yes ma'am", and in doing so, he's contradicting (apparently absentmindedly) his statements he gave to Singleton 2 days prior. At 52:13 he seems to answer a question she doesn't even ask. Even she seems to be unsure that he knows what he's saying with the way she says "Ok...." at 52:29.

Continue listening to 54:49 for the entire confusing exchange there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWyzw-UM_WU&t=51m40s

Keep in mind that this is the very first time he's heard the NEN call, and he's having to spontaneously make sense of the fact that what he remembers and what actually happened, aren't apparently in sync, all while being questioned by two police investigators over a homicide he committed. He says "I don't remember even saying he had a button on his shirt". Listen to the deteriorating confidence in his "I think so's". He ends it with a bewildered "I don't remember..." Is all of that just feigned confusion?

Last edited by phonebook; 7th April 2013 at 04:25 PM.
phonebook is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th April 2013, 04:18 PM   #9218
Cylinder
Philosopher
 
Cylinder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,281
Originally Posted by remirol View Post
Doesn't that apply only to written and/or recorded statements, though -- NOT conversations with the police?
Those kind of conversations with police are recorded statements. Listen to the very begining of each of the audio files. The police give time, place and people present and do the "end of interview" bit. That's to memorialize the information within that recorded statement.
__________________
If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed ; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves. - Winston Churchill, The Gathering Storm
Cylinder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th April 2013, 04:23 PM   #9219
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 9,048
Originally Posted by phonebook View Post
I didn't imply he's "mentally unstable", at least those aren't words that I would use. He has ADD, ADD has a significant effect on memory. He has attempted to detail what he remembers of that night. Many things are consistent from interview to interview; sometimes things aren't totally consistent, or even contradictory. If you actually look at all the statements combined, you can begin to piece together a somewhat coherent story of what likely actually happened. I don't think this is him being intentionally deceitful, I think this is him struggling with his memory, and being a poor communicator in general. Listen to all the times he seems to give absent minded "Yes ma'ams" or things of that nature, when it doesn't even appear that he knows what the investigator is referring to.

Listen to this excerpt here, especially from the beginning to about 52:29, and even moreso from 51:52 to 52:02. Listen to how much Singleton stutters/stumbles with her words when she's trying to ask GZ a question. How could he understand what she's saying? At 52:02 he just politely says "Yes ma'am". At 52:13 he seems to answer a question she doesn't even ask. Even she seems to be unsure that he knows what he's saying with the way she says "Ok...." at 52:29.

Continue listening to 54:49 for the entire confusing exchange there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWyzw-UM_WU&t=51m40s

Keep in mind that this is the very first time he's heard the NEN call, and he's having to spontaneously make sense of the fact that what he remembers and what actually happened, aren't apparently in sync, all while being questioned by two police investigators over a homicide he committed. He says "I don't remember even saying he had a button on his shirt". Listen to the deteriorating confidence in his "I think so's". He ends it with a bewildered "I don't remember..." Is all of that just feigned confusion? If so, what about it has you convinced of that?
Not of that addresses this:
Quote:
In your attempt to explain how Zimmerman is too confused and mentally unstable to do something as simple as tell the truth, you're contradicting your previous arguments.

You have asserted that the initial investigation - which included all those interviews with investigators you refer to above - it was determined there was not enough evidence to charge Zimmerman.

You have repeatedly argued that there is nothing incriminating in any of those interviews.

You have expressed incredulity that the prosecution would be able to use any of the evidence from the initial investigation - which again, included all those interviews with the investigators - to charge Zimmerman.

And now suddenly those same interviews that provided nothing incriminating enough to even merit a charge are evidence that Zimmerman can't be trusted to speak on his own behalf?

How did you make that leap?
According to you Zimmerman survived those interviews unscathed, so how are they now evidence that he shouldn't take the stand?
__________________
Lost your faith in humanity?

Click here to have it restored.

Or here.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th April 2013, 04:30 PM   #9220
phonebook
Critical Thinker
 
phonebook's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 438
Originally Posted by Cylinder View Post
Those kind of conversations with police are recorded statements. Listen to the very begining of each of the audio files. The police give time, place and people present and do the "end of interview" bit. That's to memorialize the information within that recorded statement.
Perhaps I'm just naive here... but doesn't the ability to do the highlighted part basically confirm the bolded part?
phonebook is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th April 2013, 04:37 PM   #9221
phonebook
Critical Thinker
 
phonebook's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 438
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
Not of that addresses this:
And you didn't address my post, which I put time into. I gave step-by-step directions for you to potentially come to an understanding (even partially) of why I believe many of GZ's inconsistencies and contradictions are a result of his documented issues with memory and his obvious issues with communication.

Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
According to you Zimmerman survived those interviews unscathed, so how are they now evidence that he shouldn't take the stand?
Feel free to quote me where it was my intention to imply the highlighted.
phonebook is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th April 2013, 04:50 PM   #9222
phonebook
Critical Thinker
 
phonebook's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 438
Originally Posted by phonebook View Post
I was replying to this part of his quote specifically: "But when you are recorded actively following a person who was just walking down the street, and you're confessing to shooting and killing that same person minutes later, I think you should go on trial."

Notice he uses no specific actors, and doesn't include Zimmerman and/or Martin. He was presenting a hypothetical situation that he may think closely mirrors this situation, but he didn't specify this situation. I asked why a trial was necessary instead of an investigation, when considering only the above circumstances (which is all the poster I replied to presented as warranting a "trial").
Here is another reason you're incredibly unpleasant to attempt to debate with, or discuss this with. Here you are telling me what my perception of another users post was:

Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
First of all, the previous poster was clearly talking about this case...
And here you are telling me what my intentions were, and essentially calling me a liar:

Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
...so I'm not sure why we're playing that game.
phonebook is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th April 2013, 05:00 PM   #9223
Mister Earl
Illuminator
 
Mister Earl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,442
Originally Posted by phonebook View Post
Just wanted to address this real quick.

I think the part I highlighted mischaracterizes TM's known actions. Nothing about his path is unique to "moving away from GZ", any more so than it is to him simply continuing on his predetermined path to where he was staying at the time. He was heading directly to his home. Had didn't take any sort of marked detour from a route that would be logically consistent with him simply walking home.
As Rare Truth noted above, Zimmerman said twice over the recorded calls that Trayvon was running away. The context makes it pretty clear he wasn't running towards him.

Originally Posted by phonebook View Post
This is where the (apparent) debate over whether or not TM returned to circle GZ's car comes in. If he returns from the T area, he's now the one going out of his way to actually get closer to GZ, and voluntarily get further away from his stated destination (stated by his parents, Dee Dee, etc.). I feel like GZ's statements, combined with what can be heard on the NEN call, especially the potential third voice (which, IMO, is likely Trayvon), indicates that this happened. This is directly contradictory to the idea that TM's movements had anything to do with getting away from GZ.
I was under the impression that the timeline made the circling impossible. I'll be honest with you... I find this whole circling bit sounds like a badly spun tale. If a youth wants to make someone feel threatened, they don't circle around someone's car. They kick the door, slam the hood, et cetera. You make noise. You don't quietly circle.

Now, not to say that it's impossible. Maybe Trayvon had a penchant for the odd. But again I'll just state my opinion that it sounds more like a really bad hypothetical scenario someone would cook up retroactively to cover their arse.

We'll see. I could be wrong. I have no pretense of knowing any of the specifics for certain.
Mister Earl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th April 2013, 05:04 PM   #9224
Skeptic Tank
Muse
 
Skeptic Tank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 800
Originally Posted by phonebook View Post
Here is another reason you're incredibly unpleasant to attempt to debate with, or discuss this with.
If you think johnny karate is unpleasant to debate with, then why haven't you told Mark O'Mara that? If it is so obvious that he's unpleasant to debate with, it seems like it would be incredibly simple to get him removed from the internet if Mark O'Mara just notified his ISP.

So why hasn't that happened?

Hmmmmmmm.....
__________________
"Ohhhhh, goooood for you. And how was it? I hope it was good, because it's useless now, isn't it?" - Christian Bale
Skeptic Tank is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th April 2013, 05:22 PM   #9225
Skeptic Tank
Muse
 
Skeptic Tank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 800
Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths View Post
First of all, did you even read the post? A racist does not require them being self aware of the fact. Surprisingly they often aren't.
Yes, I did read the post. It seemed like you likely had a worldview where most people who didn't vote Obama were in some way, to some degree racist. And it also seemed reasonable to assume you probably had the same assumption about most people supporting Zimmerman.

I thought you might find it interesting that someone (me) who strongly supports Zimmerman, and who even talks about riots or the threat of riots in relation to this case (gasp!) voted for Obama. I also fully expected you to say you didn't find it surprising, and to not skip a beat. I still felt it was worthwhile to remind you things can be more complex than you may lapse back into assuming they are, when you haven't been reminded in a while.

Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths View Post
Secondly, why do you think it was directed at you?
I didn't think it was directed at me, I thought it was something I felt like replying to.

Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths View Post
And finally, why does your response remind me of the classic "I'm not racist I have a black friend!".
Probably because it sounds like you're someone who, for whatever reason, has taken up the hobby of trying to diagnose people you disagree with as being racists, and it also sounds like you've built a pretty fool-proof, evidence-immune construct where you can deem someone to be racist, and they can still be racist even if they do things you'd never expect a racist to do (like have black friends, mentor black kids, start a business with a black partner, vote for Obama as GZ did, etc etc) AND even if they don't realize it.

Sounds pretty airtight. Sounds like you've enabled yourself to view others as racists, and shielded yourself against just about any evidence that might come along to the contrary. You've got your response already prepared and in the can "oh he just doesn't KNOW he's a racist" "oh that's exactly what you'd expect a racist to say!"

Well I have my own little theory and I'd like you to try it on for size...

I think that some of the most racist people are those who fancy themselves to be the least racist. I think a lot of the policies that many progressives implement and support (like affirmative action) or even the apologetics about it being okay and understandable for a young black man to assault someone just for keeping an eye on them... reveal their own attitudes about what sort of behavior they expect from a certain demographic, and what sort of standard they hold that demographic to as compared to their own (usually lilly white) demographic as being quite distinct... and again, quite racist.

How's that for Racist-Inception?

Btw I'm not saying I think you are such a person, just food for thought. Though frankly? I think this thread would be better served by all participants agreeing to stop discussing whether anyone, or anyone's arguments are "racist" - as you yourself proved in the post I'm quoting, it's just too tricky to successfully sniff a racist out!
__________________
"Ohhhhh, goooood for you. And how was it? I hope it was good, because it's useless now, isn't it?" - Christian Bale
Skeptic Tank is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th April 2013, 05:34 PM   #9226
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 9,048
Originally Posted by phonebook View Post
And you didn't address my post, which I put time into. I gave step-by-step directions for you to potentially come to an understanding (even partially) of why I believe many of GZ's inconsistencies and contradictions are a result of his documented issues with memory and his obvious issues with communication.
I didn't address your post because you're making an irrelevant argument.

I know you think Zimmerman's inconsistencies can be adequately explained away by his inability to remember stuff good or speak like an intelligent adult.

But that's not the issue we're discussing.

What we are discussing is whether or not those inconsistencies are detrimental to him.

You have repeatedly argued they are not.

Now you want to use those same supposedly insignificant inconsistencies to bolster the argument for why Zimmerman shouldn't take the stand.

Either the inconsistencies matter, or they don't.

If they matter, then they are part of a body of evidence that was sufficient enough to charge Zimmerman.

If they don't matter, then he has nothing to fear in taking the stand.

You can't have it both ways.

Quote:
Feel free to quote me where it was my intention to imply the highlighted.
Gladly:
Originally Posted by phonebook View Post
There shouldn't be a trial unless there is sufficient evidence to win a conviction. The original investigation didn't find such evidence...
The "evidence" from the "original investigation" to which you are referring included all of those investigator interviews.

So you are simultaneously claiming that the evidence gleaned from those interviews wasn't sufficient to charge Zimmerman with a crime, but is also somehow now an example of how dangerous it is for Zimmerman to speak on his own behalf.

On one hand, Zimmerman did so well he exonerated himself in the initial investigation.

On the other hand, he did so poorly it would be a risk for him to take the stand.

Those are contradictory ideas, and to believe them both is called cognitive dissonance.
__________________
Lost your faith in humanity?

Click here to have it restored.

Or here.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th April 2013, 05:36 PM   #9227
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 9,048
Originally Posted by Skeptic Tank View Post
If you think johnny karate is unpleasant to debate with, then why haven't you told Mark O'Mara that? If it is so obvious that he's unpleasant to debate with, it seems like it would be incredibly simple to get him removed from the internet if Mark O'Mara just notified his ISP.

So why hasn't that happened?

Hmmmmmmm.....
I'm not sure how mocking an argument for which you have no rebuttal makes me look bad.
__________________
Lost your faith in humanity?

Click here to have it restored.

Or here.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th April 2013, 05:36 PM   #9228
Noztradamus
Master Poster
 
Noztradamus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,249
Originally Posted by Mister Earl View Post
.

If Zimmerman was pinned down, how did he move fifty feet?
~~~
We know he wasn't tackled on the grass, given his pristene clothing

~~~~

I don't see much evidence that Zimmerman tried to disengage at all. The debris scattered around gives me the impression that movement DID happen, even though Zimmerman claims everything started and ended on the same spot.
~~~
Easy peasy.

George put away his phone and decided to go back to his truck, so he takes out his keys. At this point Martin emerges from the bushes and demands to know why George is following him.
George is startled and drops his keys. Because he is startled and has ADHD he forgets to answer the question as he takes a step towards Martin.

The creepy man silently closing the distance alarms Martin and he backs up. They proceed in this fashion, now arguing, southward for fifty feet, until the 'Do you have a problem- no I don't have the problem' occurs as George reaches to his pocket for his phone.

Martin believes George is going for his Betsy, and pops him one on the schnoz. This comes a complete surprise to George and he drops the non-functioning flashlight he's been holding all this time as he falls to the ground. They scuffle, scattering debris.
__________________
The Australian Family Association's John Morrissey was aghast when he learned Jessica Watson was bidding to become the youngest person to sail round the world alone, unaided and without stopping.
Noztradamus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th April 2013, 05:56 PM   #9229
Skeptic Tank
Muse
 
Skeptic Tank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 800
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
Those are contradictory ideas, and to believe them both is called cognitive dissonance.
Unless the standard for what constituted sufficient evidence to charge him was somehow changed between when SPD made their determination and when Angela Corey made hers... and if that was the case, no cognitive dissonance would be required at all to hold both of those views (which btw I'm not convinced you've demonstrated phonebook does.)

What reason might there be to think that standard was changed? Well, the fact that SPD's determination was contradicted by a later determination in and of itself seems like it could point in that direction... the fact that prosecutors from another county had to be brought in to give the whole thing another look, would also seem to point in that direction.

Thinking back to the political climate and the protesters outside the SPD building... the Sharptons and Jacksons of the world and what they were saying... what the media was reporting... etc, can be very illuminating about why that standard may have been changed.

Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
I'm not sure how mocking an argument for which you have no rebuttal makes me look bad.
I have a rebuttal, and it is this:

Mark O'Mara is at least as aware as we are of the political climate surrounding this case when charges were brought, and the climate which surrounds it still. He's had some time with Judge Nelson now and has seen her pattern of response to his motions and arguments, and has determined that attempting to get the case dismissed or filing for immunity now isn't fruitful. Based on what he's said, it sounds like he's also considering the financial aspects.

Remember that he has talked about something being "afoot" with regard to this case, and so I don't think it's outlandish to suspect that he may have had roughly this thought process:

Whatever political winds are blowing strong enough to have gotten my client charged in the first place, with this sort of evidence (or lack thereof) are not going to suddenly somehow be weak enough to allow for the case to just get dismissed outright, or immunity to be found by a judge... it seems the powers that be want this to at least make it before a jury so I'd better just plan on that being how this is resolved rather than wasting time, money, and effort on avenues that don't look to be viable in this case. And while Judge Nelson may not be actively involved in some grand conspiracy, she may be able to read the writing on the wall just as I can, and may not be interested in painting a target on her back... and the evidence in this case is debatable enough to provide her cover to ride this out to trial.

That's my impression/speculation.
__________________
"Ohhhhh, goooood for you. And how was it? I hope it was good, because it's useless now, isn't it?" - Christian Bale
Skeptic Tank is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th April 2013, 06:00 PM   #9230
12AX7
Glowing red!
 
12AX7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Iz in ur ampz, makin' ur tonez!
Posts: 7,859
Originally Posted by phonebook View Post
You're exaggerating. He has a legitimately diagnosed "mental disorder" that he's on medication for, and that has known issues with memory. He has exemplified this poor memory and general poor communication abilities in previous NEN calls, in his television interview with Hannity, in his many interviews with investigators, etc., etc.

He will likely say the same confusing things said in his interviews with the investigators that have lead many, like Unabogie, et al, that he is lying, instead of considering the possibility that it might actually be his memory that's at fault, it might actually be his obviously compromised communicative abilities at fault, or the fact that he might be telling the truth. Someone like him requires some benefit of the doubt, but that has not been given, whatsoever.

And yet Zimmerman claimed he knows every resident in the complex.
12AX7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th April 2013, 06:05 PM   #9231
KatieG
Master Poster
 
KatieG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,564
Originally Posted by Elypsis44 View Post
And yet Zimmerman claimed he knows every resident in the complex.
Selective memory.
__________________
“In my dreams I am not crippled. In my dreams, I dance.” ~~ Louise Brooks

Be kinder than necessary, for everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

My death will probably be caused by being sarcastic at the wrong time.
KatieG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th April 2013, 06:18 PM   #9232
Unabogie
Philosopher
 
Unabogie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 9,368
Originally Posted by Elypsis44 View Post
And yet Zimmerman claimed he knows every resident in the complex.
Originally Posted by KatieG View Post
Selective memory.
And in the walkthrough, he very clearly remembered the name of Twin Trees Lane. And as a matter of fact, I think he's quite quick on his feet. As he told his various embellishments, he's quick to realize when they are not working and makes subtle adjustments from definitive statements to "I don't knows" or "I don't remembers".

He went from "you're gonna die tonight ************" to "you're gonna die" and he couldn't remember if Trayvon said "homie" after all.

He went from admitting to following to saying he didn't follow to saying he did follow but stopped. He made up the lie about looking for an address and made up the story about Trayvon running behind the row houses and circling back out of whole cloth.

I've been saying this since I first heard his account first hand on the walkthrough and his interrogations, but I think it really is as simple as he made some really stupid decisions due to his anger control issues and then lied to cover up his part in what happened.

He chased the suspect even though a prudent and reasonable person would have stayed in his car. He continued to do it after the dispatcher told him not to because he wasn't going to let this ******* get away, since he said it twice: "they always get away". He caught up with Trayvon and started arguing with him. Either he tried to grab him or refused to identify himself and went for his phone/or gun. A fight ensued that he got the raw end of, but was in no way life threatening. He lost control of his temper and shot the kid in anger. Then he lied to the police about what happened to leave out his own culpability and make the kid seem scarier and more aggressive than he was. And some people allowed their biases to take over and believed the implausible story because they instinctively believe young black males are more prone to irrational violence than other people. When police were pressured to take a closer look his story fell apart under scrutiny. That's it. It's not a complicated story. Just a paranoid yahoo with anger issues who made a huge and tragic mistake and he's going to pay for it with his freedom.
Unabogie is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th April 2013, 06:33 PM   #9233
12AX7
Glowing red!
 
12AX7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Iz in ur ampz, makin' ur tonez!
Posts: 7,859
Originally Posted by Unabogie View Post

I've been saying this since I first heard his account first hand on the walkthrough and his interrogations, but I think it really is as simple as he made some really stupid decisions due to his anger control issues and then lied to cover up his part in what happened.

He chased the suspect even though a prudent and reasonable person would have stayed in his car. He continued to do it after the dispatcher told him not to because he wasn't going to let this ******* get away, since he said it twice: "they always get away". He caught up with Trayvon and started arguing with him. Either he tried to grab him or refused to identify himself and went for his phone/or gun. A fight ensued that he got the raw end of, but was in no way life threatening. He lost control of his temper and shot the kid in anger. Then he lied to the police about what happened to leave out his own culpability and make the kid seem scarier and more aggressive than he was. And some people allowed their biases to take over and believed the implausible story because they instinctively believe young black males are more prone to irrational violence than other people. When police were pressured to take a closer look his story fell apart under scrutiny. That's it. It's not a complicated story. Just a paranoid yahoo with anger issues who made a huge and tragic mistake and he's going to pay for it with his freedom.

This is exactly what I believe as well.
12AX7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th April 2013, 06:41 PM   #9234
KatieG
Master Poster
 
KatieG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,564
Originally Posted by Unabogie View Post
And in the walkthrough, he very clearly remembered the name of Twin Trees Lane. And as a matter of fact, I think he's quite quick on his feet. As he told his various embellishments, he's quick to realize when they are not working and makes subtle adjustments from definitive statements to "I don't knows" or "I don't remembers".

He went from "you're gonna die tonight ************" to "you're gonna die" and he couldn't remember if Trayvon said "homie" after all.

He went from admitting to following to saying he didn't follow to saying he did follow but stopped. He made up the lie about looking for an address and made up the story about Trayvon running behind the row houses and circling back out of whole cloth.

I've been saying this since I first heard his account first hand on the walkthrough and his interrogations, but I think it really is as simple as he made some really stupid decisions due to his anger control issues and then lied to cover up his part in what happened.

He chased the suspect even though a prudent and reasonable person would have stayed in his car. He continued to do it after the dispatcher told him not to because he wasn't going to let this ******* get away, since he said it twice: "they always get away". He caught up with Trayvon and started arguing with him. Either he tried to grab him or refused to identify himself and went for his phone/or gun. A fight ensued that he got the raw end of, but was in no way life threatening. He lost control of his temper and shot the kid in anger. Then he lied to the police about what happened to leave out his own culpability and make the kid seem scarier and more aggressive than he was. And some people allowed their biases to take over and believed the implausible story because they instinctively believe young black males are more prone to irrational violence than other people. When police were pressured to take a closer look his story fell apart under scrutiny. That's it. It's not a complicated story. Just a paranoid yahoo with anger issues who made a huge and tragic mistake and he's going to pay for it with his freedom.
When someone asks me what I think happened that night, I'll refer them to this post by unaboogie. I think this is as close to the truth as anything I've seen anywhere.
__________________
“In my dreams I am not crippled. In my dreams, I dance.” ~~ Louise Brooks

Be kinder than necessary, for everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

My death will probably be caused by being sarcastic at the wrong time.
KatieG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th April 2013, 07:11 PM   #9235
Unabogie
Philosopher
 
Unabogie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 9,368
Originally Posted by KatieG View Post
When someone asks me what I think happened that night, I'll refer them to this post by unaboogie. I think this is as close to the truth as anything I've seen anywhere.
I think it's as close as we'll likely be able to get until we hear the witnesses and the state's case.

Another thing that I found interesting is that George's assault on a police officer and an assault on his fiance happened just one month apart. He was really coming unglued that month.

In 2012, he was apparently months behind on his rent, his wife was toying around with online nursing classes, and he was flunking out of school and about to be expelled. Again, not a healthy place in his life and as Frank Taaffe said, "he was mad as hell and not going to take it anymore". I think he was dealing with rage issues and took it out on someone he thought was a predator.

Again, it's a simple story and one that certainly fits the evidence better than any story he fed the police about what happened that night.

I'm sure his defenders will be along shortly to tell me why I'm full of it.
Unabogie is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th April 2013, 07:11 PM   #9236
Skeptic Tank
Muse
 
Skeptic Tank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 800
Originally Posted by Unabogie View Post
A fight ensued that he got the raw end of, but was in no way life threatening.
Just a quick, simple question for you:

At the time George Zimmerman fired his gun, did he have A) A less clear idea of how severe his injuries are than we do now, B) Exactly the same understanding of those injuries that we have now or C) A clearer idea of the severity of those injuries than we have now, sitting here with pictures and doctor's reports etc available to us more than a year later?
__________________
"Ohhhhh, goooood for you. And how was it? I hope it was good, because it's useless now, isn't it?" - Christian Bale
Skeptic Tank is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th April 2013, 07:16 PM   #9237
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
tsig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 34,001
Originally Posted by Noztradamus View Post
Easy peasy.

George put away his phone and decided to go back to his truck, so he takes out his keys. At this point Martin emerges from the bushes and demands to know why George is following him.
George is startled and drops his keys. Because he is startled and has ADHD he forgets to answer the question as he takes a step towards Martin.

The creepy man silently closing the distance alarms Martin and he backs up. They proceed in this fashion, now arguing, southward for fifty feet, until the 'Do you have a problem- no I don't have the problem' occurs as George reaches to his pocket for his phone.

Martin believes George is going for his Betsy, and pops him one on the schnoz. This comes a complete surprise to George and he drops the non-functioning flashlight he's been holding all this time as he falls to the ground. They scuffle, scattering debris.
There's no evidence that that took place.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th April 2013, 07:18 PM   #9238
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 9,048
Originally Posted by Skeptic Tank View Post
Unless the standard for what constituted sufficient evidence to charge him was somehow changed between when SPD made their determination and when Angela Corey made hers... and if that was the case, no cognitive dissonance would be required at all to hold both of those views (which btw I'm not convinced you've demonstrated phonebook does.)
Of course phonebook does.

So do you.

It's the same song and dance since the immunity hearing was cancelled.

We go back and forth between being told how strong the evidence is in Zimmerman's favor (we've now circled back to the argument that he shouldn't have even been charged in the first place) to being told how risky an immunity hearing would because the evidence isn't strong enough.

Either the evidence is strongly in Zimmerman's favor or it isn't.

You lot want to make both arguments simultaneously.

Quote:
What reason might there be to think that standard was changed? Well, the fact that SPD's determination was contradicted by a later determination in and of itself seems like it could point in that direction... the fact that prosecutors from another county had to be brought in to give the whole thing another look, would also seem to point in that direction.
The standard didn't have to change, only the quality of the investigation.

Quote:
Thinking back to the political climate and the protesters outside the SPD building... the Sharptons and Jacksons of the world and what they were saying... what the media was reporting... etc, can be very illuminating about why that standard may have been changed.
The Sharptons and Jacksons of the world can't undermine the basic tenets of our legal system and force a murder charge and a subsequent trial where sufficient evidence does not exist to justify either.

So once again, either there is a system-wide conspiracy against Zimmerman (which includes his own lawyer), or your read on the quality of evidence is inaccurate.

Quote:
Mark O'Mara is at least as aware as we are of the political climate surrounding this case when charges were brought, and the climate which surrounds it still. He's had some time with Judge Nelson now and has seen her pattern of response to his motions and arguments, and has determined that attempting to get the case dismissed or filing for immunity now isn't fruitful. Based on what he's said, it sounds like he's also considering the financial aspects.

Remember that he has talked about something being "afoot" with regard to this case, and so I don't think it's outlandish to suspect that he may have had roughly this thought process:

Whatever political winds are blowing strong enough to have gotten my client charged in the first place, with this sort of evidence (or lack thereof) are not going to suddenly somehow be weak enough to allow for the case to just get dismissed outright, or immunity to be found by a judge... it seems the powers that be want this to at least make it before a jury so I'd better just plan on that being how this is resolved rather than wasting time, money, and effort on avenues that don't look to be viable in this case. And while Judge Nelson may not be actively involved in some grand conspiracy, she may be able to read the writing on the wall just as I can, and may not be interested in painting a target on her back... and the evidence in this case is debatable enough to provide her cover to ride this out to trial.

That's my impression/speculation.
A motion for dismissal doesn't cost anything and carries no risk.

O'Mara could have easily filed one when he first took the case.

He didn't.

You seem to think it's because of politics and Al Sharpton and riots and some conspiracy to make sure Zimmerman goes to trial of which O'Mara is also complicit (any lawyer who doesn't file an immediate motion for dismissal when the charges are supposedly baseless is doing his client an enormous disservice, to say the least).

And that is quite silly.
__________________
Lost your faith in humanity?

Click here to have it restored.

Or here.
johnny karate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th April 2013, 07:19 PM   #9239
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
tsig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 34,001
Originally Posted by KatieG View Post
Selective memory.
Probably was pretraumatic shock. Martin's punch was so strong it addled Z's memory before it happened.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th April 2013, 07:20 PM   #9240
Unabogie
Philosopher
 
Unabogie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 9,368
Originally Posted by Skeptic Tank View Post
Just a quick, simple question for you:

At the time George Zimmerman fired his gun, did he have A) A less clear idea of how severe his injuries are than we do now, B) Exactly the same understanding of those injuries that we have now or C) A clearer idea of the severity of those injuries than we have now, sitting here with pictures and doctor's reports etc available to us more than a year later?
I think he knew quite well his injuries were minor. That's why he declined to go to the hospital 3 times and only went the next day when his boss made him. the next day, of course, his wife dressed him up in an "injured guy" costume. But we know better than to trust her by now, don't we? She's shown a willingness to lie in order to cover for her husband. I don't blame her, but I certainly think she's show she's not to be trusted.

And for the record, his injuries were indeed minor. Two cuts that didn't even need a bandaid and punch in the nose that even his lawyer is now calling " likely broken".

Quote:
At the scene, EMTs observed that Mr. Zimmerman had bleeding lacerations to the back of his head consistent with his head being struck on or by a hard object, facial cuts and a swollen, bleeding, and likely broken nose.
See? Even his own lawyer isn't calling his nose factually broken.

So that's it. Two small cuts on his head that didn't require a bandaid, a cut on the nose, and a swollen nose. No bruises on his body. No concussion. No headache the next day. No defensive wounds. No wounds on the victim's hands beyond a tiny, 1/8 inch cut on his off hand. No blood on the victim's sleeves or under his nails, and as we'll soon see, his hands.

None of that says "life threatening" and there's no way he thought so at the time. But he has a motive to lie, of course. His life depends on police believing he killed in self-defense. But his injuries don't support it. And that's that.
Unabogie is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:24 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.