arma virumque cano (et alia)
If Zimmerman were one of my soldiers, I'd be thinking PTSD. There's been a marked change in behaviors after he killed Martin in self defense.. I wonder if he was able to address the issue very quickly after the event. Doesn't absolve him of responsibility for his behaviors. I'm still wondering what they have in the way of evidence for the charges. When it actually happened, nobody called the police. It looks like it didn't get brought up till the next day when the GF got stopped for a traffic violation. More details are supposedly going to be released today.
Maybe his PTSD is exacerbated by the fact that he himself knows the killing wouldn't and shouldn't have been necessary if only he'd acted better.
" There's been a marked change in behaviors after he killed Martin in self defense.."Before he killed Martin he had run ins with the police and aggression issues with his behavior. The only change is he raised his aggression to killing.
I like the PTSD defense for Tahmooressi. After all, the guy never killed anybody.A lot of PTSD guys end up killing themselves because they are so tortured by re-entry into civilian life. These guys have my deepest sympathy. We need to help them all as much as we can.Zimmerman shot Martin while in an amphetamine-induced psychotic state, no doubt deepened by the racist gun culture in which he lived. He doesn't seem to exhibit the typical symptoms of PTSD. He walks with a swagger. He seduces women. He craves media attention. Loves gun shows.It was not self-defense. If you can believe that, I can believe in Leprechauns.
"an amphetamine-induced psychotic state"That's a new one on me.
Zimmerman was taking a prescription medication for ADHD which is an amphetamine. And of course, Martin also had some chemicals in his system at the time.http://www.bob-owens.com/2012/05/adderall-and-temazepam-the-drugs-that-bore-no-role-in-trayvon-martins-death/
Of course you linked to a story dismissing the whole thing, one which used extreme language common to the gun-rights fanatics that we know and love. I doubt if anyone really believes those medications "made him do it," which your article argues against. But it certainly is possible that they, or the conditions they were supposed to address, contributed to the poor-ass decisions he made which caused the confrontation. Medications like those if taken in the wrong dosage can affect a person's reason and decision making capabilities.
I've actually had experience in regards to ADHD meds since my son was on them before he came to live with me full time. The article is correct in that it has short lived effects. In fact, there are some of these drugs that come in timed release capsules so the effects don't wear off during the day. Since this took place in the evening, its very unlikely there would be any in his system. The same argument could be made regarding the effects on decision making with Martin having THC in his system. I don't recall Zimmerman being on these meds getting discussed in the trial. Do you recall FJ?
"Since this took PLACE in the evening, its very unlikely there would be any in his system."How do you know when he took his pills? Or when he failed to take them as prescribed, for that matter?
"How do you know when he took his pills? Or when he failed to take them as prescribed, for that matter?" I don't know Mike. I'm just speaking from personal experience as to the standard practice with this type of medication. It doesn't seem to have weighed heavily in importance during the trial either.
Seems SS will make up any excuse to judge Zim innocent.
I was replying to FJ's claim that Zimmerman was, as he put it,"Zimmerman shot Martin while in an amphetamine-induced psychotic state, no doubt deepened by the racist gun culture in which he lived." I spoke to that issue. As for innocence, in reality, only Zimmerman himself knows for sure on that one. However, in the eyes of the law, he was acquitted.
Yet without certain evidence you claim Zim was acting in self defense. A secure debate tactic.
"I don't know Mike"Seems SS is often just guessing on a lot of issues.
"Yet without certain evidence you claim Zim was acting in self defense. " In the eyes of the law he was. The original investigators didn't believe there was enough evidence to convict, but he recommended that it go to a grand jury. However, the special prosecutor assigned decided to go straight to trial with results that are now history.
"Seems SS is often just guessing on a lot of issues." There is often a lot of guessing here Fred. Mostly because the event is posted here before police investigations or due process have had a chance to do their work. In this case, no one knows much beyond he was prescribed the medication. And it doesn't seem to have weighed heavily in the trial.
"There is often a lot of guessing here Fred"I know and it doesn't help your position.
"Before he killed Martin he had run ins with the police and aggression issues with his behavior." Sorry Fred. No convictions. One was a restraining order that took place prior to the Martin thing and those are civil issues and with a lower burden of proof than criminal convictions. He has no record of convictions. His aggression level had to rise to killing because his head was being slammed on a sidewalk. The jury has spoken.
Yeah, just like the jury spoke in the O.J. Simpson and the Casey Anthony cases.
Did I say he had criminal convictions? No. If you judge a person has no problems unless they have criminal convictions, then you are a gun loon. He qualified to have a restraining order against him. Since you don't know who started the fight (no one does-including the jury) maybe Martin was defending himself. After all, Zim was told to not follow him. But you keep supporting the killer and show your lack of judgment skills. We only heard Zim's side. Of course a jury has never allowed a guilty person to go free, right?
"After all, Zim was told to not follow him." After he was told that, he said ok and began to return to his vehicle. "Since you don't know who started the fight (no one does-including the jury) maybe Martin was defending himself." True, there are no eyewitnesses or physical evidence of the beginning of the fight. All we have are witness accounts of Martin on top of a bloody and battered Zimmerman. There is also physical evidence showing Martin on top of Zimmerman and landing punches to his head along with beating Zimmerman's head on the pavement. And there is no evidence that Martin was defending himself. And in this country, so far, there is the requirement to prove guilt. Not the other way around.
I wonder if in that last moment Trayvon had gained control of the gun and Zimmerman ended up dead if you'd be so adamant in supporting him (Martin)?
Mike, I support, or not based on the evidence. For example, I certainly haven't supported Curtis Reeves who killed a man for the crime of texting in a theatre. Lets look at that scenario, the police arrive to find Martin holding the gun belonging to the now dead Zimmerman who is also showing signs of being beaten. Considering that it was the now dead guy who originally called the police, it would make for a challenging defense.
There is no evidence that Martin started the fight. Please show me that evidence.
Fred, refer to my other comments concerning the American justice system and the burden of proof. Mike made an interesting point in what might have happened with a different outcome to this encounter and I commented on it.
Nice dodge SS. I didn't ask your opinion of the criminal justice system. Obviously you are weak on replies of substance.
"There is no evidence that Martin started the fight." Our criminal justice system has everything to do with it. The prosecution was unable to prove to a jury that Zimmerman started the fight, which would have eliminated Zimmerman's claim that he was acting in self defense. You are free to disagree with the outcome of the trial, but it is what it is.
"I certainly haven't supported Curtis Reeves who killed a man for the crime of texting in a theatre."That's not a good comparison. O.J. but not Reeves unless he's acquitted.
"That's not a good comparison. O.J. but not Reeves unless he's acquitted." An interesting comparison. I wonder if Zimmerman will continue to walk the path he is right now and end up like O.J. I personally think Zimmerman's dad needs to sit him down and have a little come to Jesus meeting with him. Much like O.J., he is continuing to hang out with people who are not helping him make good decisions. And that path didn't work out well for "The Juice".
He wasn't making good decisions BEFORE he killed Martin.
I didn't think O.J. was necessarily keeping bad company after his acquittal. I believed his story about wanting to take back his sports memorabilia. They through the book at him to compensate for the previous wrong verdict.
This thing is sounding very weird. "Officers patrolling the neighborhood where Zimmerman lives last week heard the sound of glass shattering, and then saw the former girlfriend drive out of the driveway. They pulled her over for a traffic stop a few streets over because she didn't have her lights on.She explained that Zimmerman became angry after she told him she didn't want to take the relationship further, and they also argued over a painting she had that he wanted returned. Zimmerman made threats and threw the wine bottle, which didn't hit her, she said.Detectives described her as "extremely emotional, crying, mad and upset" and said she became reluctant to cooperate when she realized that officers might be conducting an investigation. She called her former boyfriend "that psycho, George Zimmerman" and said several times that she should have known better than to get involved with him."http://www.wdtimes.com/news/national/article_54a7e1ee-089a-5740-b2e8-7e747fa5a1f7.html One thing I'm not getting is why didn't the officers who talked to the anonymous girlfriend go straight to Zimmerman's house to maybe see what caused the breaking glass noises and maybe talk to what most would, after hearing the story, the suspect. Instead, they went back four days later,"Zimmerman was arrested at his house on Friday, four days after the confrontation. Detectives said in the police report that he refused to come to the door for more than two hours despite their repeated knocking. They said they could hear the television on and a dog barking.Zimmerman eventually came outside after police officers agreed to allow him to keep his attorney on his cell phone with him while he was interviewed, the report said." Still not hearing of any real physical evidence. The sudden reluctance of the GF to cooperate isn't likely to help since if there's no witness and no physical evidence, this likely wont go very far. Perhaps the cops' BS detector went off during the telling of the story.
Gee, it's so rare that GF's won't press charges.
If the police have evidence that will convince a jury, then they don't necessarily need a victim's testimony. However, it sounds like for some reason the police didn't go back to look for it.
"Zimmerman shot Martin while in an amphetamine-induced psychotic state, no doubt deepened by the racist gun culture in which he lived. He doesn't seem to exhibit the typical symptoms of PTSD. He walks with a swagger. He seduces women. He craves media attention. Loves gun shows." FJ, is this the same gun culture that led him to start a business with an African American and tutor and mentor African American youths? Perhaps its the same racist gun culture that caused him to protest the beating of a black homeless man by the son of a white police officer? He also shot Martin while his head was being slammed repeatedly against a concrete sidewalk. Physical evidence supported by witness testimony resulted in his acquittal.
You just can't stop defending killers.
Zimmerman was acquitted in a court of law. There have been cases discussed here where I haven't defended the person shooting someone. You're welcome to disagree with the verdict, just as I'm welcome to agree with it.
Show me the proof that Martin was the aggressor.
"Show me the proof that Martin was the aggressor." I'm not sure where you might live, but in the US, the burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. What proof do you have that he wasn't?
"Show me the proof that Martin was the aggressor."There are facts that point that way, though short of "proof". One fact is that we know that Martin initiated the confrontation based on timeline and location of the encounter. He already succeeded in getting away from Zimmerman during the call. The other fact is that Martin only had damage from the gunshot wound and his knuckles. Perhaps Martin just wanted to talk with Zimmerman, and Zimmerman took a wild swing that caught nothing but air and Martin then dropped him. Another fact working against Martin is that he stayed on top of Zimmerman for at least 60 seconds beating him, as evidence by the 40 seconds of recorded sound from the 911 calls (allowing for addition time for people to recognize the fight and pick up a phone).These are reasons why there was enough doubt cast on the prosecutor's claim that Zimmerman initiated the attack, and why he was acquitted on grounds of self-defense.
Thanks to both of you for admitting there is no proof, so why do you still claim they is proof Zim had the right to use deadly force?
Well Fred, a jury acquitted Zimmerman of the charges because the prosecution failed to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. That's the way the U.S. criminal justice system works.
I understand you cannot answer the question SS.
I have not used the word "proof" that Zimmerman acted in self-defense. I am not reckless with that word like you are. I mentioned a scenario where Zimmerman could be guilty under the evidence we have (if Martin approached in peace and Zimmerman swung wildly and missed), but it's pure conjecture with no evidence to support that it happened that way. And obviously we don't want a system that can send someone to prison with no evidence to support the prosecution.
You guys are the ones reckless with the word proof. That's why I keep saying you have none, but you guys insist you do.
No one should have to prove their innocence, so why would I use the word like that? And why are you referring to past conversations that we never had... Fred? I've had conversations with Steve about the Zimmerman case, but this is the first with you. Let me guess- you "read the archives"- 500,000 words going back a year plus, right?
"And why are you referring to past conversations that we never had... Fred?" Maybe Fred is one of the other former Anons that have made the leap into named status. I've noticed some comments that have sounded familiar....
Only talking about the comments you made on this post. Please show me where I quoted you on anything from the past. Gee, it would be so impossible to have a similar opinion. You clowns seem to think the same thing about this killer, you honor him. Funny your response is to claim I'm someone else, avoiding answering anything in a serious manner.
My first comment on this post was to say that the evidence points to Martin starting the fight, but specifically said it is not “proof”. You even then thanked me for admitting it is not proof, but then implying I said it was proof elsewhere. This was your response:“Thanks to both of you for admitting there is no proof, so why do you still claim they is proof Zim had the right to use deadly force?”So what are you talking about if you are only responding to comments I made on this thread? What do you mean by me “honoring him”? Where is that coming from?Incidentally, want to keep stressing how you have this messed up version of justice. The prosecution has to prove that Zimmerman committed murder. If they can’t do that- it’s an acquittal. You can’t prove to me that you have never murdered someone. I can’t prove to you that I have never murdered someone as well. Do you understand?
No, since I have never said I disagree with the acquittal. An acquittal means there was not enough evidence to find guilt, yet, you gun loons continue to claim Martin started the fight and Zim acted in self defense, no proof of that exist. If you agree there is no evidence Martin started the fight, why claim Zim acted in self defense? Your childish attempt to claim I am someone else instead of responding to the question and issue shows you have nothing but irrelevant insults. Please show me where I quoted a past conversation we never had. Is it true no two people can hold the same position on an issue. There are millions who hold the same position on this incident that I do. Now try some honest debate and conversation.
And of course SS has to chime in with the same childish, false claim, that I am someone else. You two really are the low life, non intellectual debate pros. Try responding honestly and leave the childish insults to the 5 year olds.
"And of course SS has to chime in with the same childish, false claim, that I am someone else." Fred, you seem to be under the very false belief that just because I mention it doesn't mean that I care. If you are the Anon that graced us with its presence before Mike started requiring names, then I actually think its great you chose to make the leap. Does it really matter if you're that Anon? Not really.
"If you agree there is no evidence Martin started the fight, why claim Zim acted in self defense?" There is no argument that a homicide was committed during the encounter. There was insufficient evidence to convince a jury that Zimmerman was guilty of a criminal homicide. His acquittal therefor results in it becoming a justifiable homicide.
No, so why do you gun loons bring it up? Is that all you got, Fred is someone else? Now back to your no response, childish responses.
Great, then stop saying Zim acted in self defense.
Evidence and proof are not the same thing. There is evidence that Martin started the fight, as I mentioned in my first comment. Proof, is a much stronger word. If Zimmerman had to prove his innocence, he'd be rotting in jail. Actually, he'd more likely be in the infirmary or dead from being shanked.I'm not necessarily insulting you by suggesting you posted under different names before. Do you know this Steve guy, and think he's an ass, therefore it's insulting to be called him? You've said you share the same viewpoints, so why do you have to feel insulted? There is nothing wrong with changing names. Tennessean has changed his name a couple of times, and posted anonymously. Kurt used to go by "Zorro". I can tell this not because they have the same opinion, but because they have the same writing style- just like you and Steve (Kevin, Sally, Sandra, Jim, et al.). Somehow, I don't think Kurt and Tennessean will fly off the handle for me saying this because I don't think they change names to make a game out of it.
I don't care about the name changing, if it really is happening. I am pleased with the recent change of not allowing anonymous comments. I find it much easier in some cases to follow the discussions.
"Great, then stop saying Zim acted in self defense." If someone makes a claim that conflicts with the fining of the courts, its quite valid for me to disagree and provide data to support my position.
To be clear, I don't care about the name changing either. Just don't act all insulted if I don't play along.
You brought up the childish name thing and SS jumped on your childish bandwagon. A true sign you have nothing and aren't serious at all. .
God help the poor babe that was mentored by a sick fuck like Zimmerman!
Well, looks like the charges have been dropped. "ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) — Authorities say they are dropping their aggravated assault case against George Zimmerman after his ex-girlfriend stopped cooperating with authorities.State Attorney Phil Archer said Friday that he wouldn't file a formal charge against Zimmerman, the former neighborhood watch leader who was acquitted of killing Trayvon Martin.""Zimmerman was arrested earlier this month after his ex-girlfriend told police officers he had thrown a wine bottle at her. She later recanted her story."http://www.southbendtribune.com/news/nation/george-zimmerman-assault-case-dropped-ex-girlfriend-recants/article_397a01cc-a895-11e4-afb2-13a7678c9163.html
Gee what a surprise. Seems everyone drops charges against George. I wonder why? Maybe because he's a violent killer who got away with murder. That might intimidate someone into not pressing charges. That's how real criminals get charges dropped, by making witnesses shut up, or disappear.
Fred, I'm still wondering why there seems to be no mention of the police actually going to Zimmerman's home to look for physical evidence. My guess is that the GF's story wasn't passing the sniff test. But considering that it was a potential felony, why didn't they at least go look?
Thanks for the update. I have a feeling we have not seen the last of George Z.