"At one point during the George Zimmerman murder trial, the prosecution attempted to reenact the shooting in the courtroom, but it was nothing like this. A new PSA from the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence uses audio from the 911 calls made that night in Sanford, Florida to recreate the scene as no one has before."
You hear portions of Zimmerman’s call to 911, in which he is told to stop following Trayvon Martin, along with the call made by a neighbor about the screaming outside that ends in gunshots.
Why didn't they recreate the 90 seconds of tape after "we don't need you to do that"? They fade the audio out as they show him drawing a gun. We know that the encouter happened much later then they are depicting. As I have always said, those 90 seconds of him clearly not pursuing Martin are very damning to the narrative.
ReplyDeleteThat's always been bullshit, TS. You say it's so important, but it's not. By the same token those 90 seconds were plenty enough time for GZ to be back in his car where he belonged.
DeleteWhich is what he said he was doing--walking back to it.
DeleteAnd yes, it is important, because the impression this video gives is that Zimmerman lied, drew his gun, got off the phone, presumably got into a fight or held Trayvon at gunpoint, and then shot him.
If it is not important, why did they show something that wasn't true? They know they need to depict it with the encounter happening at the wrong time. There was another video I linked to a while back that showed the same thing (it showed him hanging up the phone and then running off in the direction he last saw Martin). It did not happen that way. Like I keep saying, it is very important to exclude those 90 seconds because he wasn't chasing or following Martin at that time which were the moments leading right up to the fight. Don't pretend like timeline of events is not important in determining fault in a criminal investigation.
DeleteAnd what's with the "where he belonged" line? Are you saying Zimmerman had no right to be outside in his own neighborhood? And before you say, "so did Martin", I agree that Martin also had a right to be where he was (though he could have gotten home in those 90 seconds "where he belonged" as you call it). Martin did not have a right to punch him in the face, and he certainly did not have a right to knock his head into the concrete, which is a use of deadly force and justifies deadly force in
Defense.
1. It's funny how he doesn't belong wherever he wants to be in his own neighborhood.
Delete2. During that period, Martin could have gone back to the house where he was staying. Zimmerman sounds as though he is doing exactly what you wanted him to do.
He didn't belong there with a gun challenging people with "Hey, you, what are you doin' here?" That's what started the whole problem, and that's why he's guilty of manslaughter.
DeleteThe way you say that, you make it sound like he had the gun in his hand.
Delete1: He had the same right as anyone to be walking around his neighborhood.
2: He had the same right as anyone to challenge strangers as to why they were there.
3: He had a Florida permit that allowed him to carry his gun in its holster anywhere not prohibited by law.
His choice to exercise number 3 has no moral or legal affect on 1 and 2.
Wow, so if someone every says "what are you doing here?" you are legally and morally justified in beating the crap out of them?
DeletePerhaps. Mike has treated such a query as use of fighting words and qualifying as aggression before.
DeleteThose are fighting words, they are aggressive. You guys are full of shit if you deny that. But deny it you will, because that's what you guys do.
DeleteWhat about Trayvon's first challenge, "Why are you following me?" That's every bit as aggressive and as much fighting words (i.e. neither are aggressive or fighting words).
DeleteSo, here we have a video overlaid with the phone call. It misrepresents the flow of time between events. It shows Zimmerman approaching the final fight with Trayvon while on the line, allaying the dispatcher's fears that he's going after Martin (Fears that were expressed for Zimmerman's safety, not Martin's). Then it shows Zimmerman reaching for his gun as he approached Martin--contrary to how he said the event happened.
ReplyDeleteAnd so, we have a video that defames a man as tracking down, drawing on, then confronting and killing another, and which does this for purposes of gain for the group--financial and political--with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the portrayal.
I see a lucrative libel suit in the future--hopefully one that bankrupts CSGV.
One also can hope that the flag carrier for gun control who published this dreck here gets included in the suit as well.
ReplyDelete"You hear portions of Zimmerman’s call to 911, in which he is told to stop following Trayvon Martin,"
ReplyDeleteAnd you even hear the part where Zimmerman says "ok". I'm surprised they didn't cut that part out. I hope we aren't going to go round and round about this again.
This is a TV commercial supporting a position held by a group with a goal. No different than a commercial from the NRA or PETA.
The big difference--those groups don't make things up and publicly slander individuals by suggesting that they have hunted down and killed people.
DeleteMike is going to have a problem with your title. If laws don't create criminals, they certainly don't create victims.
ReplyDeleteYep. I would rephrase it a bit. But you and all the other commenters are ignoring the point of the video, which was actually quite clear and graphic. SYG and the vigilante attitude of you gun guys is resulting in the unnecessary deaths of people. You're getting away with manslaughter just like Zimmerman did.
DeleteOh, is that the point? I thought the point of the video was to defame Zimmerman by portraying the events in the MOST negative light possible, showing him drawing the gun as he got off the phone with 911--showing first degree murder, not manslaughter.
DeleteAs for your use of Vigilante, it, like other words, has its own meaning. It does not mean what you say it means, Humpty Dumpty. Similarly, we have our own attitudes which you refuse to understand or properly represent in your statements.
Finally, if we look at Zimmerman's statements after the shooting combined with Jeantel's testimony, eyewitness testimony, and the forensic evidence, it looks quite plausible, and I would even say likely that Zimmerman was the victim here--a victim of an assault who fought back.
But here, he is portrayed as the clear aggressor, victimizing his poor attacker, and we are shown a pile of bodies of supposed victims of SYG laws. If there are so many abuses of the laws, where are all of the stories where people successfully invoked the defense when they seemed guilty as hell? And why is it that so many of the invocations of it that you have pointed out as questionable have resulted in convictions?
We're getting away with manslaughter? You just can't resist libel, can you, Mikeb. Prove that any commenter here has got away with manslaughter. Go ahead. I dare you.
DeleteGreg, how many times have you aligned yourself with the 100 million gun owners that you say there are? Now all of a sudden, you plural can only refer to those who comment here?
DeleteI thought you were big on holding people responsible for their own crimes, Mike? On not distracting from the individual's responsibility by collectivizing the blame somehow?
DeleteOr does that only apply to your opposition to blaming laws that create legal minefields of crimes that can be accidentally committed, but not to situations where you wish to declare that all gun owners and gun rights activists bear responsibility for every crime ever committed with a gun?
I am for individual accountability. But when I use the second person plural, I sometimes refer to all gun owners.
DeleteWill you stop looking for the gotcha and stick with the fucking discussion. You're really becoming a drag with that nit picking shit.
And of that 100,000,000, more than 990,000 do nothing wrong with their guns. You're taking a tiny minority and defining the whole group by it.
DeleteYOu screwed up the numbers, but I know what you mean. You mean the same lying bullshit that you always push. The percentage of those who do wrong with guns is not nearly as low as you say it is.
DeleteYou're correct, it's 99,000,000. If you want to include injuries in the list of irresponsible people, it's still the same number basically, since I'm being generous and calling one percent bad.
DeleteIt's interesting how Mike insists that the percentage is much higher, but he doesn't offer a number or any proof, but we're expected to know and agree with the amount, otherwise he calls us liars.
DeleteI don't call you liars for disagreeing with me. But I do call you a filthy liar for saying that. You know god damned well that disagreement and opinions are not lies. Saying untrue things are lies, example: your saying that I call you a liar for disagreeing.
DeleteYou just called Greg a liar for his comparison of the estimated gun ownership numbers (backed up by polls other than the one poll you and Jade prefer) and the crime statistics which you claim are dramatically under-reporting the number of crimes (though you offer nothing but opinion to back this up).
DeleteConsidering your statement that he was a liar is based on your preference of polls and your own opinion, I'd say I'm on pretty firm footing.
Typical fare from the Coalition to Stop Gun Ownership. But what they failed to show is that the laws did not protect the victim. Zimmerman was put on trial. Fortunately, he was acquited, but that was never guaranteed.
ReplyDeleteCan we stop talking about the Zimmerman case any time soon? This whole "No Kowtow, No Sense" thing is getting old.
Ok, I just looked at CSGV's press release (can find it linked at the youtube video ((which, of course, has comments turned off))) and it is chock full of straight up lies and misrepresentations of the law.
ReplyDeleteSome examples:
"Now you can provoke a fight, and if losing that fight, kill the person you attacked."
WRONG: Stand your ground only means you don't have to let someone bully you into leaving a place or try to outrun a mugger with a knife or gun. Your continued presence in a location a bully wants you to leave does not constitute picking a fight. If you DO pick a fight, you are guilty of manslaughter at the least, but quite possibly guilty of murder.
"The NRA’s laws represent a dangerous and unprecedented escalation in the use of force in the public space, allowing individuals to kill when they merely fear 'great bodily harm'”
WRONG: As Mike admitted, the FEAR of death was already the essential part of the defense before SYG. Additionally, if you look at the definitions of Self Defense, in both SYG and non-SYG jurisdictions, they say fear of death or severe/grave/great/etc. bodily harm.
"'great bodily harm' (i.e., a fistfight, shoving match, etc.)"
Damnable LIE: Some places may have statutes laying out what constitutes great/grave/severe bodily harm. Most have reams of precedent where calls have been made on what harm rises to this level. If the harm you feared was not at this level and you were merely in a shoving match where your pride might get damaged, a lethal response is not proportional, and you are guilty of manslaughter at the least. SYG laws to not touch on the proportionality of the response--they leave the main element as a fear of death or grave bodily injury, also leaving intact all of the precedent on the meaning of those terms.
"The concept of responding with proportional force has been obliterated."
WRONG: As stated above, this is a total lie and misstatement of the law.
Who knew that "effective public policy advocacy" involved lying through one's teeth about the effects of the law you want to repeal!
The fact that Zimmerman was acquitted does not mean Martin attacked him as alleged.
ReplyDeleteZimmerman was acquitted because he is innocent until proven guilty. Martin was dead and unable to tell his side. Convenient for Zimmerman, that he did not have to dispute what Martins version would have been, if he were alive to tell his side.
I never saw pictures of Zimmerman's blood on any concrete. His light wounds did show an altercation occurred, but we only have Zimmerman's word, that he was attacked. Yet we have evidence that Zimmerman had been verbally aggressive and violent in the past.
I cannot get away from the fact, that if Zimmerman would have stayed in his car and not followed Martin, as advised by the dispatcher; an altercation (whatever happened) never would have happened.
If stand your ground is defined by the fear in someones mind, that doesn't cut it. That means any physical altercation (not even physical) is justification for deadly force.
A woman might feel fear because a man is walking behind her at night, but her fear does not qualify for using deadly force.
A bloody nose given in a fight does not qualify for using deadly force; although I'm sure receiving a bloody nose might create fear in the one receiving such a blow.
The jury obviously accepted Zimmerman's account, so not guilty was there only choice; but would they have accepted that account so readily if Martin was alive to give a different account?
I guess every street fight could call for deadly force, because there is certainly fear in the minds of both participants.
This "status" of fear in one's mind eliminates "great bodily harm" and other past definitions of the right to use deadly force, if all you have to do is say you are in fear for your life. That's to easy.
Another law (Stand your ground) so ambiguous it creates abuse and opens loop holes, that would allow someone to get away with manslaughter.
There was no proof that Martin attacked Zimmerman, besides Zimmerman's word. If Martin had to defend himself (without a gun) that would explain those wounds.
We will never know. The jury didn't know, thus the not guilty verdict.
If Zimmerman could not follow the advice of the dispatcher, he does not seem a good candidate to be a police officer.
Well, Jim gives us more of the misstatement of the order of events that night and makes CSGV's flawed arguments about SYG law all over again, but with less eloquence.
DeleteJim, I will say that it's a good thing that you don't often carry the gun you have a permit to carry. Your understanding of the relevant laws is poor enough to make carry inadvisable until you brush up on the law.
You missed the part about how Zimmerman was already outside his car when the dispatcher said that Zimmerman didn't need to follow Martin? How about the part where Zimmerman was heading back to his car after that?
DeleteYeah, sure Greg, the car that was so far away that 90 seconds was not sufficient to reach it.
DeleteBecause you know for a fact that he had not walked away from it for more than 90 seconds, and you know that he didn't jog away from it to try and spot Trayvon to tell the cops where he was, and then didn't saunter back to it.
DeleteFrom the tape, it is very plausible that he stopped when the dispatcher said "we don't need you to do that", talked to him for another 90 seconds where he was at, then headed back to the car.
DeleteNo, guys, we really don't know much of anything. The unarmed guy is dead and only the lawful gun owner is alive to justify his actions.
DeleteAfter the trial we know a bit more than that, and the portions of the fight that people witnessed match up with the gun owner's story.
Delete"The order of events"
ReplyDeleteYou were not there. No one was there. For the order of events of the altercation. we only have Zimmerman's word. Since he has had problems with the law before, his statements should be questioned, but the only other person who could give an account, is dead. It doesn't matter if Zimmerman was in, or out of the car, when told not to follow, he should have left Martin alone. Did Zimmerman claim Martin was window peeping, or casing the area, or committing a crime? NO. His only statement about Martin being suspicious, was that he was a young black man wearing a hood walking through the neighborhood. That is not probable cause, it is a racist supposition of some mysterious intent to do what?.
You weren't there, either, but you act as though you know a great deal about the events. What I have is the 911 call, the physical evidence, and the evidence of the eyewitness. All of that adds up to Zimmerman's description of what happened being square with the facts.
DeleteTN,
ReplyDeleteI never stated any order of events of the altercation. I don't live in a State with stand your ground, and I am glad of that. It is a poor law full of loop holes and abuses for getting away with manslaughter. If you don't think I should carry because I don't agree with your interpretation of that law, then it is you ( who had mistakenly called me a liar before) who should give up debating such issues, since your interpretation is the only interpretation. No discussion/debate necessary.
There is no PROOF that the altercation happened the way Zimmerman said it did. You seem to take his word without proof, why, because he is a guy who can legally carry a gun?
Jim,
DeleteYou can hear Zimmerman walking around, which was why the dispatcher asked him if he was following Martin. You stated that he got out and followed Martin after being told not to. Instead, he was already following him and was told that he didn't need to do that. He then said OK and says that he headed back for his vehicle. No evidence has been presented to contradict that.
Regarding your statement about what he found suspicious about Martin, you're parroting the official line, but not honestly stating what was in the 911 recording.
In the 911 call, Zimmerman only cited Trayvon's blackness when asked about it to help the cops identify him. Instead, he talked about him walking around the neighborhood in the dark and rain, looking around him, and giving the impression that he was high. He may have been wrong in his interpretation of the signs, but he had a clearly articulated reason for suspicion--more than in some Terry stops that have been approved.
As for the loopholes, you are still maintaining the false idea that SYG laws allow a person to start a fight and then get out of it by using lethal force. This is an incorrect interpretation of the law. Could a jury misapply the law? Sure, they can with any law. Unless the law is horribly drafted (which these aren't) this is not the fault of the law, but of the jurors.
As for my statement about you carrying, it was a bit of sarcasm because you seemed to think that a SYG law would allow one to shoot his way out of a fight he started or to shoot over a minor insult. No, I don't REALLY think you would do that, but your interpretations wrongfully inform us that it would be Legally ok to do so in a SYG jurisdiction.
Finally, regarding the credibility I give Zimmerman, I give his statements more weight, in this case, because they have been corroborated at the various points where they could be. It would be hard to make up a false story and still have that many details line up.
NYPD would have totally stopped Martin and frisked him.
DeleteAbsolutely. For their stop and frisks, they haven't even been meeting the usual requirements of clearly articulable facts.
DeleteI only stated he never should have gotten out of his car. I never said Zimmerman got out of his car and followed Martin. It doesn't matter if Zimmerman was in, or out of his car. He should have left Martin alone when the dispatcher told him to.
ReplyDeleteWhat suspicion? That a black guy was walking in rain?
I doubt Zimmerman could tell Martin was high, or not from so far away. A statement made only to infer Martin was suspicious, when Zimmerman had no idea. Zimmerman was trying to build suspicion with no real proof, only the stereotypical, racist belief in his mind, that all "those people" use drugs.
What details give Zimmerman's story credibility?
That Martin was high? BS. That Martin was doing anything more than walking in the rain? What details line up?
If fear is the determining factor, than those laws do allow for an unreasonable/unacceptable excuse for people to use deadly force.
Point is we don't know. That's why the jury made the decision they did. Innocent until proven guilty. I agree with the verdict; not because Zimmerman had a right to shoot, but because there was no evidence to PROVE what actually happened, thus reasonable doubt.
How come there was no Zimmerman blood on Martin, if Martin committed such a bloody attack on Zimmerman? Martin had him down, but no Zimmerman blood from his nose, or head was on Martin? That is a questionable statement by Zimmerman.
There is zero proof that Martin started an attack on Zimmerman, except for Zimmerman's word, which I would question given his past.
We have already had one juror state that if not for the stand your ground law, Zimmerman would have been found guilty of manslaughter. The law allows "fear" as a deadly force situation, which is BS, because that is to subjective to be acceptable to kill someone.
Zimmerman killed someone and we only have his word (no proof) that he felt fear for his life. That's totally questionable since we don't know exactly how the fight started, Martin had no gun, or other deadly weapon, and Martin is dead, unable to tell us his side.
Jim,
DeleteYou keep assigning racist motives to Zimmerman, which is a possibility. I don't know the man. However, it's also possible that he saw a kid walking, seemingly aimlessly through the rain, slowly, looking around, couldn't see the phone he was talking on, and thought, "Hey, that kid may be stoned, or casing the neighborhood. Why else wouldn't he be in a hurry on a night like this."
And yes, that's not the only reasonable assumption he could have made. It's possible Trayvon was walking slowly and aimlessly because he was involved in his conversation; that he was looking around as a bit of situational awareness since his hearing was being devoted to his phone call. Just because that's a possibility and because it may have been the actual truth of the matter does not make Zimmerman's assumption unreasonable, just in error.
And so he called 911 and tried to keep an eye on Martin's location to tell the police where he had gone to when they arrived so that they could find out if he had a right to be there or not. That's not the action of someone looking for a confrontation and a fight--it's someone trying to get the cops to confront this stranger rather than doing it himself. If Zimmerman was as confrontational as he is framed as being, why would he have called 911 first and not just walked up to Trayvon and said, "What's your business here?"
As for other details, we have Jeantel's testimony of the challenges exchanged, her statement that she thought Trayvon would have hit first (though she seemed unable to understand some of the questioning and may have meant the opposite). We have a witness that saw Zimmerman pinned to the ground, forensics that show that Martin was probably shot while leaning over Zimmerman, testimony that Zimmerman was the one screaming and testimony the other way which mostly cancel out except for the testimony that Zimmerman was pinned down, etc.
It's not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but it seems to be weighted more toward his story, meanwhile the prosecution didn't even offer an alternative narrative.
The rest of your post deals with the fear of death or grave bodily harm, and I realize that what you are missing is that all of the laws on self defense require that the person be in reasonable fear of death or grave bodily harm. I have left out the word reasonable in my previous posts, but that requirement is in all of the laws and not removed by SYG.
The point of this is that the jury must determine if the fear was a reasonable one. Is someone banging your head on the ground--you're pretty reasonable in fearing death or severe brain damage if they don't stop. Did they punch you in the nose really hard once? They may have given you a concussion, but if it was one punch and then they backed off, you're not in reasonable fear.
DeleteThe jury is supposed to ask if a reasonable person, in this situation, would fear for their life or fear grave injury, not if the person subjectively felt fear. If the test was the latter, then yes, the law would certainly be a bad one. On the one hand, it would ask the jury to do the impossible--tell what was in another person's head at the time. On the other hand, a psychotic person that thought the person they killed was working for the CIA and was about to get them, they'd be justified.
Or in a more realistic version, say you're in a bar and a gay guy won't stop hitting on you, even though you've unequivocally said no (for this hypothetical, we're ignoring laws against carrying while drinking, etc.); if you feel threatened and that his pick up lines are a sign that he's going to rape you and shoot him in the bar, was your fear reasonable or not. Under a subjective rule, you felt fear and the jury should acquit, but under the real rule, the objective one, a reasonable person wouldn't feel that same fear based on nothing but pickup lines, and so the jury should convict.
In conclusion, I want to reiterate, stand your ground does nothing to change this requirement that the fear be reasonable.
(P.S. No animosity against homosexuals was intended by this hypothetical. I ripped it off from my Criminal Law teacher who used it because there is an element of society that would react with the same irrational fear as the hypothetical shooter.)
Zimmerman did not shoot Martin because he was *afraid* he might bash his head into the concrete. He was actually bashing his head into the concrete.
DeleteYour point about Martin not being able to tell his side of the story is fairly insignificant in my opinion. The prosecution argued his side of the story- that he was profiled, stalked, chased, attacked, and then murdered. Was Martin going to tell a different story? One that made him look even more innocent?
A bloody and broken nose doesn't tend to spurt upward, and the wounds on the back of Zimmerman's head weren't likely to do so, either.
DeleteBut you say that Zimmerman shouldn't have got out of his car. He's not allowed to walk around in his own neighborhood?
Of course not, Greg! Not when there's a potentially dangerous black youth walking around in a hoodie. You're asking for trouble if you don't flee such youths and violating the duty to retreat from scary black folk.
DeleteIf Trayvon had been a white kid named Eric, GZ probably would not have bothered him. That's what makes it about racism. The fact that GZ initiated the encounter is what makes it about manslaughter.
DeleteZimmerman wasn't committing a crime, even if he asked Martin what the youth was doing in that neighborhood, so no, that doesn't make it manslaughter.
DeleteYou have to ASSUME racism on Zimmerman's part to make that statement about a white kid, and without that statement, you haven't proved any racism.
DeleteYour proof is circular, and no proof at all.
As for Zimmerman initiating the encounter, he claims that he did not, and that he was jumped. Jeantel says that Trayvon ignored her advice to hurry home and get inside and that he turned around and was the first to initiate verbal communication. She also speculated that he threw the first punch.
Even if Zimmerman initiated the encounter, walking up and asking Trayvon what he was doing, that doesn't qualify as starting a fight. That's one human being walking up and asking another a question. If you respond with an answer, or even a "Fuck You!" you're well within your rights, but if you respond with fist, you are in the wrong, have started a fight, and are the aggressor and assaultor, not the victim.
"Zimmerman did not shoot Martin because he was *afraid* he might bash his head into the concrete. He was actually bashing his head into the concrete."
ReplyDeleteSorry, that was never determined by the evidence, we only have Zimmerman's word for it.
"The prosecution argued his side of the story- that he was profiled, stalked, chased, attacked, and then murdered. Was Martin going to tell a different story?"
It's amazing you don't think hearing from the victim would be important. And yes, he might have told a different story.
"Your point about Martin not being able to tell his side of the story is fairly insignificant"
I find that statement degrading to say the least. No importance what the dead man might have said if he were alive. WOW!
"You keep assigning racist motives to Zimmerman"
It was Zimmerman who used the phrase "those people" which is why I put quotes around it in my comment. I take that as a racial, stereotyping, slur.
" just in error."
An error that led to a persons death. Negligence.
"And so he called 911"
And 911 told him to stop following him. Leave him alone.
" We have a witness that saw Zimmerman pinned to the ground, forensics that show that Martin was probably shot while leaning over Zimmerman, testimony that Zimmerman was the one screaming and testimony the other way which mostly cancel out except for the testimony that Zimmerman was pinned down, etc."
Again, if that's all true, where was Martin's blood on Zimmerman?
"PROBABLY shot", we don't know for sure, you are guessing.
"Zimmerman was the one screaming"
That was never determined, and the jury disregarded it because it could not be determined. Yet you infer some of these unsupported facts, are facts, they are not.
"The point of this is that the jury must determine if the fear was a reasonable one. Is someone banging your head on the ground--you're pretty reasonable in fearing death or severe brain damage if they don't stop. Did they punch you in the nose really hard once? They may have given you a concussion, but if it was one punch and then they backed off, you're not in reasonable fear."
Again you are ASSuming facts not proven by the evidence. There were no pictures of Zimmerman's blood on any concrete found at the scene. We only know Zimmerman's wounds, we have no proof how he actually got those wounds.
"we have Jeantel's testimony"
An example of how poorly the prosecution handled this case.
"A bloody and broken nose doesn't tend to spurt upward, and the wounds on the back of Zimmerman's head weren't likely to do so, either."
Zimmerman told police that Martin had his hands over Zimmerman's mouth so he could not scream for help. If true than there would certainly be Zimmerman blood on Martin. If true it could no possibly be Zimmerman screaming for help on that tape.
"But you say that Zimmerman shouldn't have got out of his car. He's not allowed to walk around in his own neighborhood?"
He was not just walking the neighborhood when he got out of his car, he was following Martin, something 911 told him not to do.
"Zimmerman wasn't committing a crime, even if he asked Martin what the youth was doing in that neighborhood, so no, that doesn't make it manslaughter."
Martin was not committing a crime and there was no evidence presented to prove he was.
There is evidence that Martin knocked Zimmerman's head into the concrete- certainly more than just his word. There were lacerations and abrasions on the back of his head that medical examiners said were consistent with that type of injury. You are not one of those people who thinks he did that to himself, are you? Besides there was a neighbor on the scene right after the shot was fired who took a picture of the back of his head. There was also a witness who had Martin ontop "striking down MMA style".
DeleteI don't know why you found my other comment to be degrading. The point you are trying to make is quite valid when officers first arrive on the scene and only have the survivor to interview. But this went all the way to trial with the prosecution arguing that Martin was murdered. My point is that Martin saying Zimmerman started the fight is just the same thing the state is saying. What it comes to after that is what the evidence says happened. But you don't seem to place a lot of faith in one's words anyway, judging by how easily you dismiss Zimmerman's claim that he received head trauma.
"Sorry, that was never determined by the evidence, we only have Zimmerman's word for it."
ReplyDeleteWe have his word and the head wounds which corroborate the story. Maybe Trayvon slammed it on the ground, or maybe he got the cuts as his head repeatedly rebounded off it while being punched in the face. Either could cause the wound and lead the beaten person to believe his head was being intentionally slammed into the ground.
"It's amazing you don't think hearing from the victim would be important. And yes, he might have told a different story."
"I find that statement degrading to say the least. No importance what the dead man might have said if he were alive. WOW!"
Sure, it would be nice and interesting to hear his side of the story, but the point is moot. We can't hear it, so we have to look at the other evidence. His inability to testify should not be held against Zimmerman--doing so would mean accepting a rule that prejudices against the shooter in any self defense case, even those where we would all agree it was proper.
It was Zimmerman who used the phrase "those people" which is why I put quotes around it in my comment. I take that as a racial, stereotyping, slur.
Actually, the phrase was "these assholes." If you would like to look at the transcript, here's a copy I found with google:
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html
In the context, Zimmerman is talking about people who have been breaking into houses in the neighborhood, and he has described the way Trayvon was walking around and looking around causing him to think he was casing the neighborhood. He wasn't even sure he was black until Trayvon turned around and started toward him. In this context, it also shows why he followed Trayvon to be able to tell the police where he was in case he was one of the burglars.
"An error that led to a persons death. Negligence."
An Error in divining a person's motives. An error that was not the reason he shot Trayvon, but the reason he asked the police to check him out. An error that was, in no way, the proximate cause of Trayvon's death. This would be like saying that because you assumed another driver was not going to run a redlight, you are also responsible for vehicular manslaughter of your passengers who were killed when you got T-Boned in an intersection.
ReplyDelete"And 911 told him to stop following him. Leave him alone."
And he told them "OK" and says that he did stop. You are assuming he did not, but you have no proof.
"Again, if that's all true, where was Martin's blood on Zimmerman?"
So you are saying that the witness who saw Martin on top was lying? As for the blood, who knows. Maybe he got out from under Martin before it had time to soak through the two sweatshirts he was wearing. It's a guess, but a plausible one. Additionally, it might make a difference where the shot hit--if it destroyed or damaged the heart enough to stop pumping, the blood would not have come out as quickly.
"'PROBABLY shot', we don't know for sure, you are guessing."
Actually, that wasn't my guess. That was the official opinion of the forensic analyst who examined the evidence. He based it on the fact that the distribution of GSR particles between layers showed that the sweatshirt was 4 inches from Martin's body, indicating that he was leaning forward which, considering the angle of the shot, would be consistent with him being on top of Zimmerman as Zimmerman claimed.
"That was never determined, and the jury disregarded it because it could not be determined. Yet you infer some of these unsupported facts, are facts, they are not."
No, nobody officially determined who was screaming. As I said, both sides testified that it was Martin or Zimmerman as would be expected. The jury was never told to disregard it and I haven't heard anything about them disregarding it. They were free to regard it however they wanted to. My inferences based on the other evidence and testimony were an example of the inferences that could be made. I never claimed my inference was the actual fact or was even an inference the Jury made; merely one that could be made.
"Again you are ASSuming facts not proven by the evidence. There were no pictures of Zimmerman's blood on any concrete found at the scene. We only know Zimmerman's wounds, we have no proof how he actually got those wounds."
The passage you said this in response to was where I was illustrating the difference between an assault that would create a reasonable fear of death or serious injury and one that would not. As for the evidence of how Zimmerman got his wounds, what do you propose as an alternative--some type of self inflicted wound to cover up a killing? Cut his head and broke his own nose? That sounds more like covering up a 1st degree murder rather than the manslaughter you keep on about.
ReplyDelete"An example of how poorly the prosecution handled this case."
I won't disagree with you about the poor handling by the prosecution, but they couldn't prevent Jeantel and others saying things that hurt their case.
"Zimmerman told police that Martin had his hands over Zimmerman's mouth so he could not scream for help. If true than there would certainly be Zimmerman blood on Martin. If true it could no possibly be Zimmerman screaming for help on that tape."
Unless the mouth covering was early in the fight and the broken nose and screams for help came later. We know that the screams, at least, were late in the fight when the neighbor had already called 911 about the fight, and right before the shot.
"He was not just walking the neighborhood when he got out of his car, he was following Martin, something 911 told him not to do."
From the early context and what he told the dispatcher, he was following to be able to relay, through dispatch, to the police where Martin was when they got there. And it was not something dispatch had told him not to do. It was something they told him they didn't need him to do (no order to desist), and they told him this after he had done it. Again, he said OK, and says he stopped. You're making a big assumption and basing the crux of your case on it. Moreover, you're misinterpreting dispatch telling him they didn't need him to follow Martin as an order to stop rather than as advice for his own safety.
"Martin was not committing a crime and there was no evidence presented to prove he was."
True. And if he'd either hurried on home as Jeantel testified that she urged him to do at least once, or if he'd simply said, "Why are you following me home from the Quick-e-Mart, ya creep? Yeah, I live here!" That would have been the end of it. Instead, Jeantel suggested that he may have thrown the first punch, Zimmerman said he did, and others saw him pinning Zimmerman to the ground. We can't say for sure, but it seem quite plausible that Trayvon went from not committing a crime to suddenly committing a vicious assault.
Final addition: if you look at the transcript, when Zimmerman is told that they don't need him to follow Martin, he says OK and apparently doesn't look for him while finishing the conversation because he declines to tell his Address since he doesn't know where Martin is and doesn't want him to hear it. This if FAR different from the implication made by the damnable, libellous video above.
ReplyDeleteAs I said, I agree with the verdict, but not for the reason that it was proved Zimmerman had a right to shoot. There simply was not enough evidence to prove either way, so reasonable doubt is at play and why the jury made the decision it did.
ReplyDeleteJust look at our back and forth, maybe, possibly, no evidence to prove points, plausible, etc., etc....If any case showed reasonable doubt, it's this one. I simply won't accept facts that were not proven. That's one reason this debate will go on forever, there are few proven facts. You seem to take what Zimmerman says for granted, I won't.
Why didn't Zimmerman take the stand, tell his version, and be prepared to answer questions about his version? If he's telling the truth, he should not be afraid to be cross examined.
I saw the complete video Zimmerman made with the police detective about his version of what happened, there were many inconsistencies.
Jim,
DeleteI agree with you about reasonable doubt--This case has plenty of it and so the verdict was completely correct. It's a good thing that the burden, in our system, is placed on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt because many more people would be in jail if they had to prove their innocence.
In our back and forth, I've tried to show that I'm not taking Zimmerman's statements for granted, I'm evaluating the evidence as a whole and, in my opinion, the preponderance of the evidence is on his side. If you evaluate it differently, that's your prerogative. The only place I'm not going to budge is on your flawed interpretation of the SYG statutes which suggests that they remove the requirement that a fear be reasonable--the laws and precedent stand opposed to that idea.
As for Zimmerman taking the stand, any lawyer, including Laci, would tell you that it is rarely advisable to put the defendant on the stand. Even an innocent defendant may look nervous and give the impression he's guilty or hiding something. Everyone has skeletons in their past they don't want to risk having brought out--something they said or did as a stupid kid. Even a truthful story may have a few inconsistencies due to stress and the fact that human beings don't have perfect recall, and a sharp lawyer can find these and play them up for all they're worth.