George Zimmerman trial

[ledboots]

I was under the impression that watch groups periodically go out on patrol.

No, but SYG laws open the door for such behavior.

Besides wouldn't you rather wrestle an alligator?

No we didn't have patrols, it wasn't brought up; maybe that's an option for some areas, idk.

I will rassle my gator as soon as the geezers with walkers get out of my way.

 

[Spang]

I'm going to move back to Florida when I retire and become a professional shuffle boarder.

 

[das_nut]

I never said I didn't like the guy. Boy talk about putting words in my mouth. My whole point is that he's a proven liar. Straw manning is an old trick.

If we're discounting testimony of liars, are you as quick to dismiss all of Jeantel's testimony since she is also a proven liar? Zimmerman never testified. Jeantel was one of the state's main witnesses. If we're saying no proven liars could testify, you are, in effect, giving Zimmerman a stronger case than he had in court.

Polygraph test are inadmissable in court and therefore can't be used as "proof" that he's telling the truth. They are far from perfect, and that's why they can't be used in court.

They aren't perfect, but do you think we should completely ignore the outcome?

You mentioned this bluff thing before. Do you have a source? In any case, "looks relieved" is subjective.

It was investigator Chris Serino, a witness for the prosecutation, who testified about this. Zimmerman's response, to being told (falsely) that there was a videotape, was "Thank God".

You seem to be unaware of this. Is there other evidence that is more closely aligned with Zimmerman's scenario of events that you are also unaware of?

Witness - what Spang said. But also, did this witness try to assist CZ or at least call 911? If not, he was just enjoying the show. Not much of a witness.

Are you advocating that if a witness sees a possible crime in progress, they should involve themselves?

 

[das_nut]

Others may empathize with CZ because they've been mugged or robbed. Or maybe because of their distrust of the government, they think the whole thing was orchestrated to dilute gun rights, thus support CZ, a gun owner.

Our different life experiences bring different perspectives.

Is it really empathy if one is arguing that the state did not prove their case against George Zimmerman?

Do most people really believe that in a court case, personal feelings about the defendant should trump all other evidence (or lack thereof)?

No, but SYG laws open the door for such behavior.

What behavior is that?

 

[beancounter]

If we're discounting testimony of liars, are you as quick to dismiss all of Jeantel's testimony since she is also a proven liar? Zimmerman never testified. Jeantel was one of the state's main witnesses. If we're saying no proven liars could testify, you are, in effect, giving Zimmerman a stronger case than he had in court.

Are you advocating that if a witness sees a possible crime in progress, they should involve themselves?

Yep, she was probably lying too. But there are magnitude of lies. Had he lied to the IRS, instead of the court about his assets, he would have been in serious trouble. Furthermore, she is a teen from a poor community. He is an adult with knowledge of the law. He should know better.

Involve themselves by calling 911? Yes.

 

[das_nut]

Yep, she was probably lying too. But there are magnitude of lies. Had he lied to the IRS, instead of the court about his assets, he would have been in serious trouble. Furthermore, she is a teen from a poor community. He is an adult with knowledge of the law. He should know better.

I'm not arguing if she should know better.

But lets examine this: Are you saying that a teen from a poor community may be more prone to lying? If so, would she lie to make things easier for herself? For example, if people wanted did not want to hear that Trayvon started the fight, would she have covered it up?

Involve themselves by calling 911? Yes.

How about a non-emergency number? What if they were told to not follow the suspect, so they went to look for an address instead? Would they be guilty if they were later attacked?

 

[beancounter]

Is it really empathy if one is arguing that the state did not prove their case against George Zimmerman?

Do most people really believe that in a court case, personal feelings about the defendant should trump all other evidence (or lack thereof)?

I'm talking about identifying with one person vs. another. Given the lack of evidence in certain areas, it is reasonable to fill in the gaps with personal experience. (I don't know of any Vulcans on Earth at this time). Certainly the jurors made assumptions. Remember, at least one of the referring to him as "Georgie"

The state did such a poor job, it borders on negligence. With a quick search on Wikipedia , it's easy to see that if they couldn't prove intent, they should have started with involuntary manslaughter.

 

[das_nut]

I'm talking about identifying with one person vs. another. Given the lack of evidence in certain areas, it is reasonable to fill in the gaps with personal experience. (I don't know of any Vulcans on Earth at this time).

You're still leaving out some possibilities - someone could identify with both of them, or with neither of them.

The state did such a poor job, it borders on negligence. With a quick search on Wikipedia , it's easy to see that if they couldn't prove intent, they should have started with involuntary manslaughter.

The state should have stayed with not charging Zimmerman unless better evidence came to light. But that's what happens when politics gets involved with the judicial process.

 

[beancounter]

I'm not arguing if she should know better.

But lets examine this: Are you saying that a teen from a poor community may be more prone to lying? If so, would she lie to make things easier for herself? For example, if people wanted did not want to hear that Trayvon started the fight, would she have covered it up?

How about a non-emergency number? What if they were told to not follow the suspect, so they went to look for an address instead? Would they be guilty if they were later attacked?

No just that GZ should have known better, and should be held to a higher standard. He is on trial. Not her. And it certainly didn't help the matter that the defense was subtly publicly shaming her for not knowing how to read script. Maybe she's not a quick study. Doesn't know how to lie smoothly, who know as CZ.

So you're saying a smooth talking liar's testimony is more valid because they're good at lying?

When was the witness told not to follow TM?

 

[beancounter]

The state should have stayed with not charging Zimmerman unless better evidence came to light. But that's what happens when politics gets involved with the judicial process.

He ended up shooting someone because he erroneously profiled and followed them (regardless if the end result was self defense). For that he should be held responsible. Sensitivity training? Community service in a minority community? Or something else that allows him to see that not everyone who wears a hoodie is a criminal.

 

[das_nut]

No just that GZ should have known better, and should be held to a higher standard. He is on trial.

But George Zimmerman didn't testify.

She did.

Not her. And it certainly didn't help the matter that the defense was subtly publicly shaming her for not knowing how to read script.

Are you saying the defense should not have brought up the fact she couldn't read a letter she supposedly wrote? A letter that was entered into evidence?

Maybe she's not a quick study. Doesn't know how to lie smoothly, who know as CZ.

Both seemed willing to lie when they wanted to. Both were later found out. I'm not sure why you're claiming one is a smoother liar than another.

So you're saying a smooth talking liar's testimony is more valid because they're good at lying?

George Zimmerman never testified, so why would I make that claim?

When was the witness told not to follow TM?

You don't see the parallel, do you? Here's a hint: The witness wasn't the only one who thought they saw a possible crime in progress.

 

[das_nut]

He ended up shooting someone because he erroneously profiled and followed them (regardless if the end result was self defense).

How did he profile them? Trayvon Martin did fit the description of one of the individuals responsible for robbery in the area. Are you saying that George Zimmerman was at fault for calling a non-emergency number while keeping an eye on the suspect?

 

[beancounter]

How did he profile them? Trayvon Martin did fit the description of one of the individuals responsible for robbery in the area. Are you saying that George Zimmerman was at fault for calling a non-emergency number while keeping an eye on the suspect?

So using GZ logic, every black kid in a hoodie is a criminal?

Just like every older white male in a suit has committed a white collar crime?...

Really?...

 

[beancounter]

You don't see the parallel, do you? Here's a hint: The witness wasn't the only one who thought they saw a possible crime in progress.

You were mixing the two together to form a point that wasn't the same for both.

CZ saw a hoodie and saw a criminal. TM wasn't engaged in criminal activity, so it was pure and simple profiling.

The witness saw a fight.

 

[das_nut]

You were mixing the two together to form a point that wasn't the same for both.

CZ saw a hoodie and saw a criminal. TM wasn't engaged in criminal activity, so it was pure and simple profiling

CZ? Who is that?

George Zimmerman saw someone he didn't recognize walking slowly and looking at houses, in a neighborhood that saw a rash of burglaries, including one where the victim had locked herself inside her bedroom with her infant as robbers broke into her house.

Yes, Trayvon Martin had a hoodie. But he was also walking slowly (which seems collaborated by the evidence we do have with the 911 call). He seemed familiar with the neighborhood, including the non-obvious entrances. It was claimed he was casing houses. Was this true? Maybe he was curious. Maybe he just liked to look into windows and see what people were watching on TV.

Obviously, Zimmerman was mistaken. But we don't hold people accountable for calling a non-emergency number to report something suspicious even if it turns out there's an innocent explanation.

Yet this is what the "George Zimmerman" crowd wants to do. They want to hold him accountable for all the events that followed because we know that Zimmerman called a non-emergency number to report Martin as a suspicious person.

What followed the events after Zimmerman ended the call and said he'd meet cops by the entrance, we don't know. Zimmerman claimed to be looking for an address. Martin, presumably, we headed home. The location of Martin's body puts both claims in doubt. Zimmerman had the majority of the injuries, and had never before seemed to confront any suspicious individual he'd reported. Zimmerman does however have a previous assault allegation and related plea bargain due to an alleged fight with an undercover cop. While Martin has texts about fighting. But we don't know what happened.

 

[das_nut]

So using GZ logic, every black kid in a hoodie is a criminal?

No, you silly. But an unknown person who matches the description of a suspect is suspicious.

Just like every older white male in a suit has committed a white collar crime?.

Of course not. Younger people and non-white people are also capable of white collar crimes. (Unless you think that white collar jobs are only the domain of older white males.)

 

[das_nut]

Stand Your Ground laws aren't designed to benefit Black people.

They appear to be doing a good job of defending black people, even if they aren't designed for that.

The Times analysis found no obvious bias in how black defendants have been treated:

• Whites who invoked the law were charged at the same rate as blacks.

• Whites who went to trial were convicted at the same rate as blacks.

• In mixed-race cases involving fatalities, the outcomes were similar. Four of the five blacks who killed a white went free; five of the six whites who killed a black went free.

• Overall, black defendants went free 66 percent of the time in fatal cases compared to 61 percent for white defendants — a difference explained, in part, by the fact blacks were more likely to kill another black.

"Let's be clear,'' said Alfreda Coward, a black Fort Lauderdale lawyer whose clients are mostly black men. "This law was not designed for the protection of young black males, but it's benefiting them in certain cases.''

- Tampa Bay Times

 

[Dedalus]

Wow, with the scare quotes around "happy" and everything. Even though you were the one who asked me if I was happy and even though it was happiness about your making corrections, not about the story. You really set me up to knock me down, huh?

Apparently my sarcasm was lost on you. The point was that my 'speculative version of events' held up side by side with 'the facts' as presented in the trial doesn't change anything. The outcome is the same: A young man is dead for no reason. This didn't have to happen. Had an armed, overzealous, insecure and bigoted neighborhood watcher simply made his phone call to report what he interpreted as suspicious behavior and leave it at that - we wouldn't be having this debate.

 

[cornsail]

Apparently my sarcasm was lost on you. The point was that my 'speculative version of events' held up side by side with 'the facts' as presented in the trial doesn't change anything.

I'm always going to value factual accuracy and correct mistakes when I see them (not every time, but here or there). You can be sarcastic about it if you like. I have to ask, though, if the accuracy of a statement like "He continued pursuit when LE told him to stay put" is irrelevant and doesn't change anything, then why make it in the first place?

 

[das_nut]

Apparently my sarcasm was lost on you. The point was that my 'speculative version of events' held up side by side with 'the facts' as presented in the trial doesn't change anything. The outcome is the same: A young man is dead for no reason. This didn't have to happen. Had an armed, overzealous, insecure and bigoted neighborhood watcher simply made his phone call to report what he interpreted as suspicious behavior and leave it at that - we wouldn't be having this debate.

If George Zimmerman's story is mostly correct, and he was attacked by Martin, do you still feel justified in blaming him for the events of the evening?