The very idea that the State is seeking to establish – that self-defense is conditional upon actually suffering serious injury – is, of course, ridiculous on its face. The purpose of the law of self-defense, particularly in the context of the use deadly defensive force, is to be able to protect yourself from an imminent threat of death or grave bodily harm before that harm occurs, not to require that you actually experience death or grave bodily harm before you may act to protect yourself.Also, Branca is following the trial live today here.
१ जुलै, २०१३
"How Much Injury Is Required Before Self-Defense is Justified?"
Andrew Branca analyzes the law and the evidence in the Zimmerman trial.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
३६३ टिप्पण्या:
363 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»The color of your skin (please note, Zimmerman is 1/4 black) determines whether self defense is applicable.
In the movies, the rogue cop usually shoots himself somewhere fleshy, afterwards.
As someone mentioned last week -- if your head is being banged against the pavement, it doesn't take much to knock you out, and then you can't defend yourself at all.
I've never seen a criminal trial unfold this way - where the state's witnesses are all co-opted by the defense.
The whole "justice for trayvon" thing was and is a lie.
There is zero evidence Zimmerman committed a crime.
traditionalguy hit hardest
Simple answer to a dumb question: None.
George Zimmerman gave Officer Singleton contact info for neighborhood's surveillance camera operators.
Totally indicative of him thinking he's going to shoot himself a coon that night.
The fact that that sentence even had to be written out is a sign that the American experiment is over.
Althouse's theory on this case was clearly right, if I understand it correctly: The prosecution charged this guy to avoid riots, and they don't really care whether they win, they're just going through the motions and hoping that enough potential rioters watch the trial, see the evidence, and calm the fuck down.
Which is a horrible reason to prosecute someone and put their lives in the hands of 6 low-IQ jurors.
Jay said...
I've never seen a criminal trial unfold this way - where the state's witnesses are all co-opted by the defense.
The whole "justice for trayvon" thing was and is a lie.
There is zero evidence Zimmerman committed a crime.
Serious question: Is there even a single piece of evidence contradicting Zimmerman's version of events?
As much as makes you think the guy on top is trying to kill you.
Jay said...
I've never seen a criminal trial unfold this way - where the state's witnesses are all co-opted by the defense.
The whole "justice for trayvon" thing was and is a lie.
There is zero evidence Zimmerman committed a crime.
Serious question: Is there even a single piece of evidence contradicting Zimmerman's version of events?
"I've never seen a criminal trial unfold this way... There is zero evidence Zimmerman committed a crime."
This was all done to boost our beloved president in an election year. It played perfectly into his and his fellow democrats in the medias hands, as you recall him saying, "If I had a son..."
The fact that that sentence even had to be written out is a sign that the American experiment is over.
Well Kevin, the left started out this case asseting little Trayvon got shot for wearing a hoodie.
When that was revealed to be false, it was then suggested Zimmerman suffered no injuries.
Now they are arguing over whether or not there are mere cuts on the back of Zimmerman's head and that he never had a broken nose.
These same people gave us Obama.
Iconochasm,
The little latina bombshell neighbor testified she saw Zimmerman straddling over Martin after the gun shot.
Said testimony is entirely consistent with what Zimmerman said, but the "Justice for Trayvon" crowd went absolutely wild over this.
Otherwise, I can't think of any actual evidence. A ton of speculation and hanging on to the orignal narrative, but no substance.
Pastafarian said...
Althouse's theory on this case was clearly right, if I understand it correctly: The prosecution charged this guy to avoid riots, and they don't really care whether they win, they're just going through the motions and hoping that enough potential rioters watch the trial, see the evidence, and calm the fuck down.
No, they did this because the Lefty establishment wanted to hang somebody to get the black vote all wound up last year. This why, if Choom had a son, he'd look like "Trayvon" (which has turned out to be the truth).
If there's an acquittal, there may still be riots. Depends on how well the "community organizers" organize their communities.
And whether Sharpton and Choom still have it.
Oh, and the fact that Zimmerman fired only 1 shot also supports the idea that he was this deranged ball of anger going to shoot him a "coon" that night!
Zimmerman: "I looked, he wasn't there, when I came back he came out of darkness, obviously he was waiting."
Nothing indicates this did not happen.
Who says there's going to be an acquittal? IMO there is every possibility of a reverse OJ outcome--the jury being cowed not only by a general sense of cultural "white guilt" (don't EVER underestimate
it's power in the Age of Zero) but also by fear for their personal safety and for not wanting to be the people that are seen to have triggered the inevitable riots a not-guilty verdict will bring.
"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."
---H.L. Mencken
If Mencken's words were true at the time, how much more valid are they in the age of a nation of LIVs that voted for Obama twice?
"require that you actually experience death ... before you may act to protect yourself"
Funny.
BigFire,
Zimmerman looks white, as white as the fake Indian woman, his last name doesn't sound Hispanic, his first name isn't Ebonics.
Iconochasm said...
Is there even a single piece of evidence contradicting Zimmerman's version of events?
If there is, he will spend the rest of his life in jail for lying to police officers.
It happened before the 2012 election when the blacks threatened to stay home because of Obama's scrap Don't ask Don't Tell.
Ann, Thank you for providing the links to Legal Insurrection last week and of Mr. Branca's analysis of the trial pretty much play-by-play. He seem to cover so much more than the news sources, particularly the lame NY Times article I read today that spends most of its lineage talking about the defense raising doubts on Zimmerman's guilt with almost every witness, but concluding they believe the prosecution will turn this around.
virgil xenophon said...
Who says there's going to be an acquittal? IMO there is every possibility of a reverse OJ outcome--the jury being cowed not only by a general sense of cultural "white guilt" (don't EVER underestimate
it's power in the Age of Zero) but also by fear for their personal safety and for not wanting to be the people that are seen to have triggered the inevitable riots a not-guilty verdict will bring.
This is central FL, not Scarsdale.
I think Icepick's from there and he's not overly concerned.
"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."
---H.L. Mencken
If Mencken's words were true at the time, how much more valid are they in the age of a nation of LIVs that voted for Obama twice?
They had them then, too. Consider Mark Twain:
There is no distinctly American criminal class - except Congress.
This whole discussion really points up what a putz George Lucas is.
Ten years ago (after I got in legal trouble for defending myself from the neighborhood crackheads in a way far less violent than Zimmerman's), I prediced that one day "liberals" would succeed in having self-defense outlawed--de facto if not de jure. You see, only individuals with a right to their own lives would have the right to defend themselves. If you're just the property of the State, only the State has the right to defend you.
There is no amount of injury or level of injury that justifies self-defense. The mere thought or threat that you are in imminent danger of being killed is enough and should be enough.
Pastafarian said...
Althouse's theory on this case was clearly right, if I understand it correctly: The prosecution charged this guy to avoid riots, and they don't really care whether they win, they're just going through the motions and hoping that enough potential rioters watch the trial, see the evidence, and calm the fuck down.
Which is a horrible reason to prosecute someone and put their lives in the hands of 6 low-IQ jurors.
Selective populist prosecutions. The entire bullpen of DA's involved in that whole mess should be fired and replaced with people that know their shit. These people clearly do not.
Salamandyr said...
This whole discussion really points up what a putz George Lucas is.
Thinly veiled Jar Jar Binks reference?
The real question is whether there is now a separate standard of justification for defending yourself from a Negro versus a Caucasian. If Zimmerman shot a Caucasian, would Obama have been spouting off about it? Our Supreme Court has no problem with discrimination on the basis of race when the purpose suits them.
Sounds to me like having this Trial is working out about right for Z.
Z has not changed his ststement from the first interview.
Now we know he is justified from evidence we saw sifted in a careful manner.
The unknown is what people fear. And were the Police and DA not willing to go this far to find out what happened, then the arming of the black teenagers would be the only answer, and we end up a vigilante justice corral.
So I remain very pleased with a public fair trial in the established legal system provided tu us all by good professional lawyers.
The essence of Zimmerman's self-defense claim is that he was afraid Martin would shoot him with his own gun.
Zimmerman created the conditions for the use of lethal force, the armed with a deadly sidewalk argument notwithstanding.
We can't say, if you get in a fight, and you have a gun, you have the absolute right to use it.
It really comes down to the jury's view of the start of the confrontation.
"Sounds to me like having this Trial is working out about right for Z."
-- Except for the thousands of dollars and death threats, pretty peachy keen for him!
"Now we know he is justified from evidence we saw sifted in a careful manner."
-- We knew that when the State initially chose not to prosecute him.
"The essence of Zimmerman's self-defense claim is that he was afraid Martin would shoot him with his own gun."
- Zimmerman did express concern this was a possibility. But, even without that, if no new evidence comes to light, self-defense was justified.
I think Icepick's from there and he's not overly concerned.
I am concerned, although the odds favor no riots. For a riot to occur enough people with bad intentions have to be gathered together. Central Florida doesn't have many population concentrations.
There are a few. A friend thinks that if the Sanford PD can keep the peace up there things will be fine elsewhere in Central Florida. I'm not convinced.
In my immediate area (within three miles) there are the apartment complexes on the south side of Silver Star Road between Pine Hills Road and Powers Drive, some apartments across from Evans High School on Pine Hills Road and some apartment complexes in Rosemont that are the likeliest places for trouble to start - I'd stay the Hell away from the Pine Hills Road Silver Star Road intersection if Z is acquitted.
Farther afoot in Orlando, Mercy Drive could get unpleasant, but it's unclear that anyone would notice. Down on Paramore, maybe places in Washington Shores. I'd say Tangelo Park, but I really don't know that area so I don't know how many apartment complexes are down there.
I really think apartment complexes are where the trouble can really get started. That's where the kids like to have the mob fights (a couple dozen kids get together and start randomly beating the Hell out of each other, apparently just because) and such. It provides a higher concentration of people, and typically people that aren't doing as well in life.
I'm probably most likely to see more vandalism. I'd still rather not take the chances. Lots of people looking for an excuse to behave badly.
I've got a question unrelated to this post but related to the case:
On what basis was the prosecution permitted to play Zimmerman's recorded interview with police from the night of the incident? There had to be a motion in limine on this. Did the defense stipulate to letting it be played?
I understand everything he said can and will be used against him, but isn't that only if he takes the stand?
Methadras wrote: Selective populist prosecutions. The entire bullpen of DA's involved in that whole mess should be fired and replaced with people that know their shit. These people clearly do not.
This came down on orders from the Governor. The State Attorney in charge of Seminole County decided to NOT prosecute. After the agitators (most especially the President) got involved, the Republican Governor appointed a special prosecutor from Jacksonville to put on a show trial. This is on the Republican governor.
Incidentally, I have seen people mention DAs and other local authorities. There are no local DAs. Such cases in Florida are tried by elected State Attorneys. Orange and Osceola Counties are one district, Seminole and (I believe) Volusia comprise another, and so one. The State Attorney trying this case was brought in from the district that covers Duval County (Jacksonville).
Where local authorities come into play is with the police force, in this case Sanford. I'm going off memory here, but I believe the investigating detective DID want Zimmerman charged, though I don't remember if it was for Murder 2 or Manslaughter. The local State Attorney declined.
I wouldn't take the detective wanting to prosecute strictly at face value though. One would need to know (at least) how often he wants to press charges versus how many times charges are brought, whether or not he was wanting to use this case to improve Sanford PDs standing with its black citizens, etc.
Matthew...We did not know the carefully sifted facts before the last three days. All we had were prophecy and angry assertions.
Should we have listen to prophets assert they know secret things and stop there? If we had, then we would have become religion based believers easily mislead by false prophets forming us into good gangs they lead at war with the bad gangs.
Jay wrote:
Zimmerman: "I looked, he wasn't there, when I came back he came out of darkness, obviously he was waiting."
Nothing indicates this did not happen.
Both of the phone conversations reveal this. In the GZ case we actually have it recorded. He lost sight of Trayvon.
In TM's case his gf had a discussion with him where he made it home (probably around the same time that GZ was discussing where to meet the cops in HIS call) but then refused to go inside.
We then have a gap,and then the fight occured.
If it occured by TM's place it might be more suggestive that Zimmerman came upon him. But that's not how it played out. Trayvon walked at least a block back to meet Zimmerman? Why?
traditionalguy said...
And were the Police and DA not willing to go this far to find out what happened...
I hope it has not come to the point where the DA puts someone on trial for murder just so they and the police can find out what happened.
Finding out what happened is what the police investigation is for. If the investigation does not let them know what happened, at least to the level of detail of determining that what happened violated the law, then there should be no trial.
"We did not know the carefully sifted facts before the last three days. All we had were prophecy and angry assertions."
-- We knew the key points: Witnesses saw Martin on top; Zimmerman had injuries consistent with what he told the police.
What new fact has come out of the trial?
Matthew...We did not know the carefully sifted facts before the last three days. All we had were prophecy and angry assertions.
Nope. We had lots of facts and counterfactuals.
All it took was an objective eye to sort the truth from the bullshit.
There was nothing in this trial that was a surprise to anyone who read critically.
You failed to be objective on this one. It's okay, we all do it sometimes.
But your failure to be objective doesn't mean everyone failed.
The essence of Zimmerman's self-defense claim is that he was afraid Martin would shoot him with his own gun.
Zimmerman created the conditions for the use of lethal force, the armed with a deadly sidewalk argument notwithstanding.
Actually, there are two arguments. One, that Martin was beating GF's head into the concrete and he was in danger of blacking out as a result. And second that Martin grabbed for his gun. Either should be sufficient alone to justify the use of deadly force.
As for your second point, I would respectfully submit that you are overly invested in the liberal/MSM narrative, which has little connection with the facts. Let me suggest that at a minimum you view GZ's reenactment with the police the day after the shooting tha I linked to earlier at GretaWire.
And besides, it is all irrelevant anyway, when it comes to the subject of self-defense. GZ could have stalked Martin, insulted his mother, his manhood,etc, and the second that Martin started pounding GZ's head into the concrete walk, GZ was legally entitled to use deadly force in his self-defense.
Trayvon walked at least a block back to meet Zimmerman? Why?
Because he wanted to prove he was a tough guy and have Diamond Eugene on the phone to hear it.
traditionalguy said...
Matthew...We did not know the carefully sifted facts before the last three days
What in the world are you talking about?
Zimmerman's re-enactment was available last year.
Zimmerman's statements were available last year.
The Witness statements - especially the Martin was giving Zimmerman the "ground and pound" were available last year.
The fact that Zimmerman passed two stress tests was available last year.
You dicounted all of this when they were pointed out to you at the time to idiotically assert a trial was needed to find out what happened.
You're a silly racist and a dumb fuck.
Zimmerman created the conditions for the use of lethal force,
Ridiculous bullshit.
And were the Police and DA not willing to go this far to find out what happened
What does this stupid drivel even mean?
tradguy doesn't seem to understand that there are no new facts known by this trial.
That is funny on one level and alarming on another.
Zimmerman created the conditions for the use of lethal force
Are you justifying Martin's attempted murder of Zimmerman? On what grounds? Was his life threatened?
Icepick,
The trouble is that riots might be improbable in Central FL, but still likely elsewhere. I was living in the SF Bay Area when the Rodney King verdict was announced. We might have been several hundred miles from Los Angeles, but that didn't prevent dozens of sores being looted and many cars being torched.
I hope there are arrangements in place to guard the jurors afterwards if there's a Not Guilty verdict (or even a Guilty verdict "insufficiently harsh," as in manslaughter rather than murder). They won't be in a comfortable position.
stores, not sores, being looted. Butterfingers!
Left Bank of the Charles
Zimmerman created the conditions for the use of lethal force
No, Trayvon Martin did that when he ran from the back yard of the town home he was staying at to go punch George Zimmerman in the face.
Icepick said...
This came down on orders from the Governor. The State Attorney in charge of Seminole County decided to NOT prosecute. After the agitators (most especially the President) got involved, the Republican Governor appointed a special prosecutor from Jacksonville to put on a show trial. This is on the Republican governor.
Incidentally, I have seen people mention DAs and other local authorities. There are no local DAs. Such cases in Florida are tried by elected State Attorneys. Orange and Osceola Counties are one district, Seminole and (I believe) Volusia comprise another, and so one. The State Attorney trying this case was brought in from the district that covers Duval County (Jacksonville).
Where local authorities come into play is with the police force, in this case Sanford. I'm going off memory here, but I believe the investigating detective DID want Zimmerman charged, though I don't remember if it was for Murder 2 or Manslaughter. The local State Attorney declined.
I wouldn't take the detective wanting to prosecute strictly at face value though. One would need to know (at least) how often he wants to press charges versus how many times charges are brought, whether or not he was wanting to use this case to improve Sanford PDs standing with its black citizens, etc.
Ice, thanks for the clarification. I suppose Florida is kind of a different ballgame. I do remember the special investigator coming to the conclusion that Zimmerman had in effect committed a hate crime and the derision she got for coming to that conclusion. I hadn't realized the governor had mandated that the state drop the hammer on Z.
n. n.: "Are you justifying Martin's attempted murder of Zimmerman?"
Yes, he is.
Has everyone else noticed that the papers/msm are now increasingly calling what Zimmerman did "criminally profiling Trayvon Martin"?
The goal post shifting has moved to a galactic plane.
Anything to convict the 1/4 black "White" Hispanic.
The jury is always our friend. They listen to real live cross examined witnesses. They are not partisan. So their verdict is acceptible to the community.
The idea that last years partisan PR storm is what we rely on to protects anyone is foolish. The media are partisan, the dead boys parents became partisan when the PD and DA would not reopen a closed investigation into the shooting. The Zimmerman family was totally partisan and stoked the rumor race riot fires themselves to get sympathy, which seems to have worked.
The acquittal of Z seems certain now. But that is because we heard the witnesses in open court.
But a week ago the possibility existed that the agressor was the shooter who was busy tracking down the dead boy.
Left Bank: "Zimmerman created the conditions for the use of lethal force, the armed with a deadly sidewalk argument notwithstanding."
Shorter Left Bank: If any strangers are walking around your neighborhood, you are required to stay in you vehicles and give as much leeway (in terms of space) to those strangers.
If there are several strangers in your neighborhood, you'd better just stay in doors.
Freedom and forward!
Unless you are a black panther with a billy club and you want to stand in front of a polling location.
Totally cool!
TradGuy: "The jury is always our friend. They listen to real live cross examined witnesses. They are not partisan. So their verdict is acceptible to the community."
Worked for OJ!
What could possibly go wrong?
The acquittal of Z seems certain now. But that is because we heard the witnesses in open court.
The Prosecutors have had access to this information for over a year. With such information, going to trial is an abuse of power.
Perhaps you'd see it differently if you were in the Defendant's chair, facing life in prison, and paying attorneys' fees.
Whenever I think there are no more sharks to jump for Tradguy, he proves me wrong.
Oooh. Race riots in a state that's issued a million concealed carry permits. This should be entertaining.
Oooh. Race riots in a state that's issued a million concealed carry permits. This should be entertaining.
Michelle Dulak Thomson said...
I hope there are arrangements in place to guard the jurors afterwards if there's a Not Guilty verdict (or even a Guilty verdict "insufficiently harsh," as in manslaughter rather than murder). They won't be in a comfortable position.
I don't think the jurors need special protection. As long as the police establish a presence I think "riots" unlikely. And any violence we do have is much more likely to be opportunistic rather than planned and targeted. I wouldn't venture into any dicey areas for a couple of days after the verdict.
It wouldn't surprise me if there is some looting or violence though. Some people only need an excuse, and there will be protests to give them cover. The MSM is fomenting anger by focusing only on evidence supportive of the narrative.
"Serious question: Is there even a single piece of evidence contradicting Zimmerman's version of events?"
I would say that there is no evidence that directly contradicts Zimmerman's account. There is a slight bit of evidence that would support inferences inconsistent with Zimmerman's account.
traditionalguy said...
The jury is always our friend. They listen to real live cross examined witnesses. They are not partisan. So their verdict is acceptible to the community.
It seems like just last week you told us jurors take the case theory from the prosecutors opening statement and internalize it as their own.
Oh, that was just last week.
Marshall: "The MSM is fomenting anger by focusing only on evidence supportive of the narrative."
Think "Bush stole the election."
That GZ got away with "murder" will become a new addition to the lefts made up "facts".
GZ "getting away with murder" will be showing up in social studies text books within 3 years.
Right along side "super bowl sunday is the day with the highest proportion of women being abused by men" and "women only make 70 cents on the dollar as compared to men" and "physical abuse of women accounts for more birth defects than all other causes".
All lies.
All in textbooks.
Oh, and Alger Hiss is still innocent too.
Serious question: Is there even a single piece of evidence contradicting Zimmerman's version of events?
I think Jeantel had some contradictory statements, regarding the exchange between Trayvon Martin and Zimmerman met at the "T" (see link below). But she admitted to lying under oath, and the reasons she did are still extant.
There is also some indication she was coaxed to make up things:
West continued teasing out whether Jeantel was being coaxed by by de la Rionda when she asked him in deposition “You want that too?” Jeantel initially said that she didn’t ask de la Rionda that question, but later conceded that she had.
If true, this would undermine Ann's view the prosecutor is trying to use the trial for cathartic purposes (which I have some thoughts about when the time is right).
There is no doubt Jeantel's testimony changed. There seems little doubt she changed some statements to make them more incriminatory, and added incriminatory statements.
We can't say, if you get in a fight, and you have a gun, you have the absolute right to use it.
Correct. Neither CCW class I was in (my own and my wife's that I sat in on) advocated such an approach. Polar opposite, in fact. They stressed that use of deadly force is a life-changing, perhaps life-shattering/life-corrupting/life-halting decision and should be made with all of the above in mind. They took pains to make it a wholly unattractive alternative to conflict resolution.
That being said, they admitted, you would still be alive to live in your very own "interesting times", so to speak.
Zimmerman: So, I was walking through to where my car was and he jumped out from the bushes and he said, “What the f**ck’s your problem, homey?” and I got my cell phone out to call 911 at this time.
Singleton: Mm hmm.
Zimmerman: And I said, “Hey man, I don’t have a problem,” and he goes, “No, now you have a problem,” and he punched me in the nose. At that point, I fell down, uh, I tried to defend myself. He just started punching me in the face, and, uh, I started screaming for help. I couldn’t see. I couldn’t breath. Then he started taking my **** –
...
Zimmerman: I, it was dark. I didn’t even see him getting ready to punch me. As soon as he punched me, I fell backwards, um, into the grass and he grabbed me. He was wailing on my head and I, then, I started yelling help. When I started yelling help, he grabbed my head and he started hitting my head into the– I, I tried to sit up and I, and yell for help and then he grabbed my head and started hitting it into the sidewalk. Um, when he started doing that, I slid into the grass to try and get out from under him and so that he would stop hitting my head into the sidewalk and I’m still yelling for help. And, I could see people looking and some guy yells out, I’m calling 911 and I said, “Help me, help me. He’s killing me.” And he puts his hand on my nose and mouth and he says, “You’re gonna die tonight,” and I don’t remember much after that. I just remem, I couldn't breath and then he still kept trying to hit my head against the pavement or I don’t know if there was a sign or what it was. So, I just, uh, when I slid, my jacket and my shirt came up and when he said, “You’re gonna die tonight,” I felt his hand go down on my side and I thought he was going for my firearm. So I grabbed it immediately and as he banged my head again, I just pulled out my firearm and shot him.
/end
Sounds like Zimmerman had a reasonable belief that Martin, who was lying in wait, punched him and knocked him down, smashed his head into the concrete, tried to prevent him from breathing, said "YOU'RE GONNA DIE TONIGHT" and reached for Zimmerman's firearm was trying to kill or at least inflict serious bodily injury on him. Sounds like legitimate self defense to me.
It's Florida. People carry guns. When you find yourself in a neighborhood that has experienced a lot of crime, has a neighborhood watch and you are acting suspiciously by peering in to people's homes you have to expect someone will follow you. Now if you are in this situation and have a case of terminal youth bravado and start punching and banging the head of the person that followed you on a concrete sidewalk then odds are you are committing a form of suicide.
tried to prevent him from breathing
Martin tried to stop him from yelling.
The defense seems to be making the "I couldn't breathe" thing from blood running down the back of his throat from his bloody nose.
By the way, there is an easy way to figure out what water boarding is like. Exhale all the air in your lungs, and try not to breathe.
I've done it, and it's pretty horrible after about 20 seconds. I don't know the physiology of it, but I would suppose if you are ampped up like Zimmerman was, it wouldn't take 20 seconds to get that panicky feeling.
Just read an interesting article on Martin's priors.
Proximate cause of Trayvon's death? His race, almost certainly.
Because he was Black, the school and the cops both soft-peddled his previous 'transgressions' (already too many Blacks in the system, don't you know), the last one resulting in the soft suspension that caused him to be visiting his Dad in Zimmerman's neighborhood, in the first place.
Marshall: "Oh, that was just last week."
Remember, for those arguing the leftist position on any particular issue, history always starts anew with each new day.
The liberal/lefty position must never become slave to "consistency" or "objective principles" or "objective facts".
What's most important is the "political truth".
And in this case, the guy who is "whiter" capped a guy who was "less white".
Ergo: the whiter guy has to be sacrificed to the Tradguys of the world.
You know.
So the Tradguys can feel better about themselves.
What new fact has come out of the trial?
That white people are racist for not understanding Rachel Jenteal.
At best this is an attempted lynching. If you want this, then just get comfortable with who you are. You are part of a long tradition. You don't see it, because lynchers by definition feel justified.
"And he puts his hand on my nose and mouth and he says, 'You’re gonna die tonight...'”
Travon should have just said "shhh"
@Marshall...Check what I said about the burden of proof. I said jury understands accepts the Prosecutor said and stays alert for any narative fail from a good witness.
That did not happen until the day when the white guy said he thought he saw Travon on top and Z on the bottom screaming for help.
But stay tuned.
By the way, there is an easy way to figure out what water boarding is like. Exhale all the air in your lungs, and try not to breathe.
For my 40th birthday, I got a complete checkup complete with an EKG and stress test.
They ramped up my heart rate on a treadmill and were very specific as to the instructions of what would happen right after the 20 minutes on the treadmill were up.
Hooked into a plethora of wires, as soon as the buzzer went off, I was to be manhandled onto a bed, on my side, and breath out and hold it.
No...go jogging for 20 minutes, breath out, and try to hold it out.
Agony.
Still not as bad as sitting through World War Z, though.
At best this is an attempted lynching. If you want this, then just get comfortable with who you are. You are part of a long tradition. You don't see it, because lynchers by definition feel justified.
And why lynch? Because of the perpetuation of lies by the race industry require it. It's OK for some blacks to feel angry and hateful towards whites, and to vote for democrats almost exclusively. But it's not OK for them to riot, because then the country gets upset.
They ramped up my heart rate on a treadmill and were very specific as to the instructions of what would happen right after the 20 minutes on the treadmill were up.
Twenty minutes? You must be in amazing shape.
I think that George Zimmerman's story is mostly true, but there are a couple of points where appears be lying, or perhaps just shading the truth in his favor.
First, he says Trayvon Martin jumped out of the bushes and confronted him with the question "What's the f*ck your problem, homey?"
That's not how you lie and wait for someone and jump them. That's what you would do if they cornered you in the bushes where you are hiding from the creepy guy who is following you.
Zimmerman's reply "I don't have a problem" is a lie. He did have a problem with Martin, that's why he called the police. That's why he was following to see where Martin went.
You will notice, if you view the tape of Zimmerman's interview, that he abruptly has to move the fight from where he says it started to a position several feet away where it actually took place.
You will also notice, in Zimmerman's description of the crucial moment where he says they both went for his gun, that he is able to pull it out of his holster and fire it without having to chamber a round.
This is the gun Zimmerman says he forgot he was wearing while on a trip to the grocery store.
If you haven't yet, you really need to watch the reenactment video of Zimmerman explaining what happened, where, and when. You don't have to believe him, but after seeing it, it's hard not to. You get a good idea about his personality, as well as the layout and sequence of events. Remember this is just 2 days after the shooting, before he lawyered up. You can't have an informed opinion without seeing it.
12 minutes
http://youtu.be/VakGZgJxTi4
Travon should have just said "shhh"
Actually, you may be right: he didn't want him to breathe. I think the action seems more in line with trying to stop him from yelling, but I am not in that hoodlum's mind.
Thing is, when this is over, the same leftists, progressive jews running the media, and racist black race card specialists will not apologize. They will move on to the next opportunity to divide and sow hatred within America.
Sharpton and his long time media publicist, the uberwired into the media Rachel Noerdlinger - will be back in a year or so with the next Tawanna, Jena 6, Duke Rapists, Bell shooting, Vigilante Zimmerman case.
Sharptons team of jewish and black lawyers, led by Sanford Rubenstein, will leverage this case like the other ones - to do lawsuits and corporate and union shakedowns to fill the coffers of Sharptons racist "National Action Network".
Until you know who the enemy is, you cannot beat them. Zimmerman is just another good power and money-making opportunity for Sharpton's Network.
"That's not how you lie and wait for someone and jump them. That's what you would do if they cornered you in the bushes where you are hiding from the creepy guy who is following you.
Zimmerman's reply "I don't have a problem" is a lie. He did have a problem with Martin, that's why he called the police. That's why he was following to see where Martin went."
You should tell everybody how to act in these situations, since you know how we will without being there or meeting us. Of course anyone who varies from your script, we must be lying.
This is the gun Zimmerman says he forgot he was wearing while on a trip to the grocery store.
You don't think that's plausible? My understanding is he wore it because the police told him to, because his wife had been attacked by a pit-bull.
This is also a great argument FOR concealed carry. That is, in an objective world. We have one less hoodlum on the street, and a hero is still alive.
Left Bank of the Charles said...
I think that George Zimmerman's story is mostly true, but there are a couple of points where appears be lying, or perhaps just shading the truth in his favor.
He also quite clearly lied about his reason for leaving the car. At that point he had already followed Martin for a considerable distance and time. He followed Martin on foot because he did not want him to get away.
Thing is, when this is over, the same leftists, progressive jews running the media, and racist black race card specialists will not apologize. They will move on to the next opportunity to divide and sow hatred within America.
That's why I hope Zimmerman is convicted. That way, white America will wake up to the BS, and we can have a real discussion of race relations.
We know it is OK to sacrifice an innocent man to allow cathartic relief for society, so why not put the guy in jail so society can get some balance on this issue.
Left Bank,
Are you saying his recollection is a lie, or his response to Martin was a lie?
Left Bank of the Charles said...
You will also notice, in Zimmerman's description of the crucial moment where he says they both went for his gun, that he is able to pull it out of his holster and fire it without having to chamber a round.
There is another lie here. The 'soft' and clearly overpowered Zimmerman, according to the defense, says that Martin saw his gun, yet Zimmerman was able to unholster the weapon and shoot Martin without a struggle. At a minimum, clearly Martin did not see the weapon.
Left Bank of the Charles said...
You will also notice, in Zimmerman's description of the crucial moment where he says they both went for his gun, that he is able to pull it out of his holster and fire it without having to chamber a round.
There is another lie here. The 'soft' and clearly overpowered Zimmerman, according to the defense, says that Martin saw his gun, yet Zimmerman was able to unholster the weapon and shoot Martin without a struggle. At a minimum, clearly Martin did not see the weapon
Ooops! you are wrong. There was a round in the chamber. That specific gun is designed to be carried with a round in the chamber. It requires no cocking, only a long trigger pull.
Dante said...
"There is another lie here. The 'soft' and clearly overpowered Zimmerman, according to the defense, says that Martin saw his gun, yet Zimmerman was able to unholster the weapon and shoot Martin without a struggle. At a minimum, clearly Martin did not see the weapon."
Ooops! you are wrong.
Clearly I am not wrong.
The purpose of the law of self-defense, particularly in the context of the use deadly defensive force, is to be able to protect yourself from an imminent threat of death or grave bodily harm before that harm occurs, not to require that you actually experience death or grave bodily harm before you may act to protect yourself.
Now let's apply this same concept to traditional social institutions.
What might we learn from that exercise?
As I sit in a waiting room for six months, with a windmill thumping away outside, and every racial group gazing tensely at each other, I'll sigh and think it was all worth it.
Piece by piece problem with this analysis Left.
"That's not how you lie and wait for someone and jump them. That's what you would do if they cornered you in the bushes where you are hiding from the creepy guy who is following you."
-- All facts point to Martin not being cornered. In fact, Jeantel (Janetel?) said that he touched base. He was home free. There is no excuse for believing Martin was cornered; he had to go back into the lion's den, so to speak. Maybe Martin WOULD cop an attitude with a man following him who we are supposed to think he was afraid of, some people are all-bluster like that. But it doesn't matter: Martin went back of his own accord. This does not mesh with your theory he was cornered; it fits perfectly with Zimmerman's account.
"Zimmerman's reply 'I don't have a problem' is a lie."
-- Yes. He lied to the person who had just angrily confronted him who may or may not have been a burglar. You know, a guy openly carrying a knife asked me if I had a problem with him. I also said no. You know why? I did not want to start a fight.
"You will notice, if you view the tape of Zimmerman's interview, that he abruptly has to move the fight from where he says it started to a position several feet away where it actually took place."
-- People can move several feet in a few seconds. This is, well, not at all an unusual thing. How many fights have you been in? I've been in several, and it would be hard for me to pinpoint exactly where we were at any given point.
"You will also notice, in Zimmerman's description of the crucial moment where he says they both went for his gun, that he is able to pull it out of his holster and fire it without having to chamber a round."
-- That is how you're supposed to carry weapons; they have safeties for a reason. This is just gun illiteracy.
"This is the gun Zimmerman says he forgot he was wearing while on a trip to the grocery store."
-- How often do you forget what pocket your cellphone or keys are in? Or, if you're a woman, how often do you forget which section of a purse they are in? If you wear a gun everyday, I bet it gets to be the same.
Unreasonable Homophobe says "Clearly"
Is this your tell for when you are saying something retarded? You precede it with clearly?
Like when President Foodstamps starts his lies "Let me be clear"
You are a fucking joke.
"The 'soft' and clearly overpowered Zimmerman, according to the defense, says that Martin saw his gun, yet Zimmerman was able to unholster the weapon and shoot Martin without a struggle."
-- Believe it or not, holsters are designed so that weapons can be removed from them.
traditional,
"The jury is always our friend. They listen to real live cross examined witnesses. They are not partisan. So their verdict is acceptible to the community."
You mean like with the first Rodney King trial?
traditionalguy said...
@Marshall...Check what I said about the burden of proof. I said jury understands accepts the Prosecutor said and stays alert for any narative fail from a good witness.
That did not happen until the day when
We always knew the pictures and other witness testimony was coming. First the state goes, then the defense. Claiming you were just real time scoring ignores that the defense hadn't even begun to make a case yet.
According to Zimmerman Martin circled his car on foot in a threatening manner. Then, almost immediately afterwards, Zimmerman gets out of his car and follows him on foot, supposedly to find a street sign.
Honestly, who is dumb enough to believe this?
A) There was a round in the chamber, the gun is designed to be carried that way, and it is safe.
B) it only required a long (hard) trigger pull.
C) Zimmerman says Martin saw the gun.
A) and B) are not disputed by the prosecution.
You based your comment on there not being a round in the chamber, and you therefore conclude Zimmerman was lying. But, there was. You don't modify you view that Martin could not have seen the gun.
The episode is consistent with the evidence, that there was a round in the chamber, and you based your conclusion that the gun had no round in the chamber.
Yet, you do not change your view of what could have happened.
That Zimmerman was lying due to the facts is wrong. It could have happened exactly as Zimmerman said.
Now, you could say "Oh, I got new information, that changes my assessment of the events," you blindly double down.
How about, "Oh, it might have happened as Zimmerman said it?"
And CNN airs Zimmerman's social security number on the air.
The state and media will get their lynching, even if the jury won't "do the right thing."
There is no longer rule of law in this country. Bad things happen when the majority of the population realizes this.
You will also notice, in Zimmerman's description of the crucial moment where he says they both went for his gun, that he is able to pull it out of his holster and fire it without having to chamber a round.
So? What conclusion does this bring you to? Very few CCW people I know of that carry just about every day both with "Israeli" carry, ie, not having a round chambered.
At a minimum, clearly Martin did not see the weapon.
There's nothing "clearly" about it. Ever been involved in a sudden life or death situation? Your reaction might not be as rational as you clearly think it would be. People can and do freeze up all the time and it could well have happened here.
"Then, almost immediately afterwards, Zimmerman gets out of his car and follows him on foot, supposedly to find a street sign"
-- It's entirely possible Zimmerman could make a bad decision. If anything, this leads credence to the fact that Martin was now gone. If Martin HAD acted threateningly, then Zimmerman would have no reason to get out of the car (unless he wanted to fight.) The fact he waited for Martin to leave only further points to Martin having had a chance to leave and Zimmerman not wanting a fight.
If you argue that Zimmerman is totally lying about this, show some proof. That's, you know, what you have to do to justify a prosecution.
It also does not matter if Martin saw the weapon, so long as Zimmerman had an honest belief he had.
"He also quite clearly lied about his reason for leaving the car. At that point he had already followed Martin for a considerable distance and time. He followed Martin on foot because he did not want him to get away."
Why is that a lie. The 911 operator ask him if he could see Trayvon. He said no, that he had lost him, then got out to see if he could see where he went.
Of course he didn't want him to get away. There would be no reason to call the cops in the first place if you didn't care about him getting away. That doesn't mean anything. He didn't attack Martin. Martin attacked him and that's all there is to this whole damned case. People who just don't want to accept that are grasping at straws that don't even exist in a lame attempt to pretend something else is there. There is nothing else. Martin attacked, Zimmerman defended, and he's lucky to be alive. Apparently that bothers some people. The want the guy who was attacked to be dead instead, and have Trayvon in jail on a murder charge. Nice.
Matthew Sablan said...
-- Believe it or not, holsters are designed so that weapons can be removed from them.
But quite clearly we are meant to believe that Martin, who was supposed to be in the physically dominant position, saw the gun and then allowed Zimmerman to unholster his gun and shoot him.
Who is dumb enough to believe this?
Zimmerman also lied about moving Martins hands apart after he was shot.
"But quite clearly we are meant to believe that Martin, who was supposed to be in the physically dominant position, saw the gun and then allowed Zimmerman to unholster his gun and shoot him."
-- Yes. There's a reason the gun is called the great equalizer. If I recall, it takes well-trained gun folks only a few seconds to draw, aim and fire. If the target is point blank, it probably doesn't even need the aim step.
bagoh20 said...
"He also quite clearly lied about his reason for leaving the car. At that point he had already followed Martin for a considerable distance and time. He followed Martin on foot because he did not want him to get away."
Why is that a lie.
Because he said he got out of the car to look at street signs. It is a ridiculous lie once you see the layout of the streets.
You keep making assertions and saying clearly.
None of the evidence backs you up on this?
How the fuck do you know Zimmerman is lying about what he did with the thugs hands? He couldn't have moved them underneath his body at some point before his worthless life ended?
You are a fucking racist howling for the lynching of Zimmerman. I hope you end up getting what you deserve at the hands of a Trayvon-like thug or another of Obama's "sons" someday. You are disgusting.
"Zimmerman also lied about moving Martins hands apart after he was shot."
-- Ok, we've been letting you slide. Give us the quote: What exactly did Zimmerman say?
"Because he said he got out of the car to look at street signs. It is a ridiculous lie once you see the layout of the streets"
-- Bzzt. Wrong. Another witness told us she doesn't remember the names of the streets, that they were confusing, and that it is hard to see the street signs.
Include that it was AT NIGHT AND RAINING and suddenly, it seems a lot harder to just see a street sign, isn't it?
Mathew,
-- That is how you're supposed to carry weapons; they have safeties for a reason. This is just gun illiteracy.
To clarify. This gun does not have an eternal safety. It's safety comes from the long hard trigger pull.
But see, this is the kind of thing that will make a certain group of people always believe TM was hunted down and killed.
Matthew Sablan said...
Give us the quote: What exactly did Zimmerman say?
There is no dispute that Zimmerman said this multiple times.
Also: Didn't another witness testify to trying to help Martin? Is it possible that the administered aid may have disrupted how Zimmerman left Martin?
"There is no dispute that Zimmerman said this multiple times."
-- Said WHAT?
"I moved his hands?" How did he move them? When did he move them? Give me the actual quote you're saying is a lie. Let us put your claim to real scrutiny.
Matthew Sablan said...
Include that it was AT NIGHT AND RAINING and suddenly, it seems a lot harder to just see a street sign, isn't it?
He was in his car he could have simply driven up to the next street sign. He could have positioned his car to shine the headlights on the sign. There was absolutely no necessity for him to leave the car to see a street sign. It is a ridiculous lie.
If I recall, it takes well-trained gun folks only a few seconds to draw, aim and fire.
Less, once you hit the magic 5000 iterations. The circumstances of the struggle might have added a tic.
AReasonableMan said...
But quite clearly we are meant to believe that Martin, who was supposed to be in the physically dominant position, saw the gun and then allowed Zimmerman to unholster his gun and shoot him.
A good way to judge someone's bias is by noting what evidence they consider "conclusive" compared to the weight of evidence against their position. Here ARM invents meaning by asserting the evidence shows Martin allowed Zimmerman to draw and shoot him. There is nothing in the testimony or physical evidence supporting this assertion but it is crucial to his conclusion.
It should go without saying that when you have to invent evidence to justify conclusion it's an admission you cannot support that conclusion.
"He was in his car he could have simply driven up to the next street sign. He could have positioned his car to shine the headlights on the sign. There was absolutely no necessity for him to leave the car to see a street sign. It is a ridiculous lie. "
-- So, where is the nearest street sign? How helpful are headlights while rain is coming down? Maybe he thought there was a street sign near by? You claim there was no NECESSITY for him to do something, but you've yet to prove that he CLEARLY did not do it. If anything, all the evidence we have proves he DID leave his car. His stated reason is not clearly false (another witness testified to confusion with the layout of the neighborhood, and the weather makes it clear it may not have been easy to read a sign from far away.)
You've done nothing but stamp your foot and insist without offering proof.
You haven't even been willing to offer the actual word-for-word quote that you want to refute. I'm fine with laziness, but if we want an honest discussion of the case, it requires a little bit of effort.
This whole discussion really points up what a putz George Lucas is.
Ha! This is what I was thinking, too.
You people trying to make a big deal out of Zimmerman saying he moved (spread out, actually) Martin's hands/arms, but that Martin was not found in that way, are missing the obvious Occam's Razor explanation.
1. Zimmerman is continuing his honesty in mentioning the spread hands.
2. Martin was not yet dead when his arms were spread, and he himself pulled them back under his body, probably toward the wound, as anyone would have done.
Zimmerman likely did not know when Marin was dead, and clearly didn't think he was when he told the neighbor to "never mind calling the cops, help me restrain him".
Charging Zimmerman with 2nd degree murder is an outrage.
We can't turn back the clock, as the local 'authorities' have already given in to the Blacks demand for a pound of flesh.
We just have to now hope for our Portia.
Mathew, you are twisting yourself in knots trying to explain this lie. Let's say it was absolutely necessary to get out of the car to see a street sign, which clearly it wasn't. Someone has just circled your car in a threatening manner you then walk to look for the street sign in the exact same direction as the one the threatening youth went. Why not walk in the opposite direction?
This is a transparent lie.
" Let's say it was absolutely necessary to get out of the car to see a street sign, which clearly it wasn't"
-- Full stop. People do not only do what is absolutely necessary. People make mistakes. Try again.
Matthew Sablan said...
You haven't even been willing to offer the actual word-for-word quote
Making a fool of yourself here. Either you have followed the case or you haven't.
Mathew: "I'm fine with laziness, but if we want an honest discussion of the case, it requires a little bit of effort."
Well, that's the point isn't it?
ARM and his pals cannot afford to have an honest discussion.
That would not serve their purposes.
Hence the dishonest points they keep asserting.
"Why not walk in the opposite direction?"
-- Because the guy is gone now, and I think it better to walk TOWARD someone than to turn my back on them? I think I see a street sign right over there, so I can get there and back again? I remember not seeing a street sign the other way?
Do you have a question that doesn't have a litany of good answers?
Do you have PROOF, or is everything subjective "Well maybes?"
"Because he said he got out of the car to look at street signs. It is a ridiculous lie once you see the layout of the streets."
I did see the layout, and he walks you through it in the video. He could be getting out to try and see Martin AND find a street sign.
But, of course to someone who desperately wants to lynch Zimmerman, any possibility that would exonerate him is not accepted, even if it matches the evidence and is completely reasonable. This irrationality is just blood thirsty, and disgusting.
ARM: "Making a fool of yourself here. Either you have followed the case or you haven't."
And there you have it.
I've followed the case; you've on several threads you have not. You've said things which were not factually true about the case (but which people believed early in the investigation only to be later disproven.) If you have a specific quote you think is a lie, I want to see it, and not argue with phantoms.
It doesn't matter why Zimmerman got out of his car. He did nothing wrong in doing so, and as far as I can tell, never does anything illegal the entire night. He was attacked. Martin committed that crime entirely of his own choosing, and that's why he died, period.
ARM @1:59
I don't believe it because its not true. Watch the reenactment tape for goodness sake.
bagoh20 said...
He could be getting out to try and see Martin AND find a street sign.
But he has already said Martin was behaving in a threatening manner "reached into his waistband". Why follow in the exact same direction a few moments later?
Serino - "how do you not know the street names when you have lived there three years?"
traditionalguy: "So I remain very pleased..."
I see.
I hope, then, that you don't mind if I start a "Justice for Fluffy" campaign, and gin up outrage among the rabid animal rights people, til a large number of them threaten riots if traditionalguy isn't immediately arrested and charged with having unnatural relations with a hedgehog.
Evidence? Let's just have a trial and see what evidence comes out. You have nothing to fear if you've done nothing wrong, after all.
Oh, you might have some minor inconveniences -- hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees; death threats; you'll have your SSN shown on CNN, that sort of thing. Nothing, really...compared to what you put that poor hedgehog through in your sex-bunker, you vile bastard.
"Why follow in the exact same direction a few moments later?"
-- Because Zimmerman is an idiot? Because Zimmerman no longer saw him in that direction and thought he was gone?
You need to try and PROVE something and not just question WHY. Because, if you ask why, I can list a bunch of reasons he might have done it, that don't require you to believe the prosecution's case at all.
So, tell me, what PROOF do you have Zimmerman is lying besides "I think people wouldn't do that."
bagoh20 said...
It doesn't matter why Zimmerman got out of his car
You can see how desperate ARM is to maintain his fantasy. He's only focusing on irrelevant details rather than the core issues.
Serino - "how do you not know the street names when you have lived there three years?"
I have lived in my neighborhood for almost 9 years. I know my street, obviously, and the ones I routinely use to get into and out of the suburb...call it four total. There are a couple dozen more in my neighborhood that I couldn't pick out of a lineup if the rest of the choices were racist stereotypical goats.
Your point fails.
"Serino - "how do you not know the street names when you have lived there three years?""
-- Another witness said the same thing, that they did not know the street names. I know maybe a few of the street names from the neighborhood I grew up in, but outside the two blocks, I wouldn't be able to tell you. This shows us nothing except Serino was suspicious.
AReasonableMan said...
According to Zimmerman Martin circled his car on foot in a threatening manner. Then, almost immediately afterwards, Zimmerman gets out of his car and follows him on foot, supposedly to find a street sign.
Complete and utter lie.
If you're white, it's permanent disability.
If you're black, it's your feelings.
Trayvon is justified in attacking Zimmerman because he was being followed. Zimmerman wasn't justified because he hadn't experienced permanent brain injury.
QED
There is no longer rule of law in this country. Bad things happen when the majority of the population realizes this.
Both are points I've been making for some time.
Also, there is no more social contract.
AReasonableMan said...
Serino - "how do you not know the street names when you have lived there three years?"
I like how you're posting this as if Zimmerman didn't have a truthful reply.
I like how you're posting this as if Jenna Lauer didn't testify she had no idea what the street names were either.
Why do you come here to post such nonsensical bullshit about this case?
You guys are free to believe everything Zimmerman has to say. Personally, I'm a little skeptical.
Zimmerman also lied about moving Martins hands apart after he was shot.
Why is this unbelievable? I read a book about big game hunting, and apparently bulls who are shot through the heart can continue to charge for some time, like half a minute or more (I recall 45 seconds, but half a minute is enough). They haven't gotten to that part of the trial, and it's going to be tricky because people tend to not think forensically, and don't want to think about death.
Left Bank of the Charles said...
that he is able to pull it out of his holster and fire it without having to chamber a round.
You need to understand that Zimmerman told the police he carried it with a chamber in the round.
"You guys are free to believe everything Zimmerman has to say. Personally, I'm a little skeptical."
-- But why? You've expressed suspicion. You've called him an outright liar. But you haven't provided a reason for disbelieving except that you don't think people would do that. I didn't think anyone would marry that witchy girl I knew in college, but hey, I was wrong about that too.
AReasonableMan said...
You guys are free to believe everything Zimmerman has to say. Personally, I'm a little skeptical.
of course you are.
You believe in things which are simply untrue.
AReasonableMan said...
But quite clearly we are meant to believe that Martin, who was supposed to be in the physically dominant position, saw the gun and then allowed Zimmerman to unholster his gun and shoot him.
HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA
My goodness, is that stupid...
ARM wants Zimmerman to be found guilty.
Thus, if he can come up with an explanation or assertion that might have happened that would make Zimmerman guilty, than he assumes and asserts that it must have happened.
He then demands you prove that it didn't, and if you can't, Zimmerman must be guilty.
I'd have to guess it is a modern update to the old Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
In any case, if ARM stopped using logical fallacies as arguments, he'd be a mime.
Sidenote: Apparently, Zimmerman when talking to police that night, stated that he believed the street names had been changed. If that's true then, well, that even further proves why he doesn't remember what they are.
Huh. Anyone else having their comments disappear?
Nathan Alexander said...
ARM wants Zimmerman to be found guilty.
Nathan, as I have said numerous times I don't think he is guilty of 2nd degree murder.
You are free to believe everything Zimmerman says.
ARM, you are welcome to believe every nutty conspiracy theory you read on stupid Progressive sites about Zimmerman's motivations and actions.
Personally, I prefer to draw sound conclusions based on analysis of available facts and evidence rather than innuendo.
Let's say it went down this way:
Martin lets up up on Zimmerman because the witness inside called out to knock it off and was calling the police.
Zimmerman pulls his weapon and points it at Martin. Martin throws his hands out to surrender, and says "You got me."
Zimmerman coldly replies, "You're going to die tonight, motherf*cker!" and shoots him.
Martin then falls back with his hands up and out in a pose of surrender, Zimmerman moves his hands to hide that fact.
In the police car later, Zimmerman realizes one of the witnesses might have heard Zimmerman say those words, so Zimmerman says Martin said them.
There's evidence the hands were moved from what Zimmerman described.
There's evidence that "f*ck" was Zimmerman's swear word, while Martin used the swears "creepy-ass cracker" and n*gger".
So is Zimmerman going take the stand and allow himself to get confronted on cross-examination with these alternatives under the watchful eye of the jury on his demeanor?
Is he going to testify about how he keeps his gun locked and loaded at all times, even when he's going to the grocery store where there may be lots of kids running around?
AReasonableMan said...
You are free to believe everything Zimmerman says.
There is no actual evidence to dispute what he has said.
Which presents a rather big problem for your narrative.
AReasonableMan said...
You guys are free to believe everything Zimmerman has to say. Personally, I'm a little skeptical.
Reasonable people don't have to believe everything he says. Reasonable people (1) focus on what the evidence supports and (2) don't invent non-facts to justify other assertions.
Once you do that you realize there is substantial evidence supporting Zimmerman's theory and nearly zero evidence supporting the state. What evidence does support the state is either directly contradicted by physicial evidence (despite testimony Martin was not shot in the back) or off-point (it doesn't matter that someone else would not have gotten out of the car).
The key takeaway from ARM is how his worldview is so incredibly twisted (biased news sources?, instinctive support according to the victim hierarchy?, couldn't resist the opportunity to denigrate political oppoenents?, who knows) he's literally inventing "evidence" to support the conclusion he prefers.
You guys are free to believe everything Zimmerman has to say. Personally, I'm a little skeptical.
People ought to be skeptical, but they ought not to assume he is lying.
That's where reasonable doubt comes from. In this case, that standard will need not be applied, as it is so clear what happened.
I've also been interested in something I've observed the state do in the trial. They seem to be trying to ADD DOUBT!!! They continually make it seem as if "You can't tell much from this or that evidence." What a sham.
I do not know, but I would think the defense would try to do that, but instead the defense seems to be trying to narrow the events down to a single clear narrative supported by the facts.
It's backwards.
(If there is no contrary information, then the areas of doubt ought to go to the defendant's version. The idea this is some Catharsis as posited by Ann would require a clear exposure of the events, not obfuscating events as the state seems to be trying to do, leaving the door open for the race hustlers.)
Is he going to testify about how he keeps his gun locked and loaded at all times, even when he's going to the grocery store where there may be lots of kids running around?
Just how much do you think you know about CCW?
Left Bank of the Charles:
Zimmerman freely offers the contact information for the neighborhood's surveillance camera operators.
If he is making up stuff, why would he do that?
Zimmerman - "I wasn't following him, I was going in the same direction"
There are many people more stubborn and stupid than a reasonable man, some of them probably on the very jury that will decide this case. Facts are stubborn things but easily and eagerly ignored when a particularly satisfying narrative has sunk in deep. I think there is a very good chance that we have a conviction or a hung jury.
Is he going to testify about how he keeps his gun locked and loaded at all times, even when he's going to the grocery store where there may be lots of kids running around?
Do you have any actual understanding of how firearms work?
Nathan, as I have said numerous times I don't think he is guilty of 2nd degree murder.
1) I didn't say "2nd Degree Murder", did I? That's a nice use of one of Inga's typical prevarications.
2) Words are words. Actions are actions. Your actions are you apply a level of hostility toward even innocuous statements by Zimmerman that you don't apply to witnesses who do want Zimmerman convicted of murder. So forgive me if I apply skepticism toward your words. Which is another of Inga's common rhetorical dodges.
3) Please note: my skepticism towards your words has more available evidence than your skepticism toward Zimmerman, but your skepticism is much more hostile. What does that indicate?
"Let's say it went down this way:"
Problem! The witness says that Martin did not stop beating Zimmerman.
Try again?
"So is Zimmerman going take the stand and allow himself to get confronted on cross-examination with these alternatives under the watchful eye of the jury on his demeanor?"
-- The prosecution has to PROVE a case, not construct potential hypotheticals.
"Is he going to testify about how he keeps his gun locked and loaded at all times, even when he's going to the grocery store where there may be lots of kids running around?"
-- That's how many guns are MEANT to be carried.
I've carried a .45 concealed in a crowded mall "locked and loaded"
It was completely legal. And given the instances of people shooting up malls, prudent.
Left Bank of the Charles said...
Let's say it went down this way:
You seem to think your ability to invent a case hypothesis that isn't contradicted by the physical evidence and testimony is actually evidence.
Is this what we do now? We convict if we can think of one single possibility that could have happened? If so the good news is that no one will ever get off again. Of course that's the bad news too.
"Is he going to testify about how he keeps his gun locked and loaded at all times, even when he's going to the grocery store where there may be lots of kids running around?"
The children! The children!
Left Bank:
Let's say it went down this way:
Well, let's say it went down this way.
Trayvon realizes he is killing a man, and in a flash of consciousness realizes what a horrible person he has become. The home invasions. The drug peddling.
He wrestles with Martin, gets the gun, puts it to his own chest, and kills himself.
Could have happened, right? The only problem is there is no evidence for it.
Just like there is no evidence for your version. But there is evidence that it happened just the way Zimmerman said it did.
"Is he going to testify about how he keeps his gun locked and loaded at all times, even when he's going to the grocery store where there may be lots of kids running around?"
The gun is designed to be carried that way, and it is safe to carry that way.
virgil xenophon said...
"IMO there is every possibility of a reverse OJ outcome--the jury being cowed..."
Wasn't OJ's jury cowed to acquit him? That would not be a reverse OJ, but would be following the OJ's jury's footsteps.
If the gloves don't fit, you must acquit.
If no gloves fit, you must not acquit.
In the era of Obama, a scapegoat filmmaker is sent to jail to cover up the Dearest Dear Leader's Benghazi debacles.
May be Zimmerman should tout his Hispanic heritage, downplay his Jewishness?
In America, your guilt is to be determined by the color of your skin.
Left Bank of the Charles: Obviously you have heard the expression "locked and loaded" and I assume you know what "loaded" means. Do you know what "locked" means in relation to a Kel-Tec PF-9 9mm pistol? A couple of sentences will likely do. Thanks.
AReasonable man wrote:
"There is another lie here. The 'soft' and clearly overpowered Zimmerman, according to the defense, says that Martin saw his gun, yet Zimmerman was able to unholster the weapon and shoot Martin without a struggle. At a minimum, clearly Martin did not see the weapon".
except of course the struggle he was already in where Trayvon was bashing his head into the concrete. Your argument literally makes no sense whatsoever.
Just to lay it out for you, they're involved in the struggle Trayvon sees the gun. Zimmerman sees that Trayvon sees the gun. They both go for it (so you could say that Trayvon stopped bashing his head in long enough to use his hand for a different purpose) while Trayvon is still on top of Zimmerman.
Zimmerman gets to it first and shoots Trayvon.
how do you not know the street names when you have lived there three years?
I see the theory has expanded -- Zimmerman called the police, then lied to them about not knowing what the streets were, all to give himself a cover story for stalking and killing Martin.
Fiendishly clever of him, really.
Michelle Dulak Thomson said...
"The trouble is that riots might be improbable in Central FL..."
Like voters and protesters, rioters can be bused in.
Zimmerman's team claim that the screams immediately proceeding the shooting are Zimmerman's but Zimmerman claims that Martin has his hand over Zimmerman's mouth immediately preceding the shooting trying to choke him.
If the head's split, you must acquit!
how do you not know the street names when you have lived there three years?
one of the witnesses already addressed that. A lot of the streets are unmarked.
AReasonableMan said...
Zimmerman's team claim that the screams immediately proceeding the shooting are Zimmerman's but Zimmerman claims that Martin has his hand over Zimmerman's mouth immediately preceding the shooting trying to choke him.
^ That demonstrates a willful ignorance that is pretty pathetic.
Is he going to testify about how he keeps his gun locked and loaded at all times, even when he's going to the grocery store where there may be lots of kids running around?
I'd be surprised if he testified at all.
On the other hand, if he does testify and the prosecution tries the argument you make above, expect the defense to recall every police witness to the stand so they can inform the jury that they carry their guns that way and it is entirely normal to do so.
Honestly, now. When you see a cop, do you scream in terror and hide the children? No? Is this because you're ignorant of how guns are used, or because you assume police have magic powers that make otherwise-dangerous guns safe in their presence?
Zimmerman's team claim that the screams immediately proceeding the shooting are Zimmerman's but Zimmerman claims that Martin has his hand over Zimmerman's mouth immediately preceding the shooting trying to choke him.
Do you have a link for this? I doubt that is what the defense will say. Zimmerman said he couldn't breathe, but I am supposing the state will say that is on account of the blood going down the back of his throat. You know, the one Trayvon Martin broke.
AReasonableMan said...
Zimmerman's team claim that the screams immediately proceeding the shooting are Zimmerman's but Zimmerman claims that Martin has his hand over Zimmerman's mouth immediately preceding the shooting trying to choke him.
Untrue. Zimmerman claims Martin stopped covering his mouth and started struggling for his gun.
ARM doesn't even try to consider whether his allegations fit the facts. He's just throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks.
Dante said...
Do you have a link for this?
I'm watching the live telecast and just heard him say it on tape. It should be on youtube this evening.
Notice how this differs from the silly 'areasonableman' narrative:
"I fell backwards onto my back. The suspect got on top of me. I yelled 'Help' several times. The suspect told me 'shut the (expletive) up' as I tried to sit up right, the suspect grabbed my head and slammed it into the concrete sidewalk several times," Zimmerman wrote. "I continued to yell 'Help.' Each time I attempted to sit up, the suspect slammed my head into the sidewalk. My head felt like it was going to explode."
Zimmerman wrote that he tried to slide out from under Martin, but that Martin covered his mouth and nose and stopped his breathing.
"At this point I felt the suspect reach for my now exposed firearm and say 'Your [sic] gonna die tonight mother (expletive),'" Zimmerman wrote. "I unholstered my firearm in fear for my life as he had assured he was going to kill me and fired one shot into his torso. The suspect sat back allowing me to sit up and said 'you got me.'"
Good thing Zimmerman had the savvy to make all this up!!!
AReasonableMan said...
I'm watching the live telecast and just heard him say it on tape.
You're full of shit.
AreasonableMan wrote:
Zimmerman's team claim that the screams immediately proceeding the shooting are Zimmerman's but Zimmerman claims that Martin has his hand over Zimmerman's mouth immediately preceding the shooting trying to choke him.
do you not know how a fight works? If someone is trying to cover your nose or mouth, you are similarly struggling and trying to move your head or his arm. Zimmerman described a whole sequence of attacks where TM was on top of him, punching hi, putting his hand off his nose, and also grabbing his head and smashing it into the pavement. And Zimmerman was meanwhile trying to move his body as the fight progressed to the grass so that his head wasnt smashed on the concrete.
If you watch any college wrestling where they grapple with each other its not one singe move and then the fighs over. So why are you describing a fight as if it would occur that way?
Marshal said...
Untrue. Zimmerman claims Martin stopped covering his mouth and started struggling for his gun.
He definitely did not say struggling. Just to keep the narrative straight, Zimmerman is 'soft' with no fighting abilities at all, he loses all struggles.
What is funny is that AReasonableMan doesn't understand the Zimmerman statements refuting her bullshit are already available and there is no need to look on "Youtube later"
Vindication of Zimmerman or his conviction means little to the long term power scam of the left, the progressive jews of the media, and the racist blacks.
It is a powerful coalition that uses each "national race" case they create, however bogus, to get more money, more power, more clout in the Democrat Party.
It is the old strategy &dream of the Jewish Bolsheviks..embraced by later beievers in it as a tactic , like the Nazis and New Left, the Alinsky people...to create class enemies, and use those germinated divisions to intimidate and control.
Once done with Zimmerman, they toss him on the scrapheap along with Crusty Mangum and the Lacrosse Players, the Jena 6 (half whom are in jail now)..
Search for fresh targets.
Remember that the prime objective is to create class enemies, cast them as people with much to be ashamed about (landowners and capitalists, patriarchial oppressors of White or White Hispanic privilege.).
They have cowed much of the corporate world into fear of people like Sanford Rubenstein suing them at Sharptons behest if they fail to "embrace diversity" and pay the right shakedown fees. Whites in school are taught to be ashamed of their history, and need to endlessly apologize to the endlessly aggrieved.
I sadly believe that the system is so warped now with people divided into class enemies that political and judicial reform is looking less and less likely to head off a 2nd Civil War.
A war the left and progressive Jews want to avoid. As their goal is a peaceful transformation of America - wealth redistributed along class and racial lines, a dictatorship of the Elites that know what is best for he proletariate running things. Into a better Soviet Union than the last one. One more socialist, with less need for Gulags and liquidations.
But blacks and unions need to the the "strong arm" if need be.
And the populace does need to be disarmed for the good of progress and social justice, in their plans.
I think it is fine if you guys want to believe everything Zimmerman has to say. It fits with the narrative that Zimmerman is simply a victim of race-baiting coloreds and a jew-controlled media. Maybe that is reality.
I am a little skeptical. I don't think that my view is entirely unreasonable. Maybe I am wrong.
It is hysterical tradguy actually posted that the public will accept a jury's verdict of not guilty.
Wow.
AREASONABLEMAN wrote:
He definitely did not say struggling. Just to keep the narrative straight, Zimmerman is 'soft' with no fighting abilities at all, he loses all struggles.
the whole fight is a struggle. What are you even talking about? Are you talking about the struggle over the gun, or the struggle with Trayvon?
Reaching for the gun doesn't exist in a vacuum. Watch a restyling match sometime when someone is trying to pin someone for an example of what that struggle looks like.,its not like they just stand there, then do a single move. Then stand there, then do a separate move, all done in a vacuum and separate from one another. They're grappling.
Yes AReasonableMan, when there is no actual evidence to contradict what someone is saying, we tend to accept their story.
Original Mike said...
"Is he going to testify about how he keeps his gun locked and loaded at all times, even when he's going to the grocery store where there may be lots of kids running around?"
The children! The children!
====================
ARM ought to think about that anytime he sees a cop in a grocery store. Safetyless Glock, round in the chamber.
Or, not that he is as concerned about them as he is with cops or some citizen with a legal CCW...all the black thugs on the streets and in grocery stores sporting their illegal guns.
AReasonableMan said...
He definitely did not say struggling. Just to keep the narrative straight, Zimmerman is 'soft' with no fighting abilities at all, he loses all struggles.
I bet this makes sense to ARM. Apparently Trayvon reached for George's gun with his third hand.
Zimmerman - "that doesn't even sound like me"
- referring to the screams for help on the 911 call.
There are three (count them) THREE streets in the community and he is the neighborhood watch captain.
@Cedarford: I think it was "Left Bank of the Charles" (not ARM) who was concerned about spontaneous discharge.
Jenna Lauer, who is or was on the HOA, testified that the street changed names at a point and even she didn't know where the new name started. Apparently the entrance to the subdivision has one name, then when you come up to the circle the name changes.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा