Justice and Security: Neighborhood Watch Captain Attacks, Kills Unarmed Teenager

[adoucette]

Agreed. It indicates he was not severely beaten and got no blood on his clothing, indicating that he was not bleeding severely either.

Which is not required for a self defense claim in Florida.

He has an arrest for violence and a court judgment against him for violence. That's a history of violence no matter what spin you put on it.

I'm not spinning it, you are.

Zimmerman was charged with resisting arrest without violence in 2005 when he argued with a cop busting his friend for underage drinking.

The charge specifically said WITHOUT VIOLENCE.

Also in 2005, Zimmerman’s ex-fiancée accused him of shoving her during an argument at her Orlando home. He responded with similar accusations against her and they both obtained protective orders.

He was NOT arrested for this.
Had VIOLENCE been involved he would have been.

That is correct. The police chief has since stepped down over that decision.

No that's not corrrect. The police in fact wanted to charge him with manslaughter, they didn't because the DA said they didn't have enough evidence.

The Police Chief took a temporary leave because the publicity around the issue was making it impossible to do his job. The new police chief wasn't involved so no 24/7 news following him/asking questions.

The DA's the guy with the real juice, not the police.
Indeed any arrest by the police means essentially nothing until you actually get charged by the DA. If the DA won't charge the guy, arresting him is a waste of everyone's time.

 

[quadraphonics]

It is: irrelevant.

Your skin color is clearly, immediately relevant to your whole premise:

If you slap cuffs on Zimmerman despite the law to placate the public, then the rule of law goes out the window. I fear that more than I do lone, gun-toting, self-appointed, neighborhood watchmen

The fact of the matter is that a white person has little to fear from gun-toting racist "watchmen," nor much to fear from the racist structure of many of our laws (or, more precisely, the institutions that embody them). A black person may feel very differently - he faces a real probability of being targetted by the armed nuts for his race, and is likely much less sanguine about the value of the "rule of law." We're talking about a legal system that explicitly endorsed enslaving black people for many decades, and then endorsed segregation, has looked the other way at countless racist murders and abuses - including this one - and to this very day functions as a means of systemic oppression of black men.

Basically, that calculus you present as an easy choice looks very different if your skin color puts you on the wrong side of both the vigilantes and the cops - as it did Martin.

It would be like me asking you if your position would be different (and outrage lessened) if Zimmerman (half-hispanic) had shot a white guy.

That would also be perfectly relevant, and the answer is obviously "yes." A regular murder for pedestrian motives is less troubling than a racist hate crime. Not sure why you'd find that irrelevant or somehow damning of me.

Meanwhile, you and I both know perfectly well that none of this would have happened if Trayvon Martin had been white. Zimmerman would never have targetted and stalked him in the first place, let alone killed him. And even if he had, the response of the police and legal authorities wouldn't have been so preposterous and negligent. Frankly, your narrow concern with legalisms, in the face of these overbearing factors, is kinda troubling.

Minorities have MORE to fear from a lack of equally and justly applied laws, or laws being ignored when the public finds them inconvenient.

You say that as if the entire issue here isn't exactly that the existing laws are applied in a racially unequal, unjust way. As if the entire SYG law wasn't crafted and enacted exactly as a sop to racists in the first place.

And, more to the point, as if anyone you're addressing is actually advocating throwing the law out the window. What people are demanding is that a proper legal criminal investigation take place, presumably followed by the usual due process. The fact of the matter is that it is not at all clear that the police and DA acted properly in declining to arrest or bring charges, or that Zimmerman is in the clear. Indeed, it now looks like there will be a grand jury, and Zimmerman may well face trial after all - without throwing out any laws. The fact that you're endorsing the reading of this law as exonerating Zimmerman and indicating that the DA acted correctly - and using that as a basis to slam their critics as advocates of lawlessness and mob justice - is, again, pretty troubling.

That certain minorities want the ex post facto application of a new law in this case sets a bad precedent

Who, exactly, has advocated that? This is a strawman on your part, from what I can tell.

Plus, what if he is tried and acquitted?

Well, we'd at least have seen all the evidence and ensured that it was considered properly, and that everyone involved had their day in court. We'd have some reason to believe that he got away with murder for something other than racism on the cops' part.

I don't think you'k the man's hand and walk away happy.

Maybe, maybe not - it would depend on what came out at the trial. Regardless, it would still be easier to swallow than the pat on the back he got from the cops.

One thing you've made clear is that you want him found guilty, so the implication that you rather do want the public outrage to control the verdict in this case.

What a load of horseshit. I think he's guilty, and I also think that a proper investigation and fair trial will reach that outcome. Your repeated attempts to strawman me as an advocate of mob justice are both cheap and offensive.

If you wanted the current law applied to this case, and the law to be changed to prevent this in the future, that seems fair-minded, but that's not the vibe I'm getting.

Well, since you seem intent on addressing the most prejudicial possible strawmen you can come up with, I can't say I give two shits about what "vibe" you're getting.

Yeah, people are pissed. This case is a travesty of justice. That doesn't add up to mob rule.

The vibe I get is that the lynch mob. That's not problematic for minorities in this case (oh wait, Zimmerman IS a minority), but lynch mobs are not the friends of minorities usually.

So, let me get this straight: the racist who murdered a teen for existing while black, and the cops and DA who winked at him and let him go, are staunch advocates of the rule of law. And the people saying that's bullshit and demanding a real criminal process, are the lynch mob.

Right.

And since you've chosen to address your criticisms of me to "minorities," I'll go ahead and let you know that I'm a white male.

 

[static76]

Zimmerman's clothing was the most interesting thing in the video. It's one thing to be able to clean blood off the head(though you would think he would need bandages), but another thing to clean his clothes of blood stains.

Should be interesting to see if the took photos.

 

[quadraphonics]

Why should I take your word for it?

Because I'm telling the truth, and you'll save yourself future embarassment by declining to dispute me.

Of course, I'm perfectly aware that you'll do no such thing. I'm counting on it. That's how I'm going to increase the level of embarassment you'll incur.

If you have such great equipment then post a decent YouTube like I linked to.

The great equipment is playback equipment. And, again, the whole point was that I'm an expert listener who's able to discern things about speech, especially in noise conditions, that most everyone else can't hear reliably.

 

[billvon]

The charge specifically said WITHOUT VIOLENCE.

The actual arrest record:
===========
07/18/2005
Div 10
OKane, Julie H

Criminal Felony
Closed

CR-RESISTING OFFICER WITH VIOLENCE
BATTERY ON LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
2005-MM-010436-A-O
ZIMMERMAN, GEORGE MICHAEL
===========

He was NOT arrested for this.
Had VIOLENCE been involved he would have been.

His own words:

==============
Zimmerman also disclosed that he had been arrested in the past.

In 2005, Zimmerman was arrested for an assault on an officer and resisting arrest after an incident in a local bar. Zimmerman explained that the case was born out of mistaken identity.

"I was in an altercation with an undercover officer that was taking part in a ATF sting for underage drinking," Zimmerman wrote in the application obtained by CNN. "He never told me he was an officer and assaulted me first ."

Zimmerman entered a six-month pre-trial diversion program diversion program as part of a plea deal in that case, court documents show.

Later that same year, Zimmerman and his then fiance both filed for domestic violence protection order against each other after a scuffle that involved pushing and punching, documents show.

(CNN, 3/23/12)
=================

It will be interesting to see how that can be spun by the pro-Zimmerman crowd.

The police in fact wanted to charge him with manslaughter, they didn't because the DA said they didn't have enough evidence.

Hmm. I guess Lee was lying when he said that . . "his department has neither the evidence nor legal grounds to arrest Zimmerman, who he said was legally carrying the concealed 9 mm pistol the night of the shooting." (CNN story, 03/22/12)

The Police Chief took a temporary leave because the publicity around the issue was making it impossible to do his job.

Same story: "SANFORD, Fla. -- The city commission on Wednesday gave a vote of “no confidence” to beleaguered police Chief Bill Lee Jr., under fire for his department’s investigation into the killing of Trayvon Martin, the unarmed teen shot last month by a neighborhood watch volunteer.

The measure was passed 3 to 2, and comes after a tumultuous two weeks for Lee, whose department has failed to bring charges against George Zimmerman, 28, who told investigators he shot Martin in self-defense after the teen attacked him on Feb. 26."

But I guess that's unrelated.

The DA's the guy with the real juice, not the police.

The DA does not arrest people - the police do. They did not arrest Zimmerman, which is what much of the outrage is over.

Indeed any arrest by the police means essentially nothing until you actually get charged by the DA. If the DA won't charge the guy, arresting him is a waste of everyone's time.

Yep. And now the DA has been replaced by a special prosecutor over his handling of the issue. (Sorry, I meant he probably just took a temporary leave because the publicity around the issue was making it impossible to do his job.)

 

[billvon]

Should be interesting to see if the took photos.

If they did I have a feeling they will be regrettably misplaced.

 

[quadraphonics]

Florida does NOT have an "imperfect Self Defense" statute as some states do.
Assuming he wasn't drunk (and there's no reason to believe he was) even if he had had a beer or two would have no impact on his claim of self-defense.

But it would have a considerable bearing on the reliability of his statements that the self-defense claim is based on. And his character.

Again, this sort of test is standard procedure in homicides. The fact that it wasn't done is a damning indictment of the police handling of the case.

At least I get my head out of Wiki every now and again.

The problem is that you never get your head into Wikipedia.

And I suggested google as well, if you don't like Wikipedia.

But don't let that distract you from your line of vacuous sniping. It's doing wonders for your credibility as a fair, mature, impartial commentator.

And no, I'm not looking for a pretense to take his word for it, I've been quoting the testimony that the papers released.

What obvious horseshit. You've been here playing defense attorney for Zimmerman for pages now.

They had Zimmerman at the police for hours, they record those sessions.
If he was high or drunk that would be obvious

If you think that, then you don't know much about how alcohol and drugs can affect people.

and no one has said what forensic value his shirt would be.

His story is that he shot Martin at close range in a struggle. That would result in all manner of clear forensic evidence on his shirt and jacket. This is so obvious that it doesn't need to be stated, obviously.

Oh, so now if I don't know some little detail about the case or about previous cases I can't comment on them?
That' your new standard, be an expert or STFU?

The standard is "familiarize yourself with the major, widely-reported features of the issue or STFU." I was very explicit about that, many times. Do you have some reading comprehension problems or something?

The problem with Wiki is on a story like this too many biased people like you get on it and start making it say what they want.

If you want to dispute the validity of anything specific in the Wikipedia accounts, by all means do so. Or, go ahead and use any other source to your liking - I recommended google at the outset, you may recall.

Or, better yet, go on making a total asshat out of yourself by beating your chest at me instead of learning basic, widely-reported facts of the issue.

And yet the rules of this forum are YOU make the claim, YOU provide the data to back it up.

Which you won't (or can't) do.

It's "won't," and you can go ahead and demand that the powers that be sanction me for my violation of the rules, if you think that's the situation.

But I've always seen that rule interpretted as proportional to the extraordinarity of the claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Statements of obvious, well-known fact are just that. You can go ahead and insist that basic, widely-known facts are claims in dispute, but I'm not going to go along, and so it's going to be obvious that you're trying to gin up a pretext to dismiss inconvenient facts. And so it is, and so you are getting zero traction here. All of which I'm quite happy with - so what makes you think you can browbeat me into going along? You have that much faith in your own petulance?

You don't like his testimony because it corroborates Zimmermans.

Why do you keep using the word "testimony" to describe witness statements given to police?

And, yes, I dislike when people lie to help back up liars who are covering their asses for murdering innocent teenagers. Not sure why you view that as an indictment of myself.

And yet even thought your whole case rests on the fact that a witness contradicts that crucial testimony

Not "a" witness. Multiple of them. I've been very clear about this.

and yet STILL you can't provide a link to this witnesses statement.

Why not Quad?

Not "can't," but "won't." I've been very, very clear about this issue, several times now. Who, exactly, do you think you're going to fool by lying about me at this juncture? Yourself?

That one bit of testimony is what appears to be keeping him out of jail.

I've seen nothing to support that assertion. How is it that you claim to know the calculus of the DA so intimately?

If that testimony was seriously challenged then the State could argue at a prelim to a Fl judge (or Grand Jury) that they could impeach that corroborating witness and thus proceed to arrest him.

And that may well happen when said Grand Jury is convened.

Or are you even aware that this case is headed to grand jury in early April? That's what happens when you argue from the cultivated ignorance of your right-wing propaganda outlets.

I wonder if you're aware that one of the officers at the scene that night wanted to arrest Zimmerman but was overruled by the prosecutor - and in response filed an affadavit expressing his dismay at said impropriety?

No Quad, I'm not going on a wild goose chase on your say so.
Your claim, your responsibility to provide the links.

Again, I'd much rather have you repeatedly, proudly advertizing your ignorance of the basic facts multiple times in every response to me.

Do you think anyone else here is so ignorant of these facts? I don't.

Hmmm, I don't believe any info was from RW propaganda outlets,

Probably because you do not recognize it as propaganda, since you are part of the right-wing identity group it caters to. It's a real deficiency in your intellect.

but then you haven't posted any support for your claims.
Why not try that for a change?

For about the millionth time now: those "claims" - statements of well-known facts - do not require "support," and I prefer watching you battle against reality to endorsing the inanity that reality is subject to dispute by the likes of you.

And yet you can't actually point to any such advocacy.

The fact that you can't even recognize how obviously racist you are is a problem for you, not for me.

I do believe I've read them all and none contradict the key corroborating witness.

Guess you didn't try very hard, then.

You must mistake me for someone who actually cares what you think?

What you are is someone who can't stand to be contradicted and shown to be wrong, biased, irrational, ignorant and - worst of all - unintimidating.

This makes you a fat, juicy target for trolling.

Then how do you account for the DA telling the police that there isn't sufficient evidence to arrest him?

The DA is a racist hack. Which is why he's been removed and replaced with someone competent.

You claim to have undisputed facts that show what I've posted is wrong,

The undisputed fact is that there are other witness statements that contradict the one you are hung up on. And there are.

but even though OTHERS might be interested in these facts you claim to have, you won't post them because .......????

Because they aren't in dispute. That's why nobody but you has expressed any doubts about this stuff. Others have, in point of fact, already brought these things up and been discussing them. You don't seem to have much of a grasp of this thread at all.

The only rational conclusion is that if you had them you would have posted them.

So, again, you are asserting that there are no other witness statements that contradict the one you are fixated on?

Guess I'll have to report you to the Mods, see if they can get you to actually support your claims.

By all means.

But, you've seen both how sympathetic they are to complaints coming from you (even when they aren't totally spurious bullshit undertaken as a personal vendetta), and also exactly how little fear I have of them, so I'm unclear on what you think you'll gain. You really think you're going to intimidate me by threatening to go and tattle to the teacher? Laughable.

 

[Tiassa]

This and That

Yes I am.

Zimmerman hasn't been talking.
Only a general outline of what he said has been leaked.
So I was curious as to the source for your contention that "the rest of his statement is decaying."

So Tiassa, enough with the ad hominums, my reading is fine.

Well, like I said, the question might seem condescending. But my point is that Zimmerman's story isn't holding up. This—

And that's fine, if you want to say you have no source for that statement and it's just your opinion, that's an ok answer.
I just thought you might have had more

—isn't just a case of sourcing. I'm sure if I looked I could find plenty of "sources" expressing the opinion that the story doesn't match the facts, but I also think this is apparent. For instance, the points you noted above, in #123, aren't wrong in the question of criminally convicting Zimmerman, though I might reiterate Blow's point about whether or not self-defense is transferable, and whether Martin had the right to stand his own ground. But your points about criminally convicting Zimmerman came in response to the proposition that "according to Zimmerman" isn't the most reputable phrase right now.

I agree that he cannot be convicted without some spectacular and unexpected piece of evidence, such as a hitherto unknown video of the whole encounter, and that doesn't seem to be forthcoming. But as I noted, there is a difference between not guilty and innocent.

It is my understanding that we have yet to see a medical record documenting the broken nose. If Zimmerman was sporting a broken nose in that security video, it's curious how little swelling there is. Not that it's impossible, but the absence of blood, which some have disagreed about, is not the only suggestive lack in those frames.

Zimmerman's claim to have been blindsided is in doubt because a witness claims to have heard Martin ask him, "Why are you chasing me?" You might think this is a partial witness, but your thirteen year-old witness is unimpeachable, it still says nothing about how the fight started, and thus comes back to a question of Zimmerman's right to shoot someone if it turns out he was getting his ass kicked in a fight he started.

We can agree that he's going to get away with it. Getting away with what seems to be where we disagree.

• • •​

Tiassa you do know the obvious solution for his family don't you? Act suspicious in this dick heads area get him to chase YOU and then shoot him. Of course this is a bad precidet but if the law protects him then it protects you too and obviously you would "be in fear" of the basted who killed your brother/son/lover etc

Of course there's that. As I suggested to Bells:

That, of course, is part of why people are so furious about the shooting. The whole idea of shooting someone for looking at you wrong is one of the main concerns about specifically belligerent self-defense laws. It's not like we couldn't see something like this coming. I guess, in the end, some people think that, in consideration of all the real crimes that might have been prevented by this law—that would not have been prevented under a normal self-defense consideration—the sacrifice of Trayvon Martin is worth it. I mean, come on, nobody was really going to say, back when this law was passed, that this wasn't going to happen, right? So, yeah. People knew when this law was passed that there would be sacrificial lambs.

And it's worth it, to them. Some might suggest that it is practical to make this trade, but we'll see how they feel when the victims' advocates are reminding, "All he did was offer to buy her a drink," or, "Why do black people get to say 'nigger'?" (What? Many argue that a woman is culpable in her own rape if she accepts the drink. And, hey, people have been brutally murdered for being "niggers", so watch who you say the word around—they might just stand their ground and shoot you in self-defense.)​

The problem with giving the belligerent defenders their way in this is that an eye for an eye leaves everybody blind. If we all just shrug, strap on, and start shooting one another for looking at us wrong, nothing is ever going to get better until we're extinct.

 

[Asguard]

Actually I was thinking after I wrote that, they don't even have to go to that much effort if his supporters are right, all they have to do is walk up to him on the street and start harassing him till he turns around to them then shoot him because they are "afraid he might hurt them". Thats essentially what HE did so if they are right that would be legal.

As for your comment about extintion, there's always a big fence and armed guards, if someone can prove they aren't a nut job then you could let them out, otherwise just wait till they kill themselves and you get the land back

 

[adoucette]

Because I'm telling the truth, and you'll save yourself future embarassment by declining to dispute me.

So prove it.
Post a video that is better than the previous analysis.

The great equipment is playback equipment. And, again, the whole point was that I'm an expert listener who's able to discern things about speech, especially in noise conditions, that most everyone else can't hear reliably.

So you say.
Prove it.

 

[adoucette]

His story is that he shot Martin at close range in a struggle. That would result in all manner of clear forensic evidence on his shirt and jacket. This is so obvious that it doesn't need to be stated, obviously.

Nope, that would be determined based on the powder burns on Martin's TS, not Zimmermans.

No matter where Martin is the gun is always going to have the same relative relation to Zimmerman's shirt.

 

[adoucette]

Guess you didn't try very hard, then.

Yeah, I've looked.
And clearly you're wrong.
But since you will never believe me you might ask Tiassa why he says he would acquit then.

 

[pjdude1219]

So prove it.
Post a video that is better than the previous analysis.



So you say.
Prove it.

funny how when ever you fail to prove anything you demand others to prove their statements. your hung up on one witness( out of many and the only one who actually gives an exculpatory statement in Zimmerman's defense) while ignoring a statement from another witness that the police leaked an altered statement from her from a damning one to an exculpatory one thereby calling any and all exculpatory statements into question.

 

[adoucette]

The DA is a racist hack. Which is why he's been removed and replaced with someone competent.

Who also hasn't had Zimmerman arrested.

The undisputed fact is that there are other witness statements that contradict the one you are hung up on. And there are.

If it's undisputed then why not simply post one in this thread for ease of reference?

Because they aren't in dispute. That's why nobody but you has expressed any doubts about this stuff.

So again, if they aren't in dispute, ask Tiassa why he would acquit?

So, again, you are asserting that there are no other witness statements that contradict the one you are fixated on?

I'm not fixated on it, but it appears to be the only one between Zimmerman and jail, so I'm curious why you won't post the witness statement that you think contradicts it.

But, you've seen both how sympathetic they are to complaints coming from you (even when they aren't totally spurious bullshit undertaken as a personal vendetta), and also exactly how little fear I have of them, so I'm unclear on what you think you'll gain. You really think you're going to intimidate me by threatening to go and tattle to the teacher? Laughable.

Yeah, well I was hoping James would step in and ask you to support your claims, but alas you're right, decent moderation here is way too much to hope for I guess.

 

[pjdude1219]

Nope, that would be determined based on the powder burns on Martin's TS, not Zimmermans.

No matter where Martin is the gun is always going to have the same relative relation to Zimmerman's shirt.

um there would be a major difference in powder on zimmermans shirt if he in a scuffle shot him or shot him when seperated. yes only maybe a yard at most difference but you could tell the two apart.

 

[adoucette]

funny how when ever you fail to prove anything you demand others to prove their statements. your hung up on one witness( out of many and the only one who actually gives an exculpatory statement in Zimmerman's defense) while ignoring a statement from another witness that the police leaked an altered statement from her from a damning one to an exculpatory one thereby calling any and all exculpatory statements into question.

And yet all my claims are backed by links to reputable papers and to that audio analysis, while none of your or Quads claims are backed up by anything.

Like the one you just made.
Is it really too much to ask for you to link to the source of that claim or to at least post the ladies quote?


I'm not hung up on one witness, I'm just saying it is that one witness that is what is keeping Zimmerman out of jail.

Seems pretty clear that that one witness is key to this because he appears to be the only one who saw the actual fight and has said it was Zimmerman who was calling for help.

Again, from all the witness statements I know about,

No one saw the fight start.
No one saw the shot fired.
One witness did see much of the fight.

Others heard it, but didn't see it (or much of it, and the 13 year old says the guy in the red was on the bottom before his dog got away and he went to catch him).
Others saw it, like Cutcher, but only after Martin had been shot.

 

[adoucette]

um there would be a major difference in powder on zimmermans shirt if he in a scuffle shot him or shot him when seperated. yes only maybe a yard at most difference but you could tell the two apart.

You can tell the distance that Martin is away from the gun from Martin's shirt, but no matter where Martin is, the gun is always going to be within arm's distance of Zimmerman's shirt.

 

[adoucette]

I agree that he cannot be convicted without some spectacular and unexpected piece of evidence, such as a hitherto unknown video of the whole encounter, and that doesn't seem to be forthcoming. But as I noted, there is a difference between not guilty and innocent.

I agree, and I've never claimed that he was innocent, only that if that witness statement holds up the Florida Self Defense law will be on his side, and I've said from the very first post, that law needs rework.

 

[parmalee]

@ adoucette:

The "audio analysis" to which you linked in post #102, while perhaps sincere, is amateurish at best. Seriously, the guy only examined amplitude--he didn't even apply the most basic of notch or band-pass filters.

Now were the original recording made under the most optimal of conditions, i.e. in a studio with absolutely NO external disturbances, such an "analysis" might have been somewhat meaningful. But not really...

There's a reason that people use sophisticated hardware and software for these types of things.

 

[keith1]

Z forced an encounter, by going forward, after being told (taped record) not to, by the dispatcher. And there lies the weakness in the law. Any good professional predator can easily provoke to anger anyone...anyone , so as to be able to fire the weapon, and "bag their limit".
There's nothing to stop the abuse, except making an example. At least of the lawmakers themselves.