• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

George Zimmerman

Les Grossman said:
They wont be told they have to accept Zimmerman's account as fact. They will be told, though, if they're not sure whether Zimmerman's story is true or not - then, he's not guilty. It's only if they're certain it's NOT true that he should be found guilty.
Click to expand...

Exactly. So then why should we except Zimmerman's account as fact?
 
Les Grossman said:
I say that because Florida has a unique process.

The Defense will ask for an immunity hearing. In other words, immunity from prosecution based upon self-defense. The judge acts as the jury and makes the factual determination of whether or not the defendant acted in self-defense. The burden at this hearing is on the defense and they only have to prove it by a preponderance of the evidence.

That's why I think it shouldnt get to a jury. Now, I think it will because it takes a huge set of balls on a judge to do that with this much media scrutiny.
Click to expand...

There is a reason why the prosecutor opted to bypass a grand jury. She did not want to risk them not returning an indictment.
 
Man, what a bullshit artist. Watching him recount what happened at the police station and then again on the scene... The nonsense about the slamming his head repeatedly is laughable. Love how his tiny bandage early became a bigger bandage later. You're gonna die tonight motherfucker? Seriously? Some kid is just straight up going to murder a random guy as soon as he gets a glimpse of his firearm? Love where he says Trayvon "snuck up on me" and they're in a wide open area, as if he could have "appeared out of nowhere" when he's freaking looking for the guy.

It's a great story for spinning what most likely happened - he followed him, confronted him, Trayvon was pissed and it turned into a light ass-kicking, super-cop Zimmerman draws and kills him.

But hey, as long as you kill the guy, there's no story to compare against. He'll probably walk. Just hoping he's found guilty in a civil trial for most of his life earnings so he never actually overcomes the incident.
 
WakeandBake said:
semantics, you know what I meant.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not trying to be a wiseass ... whether your labeling was semantics or not, your full evaluation is a facts-to-law evaluation, not a law-to-facts evaluation, which is why you are getting a different result.
 
PhDeac said:
But is the interpretation that the law tells the jurors what the facts are and that they have to accept Zimmerman's account as fact?
Click to expand...

No, but the absence of any facts to the contrary will, under the law-to-facts application, result in the conviction standard not being met.
 
Les Grossman said:
1. Martin started the physical fight - can not be refuted
2. He was scared for his life - extremely difficult to refute, if at all.

The State has no evidence to contradict those "gaps." What they have is...Zimmerman's a shady character who followed Martin because he's a wannabe cop who is suspicious of black people. Ok. That's all well and good, but that doesnt prove Zimmerman did not act in self defense. They're assumptions, maybe even well educated guesses, but that's not enough for a conviction.
Click to expand...


I understand and it is difficult for the prosecution, no doubt. However I believe that a case could be made that following/stalking/chasing someone is a form of provocation and confrontation. If I am being chased and cannot shake my stalker, when they caught up with me I would consider that the moment the confrontation began, not when I began defending myself from them.
 
PhDeac said:
Exactly. So then why should we except Zimmerman's account as fact?
Click to expand...

Because he's presumed to be justified in using deadly force until proven otherwise. We dont start off questioning his story and ask him to prove it. We start off assuming it's true and require the State to prove it is not.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
No, but the absence of any facts to the contrary will, under the law-to-facts application, result in the conviction standard not being met.
Click to expand...

Right, so then why do we have to accept Zimmerman statements as fact as opposed to just saying "oh well, we don't have enough evidence to say it was murder so Zimmerman walks".

DCDeac, good post.
 
PhDeac said:
Exactly. So then why should we except Zimmerman's account as fact?
Click to expand...

The facts as we know them to this point support Zimmerman's version of what happened and the prosecution has the burden of demonstrating otherwise. If you are going to examine his story from the 3 angles of (1) fact, (2) maybe/maybe not, or (3) complete lie, and you can only conclude either 1 or 2, then you have to side with Zimmerman.

The line has been moved so many times with Zimmerman that it's ridiculous. The assumptions and hopes at various times were that the evidence showed or would show that he stalked and killed him in cold blood, that he called him a fucking coon and hated black people, that he killed him execution style (my personal favorite-- thanks RJ), that the angle of the bullet should have been different than it was, that it must be Trayvon screaming because the screaming stops after the shot, that he had no wounds to his head (which now has apparently morphed to them only being superficial wounds), etc... Now it's down to him instigating it by following him in the first place. The line keeps getting moved based upon the preconceived notion that he wrongly killed this kid and needs to pay in some respect. The rush to judgment has made people silly. It has become like a political viewpoint where you take a position and hunker down refusing to budge no matter where the bombs are being dropped.

I was late to reading up on this case, but it seemed pretty obvious to me from the outset that people were getting wound up over a case that probably didn't warrant it. The case has always seemed to me to be a tragic confluence of circumstances.
 
PhDeac said:
Right, so then why do we have to accept Zimmerman statements as fact as opposed to just saying "oh well, we don't have enough evidence to say it was murder so Zimmerman walks".

DCDeac, good post.
Click to expand...

It is "fact" only for purposes of the criminal trial. It could be completely wrong, I don't know. That is why you can get different results in criminal and civil trials on the same issue, because the legal standards are different.
 
DCDeac said:
Man, what a bullshit artist. Watching him recount what happened at the police station and then again on the scene... The nonsense about the slamming his head repeatedly is laughable. Love how his tiny bandage early became a bigger bandage later. You're gonna die tonight motherfucker? Seriously? Some kid is just straight up going to murder a random guy as soon as he gets a glimpse of his firearm? Love where he says Trayvon "snuck up on me" and they're in a wide open area, as if he could have "appeared out of nowhere" when he's freaking looking for the guy.

It's a great story for spinning what most likely happened - he followed him, confronted him, Trayvon was pissed and it turned into a light ass-kicking, super-cop Zimmerman draws and kills him.

But hey, as long as you kill the guy, there's no story to compare against. He'll probably walk. Just hoping he's found guilty in a civil trial for most of his life earnings so he never actually overcomes the incident.
Click to expand...

exactly. I know little kids who tell better tales than that. Like I said, when talking to the cops and defending yourself from a murder charge you just don't hum and haw like that..."I guess I..." "something like..." "I can't remember..." - those are the phrases of liars. He didn't know the roads? bullshit. And his wounds are superficial. He thought his head was going to explode? please.

He chased the kid, the kid ran for a while and then Zimmerman found him. They started to fight and Zimmerman fell on his back and panicked.

But Grossman and these guys are probably right - hard to convict without witnesses etc. But the law was not intended to protect vigilantism and Floridians following and harassing one another.
 
Last edited:
EatLeadCommie said:
The facts as we know them to this point support Zimmerman's version of what happened and the prosecution has the burden of demonstrating otherwise. If you are going to examine his story from the 3 angles of (1) fact, (2) maybe/maybe not, or (3) complete lie, and you can only conclude either 1 or 2, then you have to side with Zimmerman.

The line has been moved so many times with Zimmerman that it's ridiculous. The assumptions and hopes at various times were that the evidence showed or would show that he stalked and killed him in cold blood, that he called him a fucking coon and hated black people, that he killed him execution style (my personal favorite-- thanks RJ), that the angle of the bullet should have been different than it was, that it must be Trayvon screaming because the screaming stops after the shot, that he had no wounds to his head (which now has apparently morphed to them only being superficial wounds), etc... Now it's down to him instigating it by following him in the first place. The line keeps getting moved based upon the preconceived notion that he wrongly killed this kid and needs to pay in some respect. The rush to judgment has made people silly. It has become like a political viewpoint where you take a position and hunker down refusing to budge no matter where the bombs are being dropped.

I was late to reading up on this case, but it seemed pretty obvious to me from the outset that people were getting wound up over a case that probably didn't warrant it. The case has always seemed to me to be a tragic confluence of circumstances.
Click to expand...

yeah you are probably right, and he will likely walk.

It is extremely unnerving for some of us that all Zimmerman had to do was keep on driving. Martin was not coming after him, or anyone else. Stand your Ground is being abused in this case. He went looking for a confrontation. What other point is there to his following? Was he going to stand there and observe him breaking into a house? He had already left the spot where he was supposed to meet the cops. Stand your Ground's intent is not being honored in this case, it is being stretched and abused. He may get off by the luck that no one saw what he did, but the Martin family and Florida deserve for the state to look at every possible angle, move whatever lines and shit around until all possible ways of looking at this case have been exhausted. To simply call Zimmerman in and take his statement and his bullshit reenactment that was laughable, and let him go is bullshit and, quite frankly, pretty fucking scary.
 
Honestly, I dont see the "stand your ground" law being any type of unique hurdle for the prosecution to get over for a conviction here.

Self-defense in a murder case is always extraordinarily difficult for the prosecution to get a conviction. There's only one person's story and barring some piece of evidence that the jury can hang their hat on to be convinced that the story is a complete lie...the guy usually walks.
 
I'm sadly in the "he'll be found not guilty" camp, but it certainly is a stretch to say the "facts" support Zimmerman's version. There a number of facts that are very much at odds with Zimmerman's version.

1) His description of the brutal head bashing and his struggle to claw and squirm and fight off Trayvon are not supported by the evidence (photos and treatment for injuries)
2) His of being suffocated is not supported by his own claims of yelling for help or eyewitness reports that he could clearly be heard yelling for help
3) His argument that he stopped following Trayvon only to have Trayvon circle his car and then attack from "out of nowhere" is not supported by the 911 call, the steps heard by the 911 operator that sounded like running, or Trayvon's call to his girlfriend.
 
DC, ELC believes Zimmerman so the facts stack up with Zimmerman's account.
 
PhDeac said:
DC, ELC believes Zimmerman so the facts stack up with Zimmerman's account.
Click to expand...

You're such a simplistic dufus sometimes, Ph. I don't believe Zimmerman and then cherry pick the facts. I am inclined to believe Zimmerman because so far nothing has repudiated his version of events.

DCDeac said:
I'm sadly in the "he'll be found not guilty" camp, but it certainly is a stretch to say the "facts" support Zimmerman's version. There a number of facts that are very much at odds with Zimmerman's version.

1) His description of the brutal head bashing and his struggle to claw and squirm and fight off Trayvon are not supported by the evidence (photos and treatment for injuries)
2) His of being suffocated is not supported by his own claims of yelling for help or eyewitness reports that he could clearly be heard yelling for help
3) His argument that he stopped following Trayvon only to have Trayvon circle his car and then attack from "out of nowhere" is not supported by the 911 call, the steps heard by the 911 operator that sounded like running, or Trayvon's call to his girlfriend.
Click to expand...

1) This one is just completely false. His description is absolutely supported by the evidence. You may think he is being a pussy about it, but that is the one thing that is supported by the evidence and isn't even up for debate.

2) His version seems to indicate that Trayvon put his hand over his mouth to shut him up and not to suffocate him. It takes a millisecond to yell help. I don't see why that is inconsistent with him yelling for help. Any 5 year old with an older brother knows how to free the mouth from a hand long enough to yell.

3) This one is assuming a lot of things that we don't yet know.
 
Just went back and listened to the 911 tapes, looked at a diagram of the neighborhood and the locations of the events, and read the excerpts from the girlfriend's statement. I still don't understand how anyone can justify what Zimmerman did as "not starting the confrontation." The kid ran towards his house, everyone including Zimmerman acknowledged this. He ran away. Zimmerman pursued. There was a confrontation and he killed the person he was fucking following. sheesh you want to set him free because you aren't sure who swung first? The guy went looking for a fight, got one, and killed the guy when he started losing.
 
Eh, there's no point arguing this with ELC obviously.

If someone says they got hit in the head with a brick 5 times, and there is only one small injury on their head, then evidence suggests they did not get hit in the head 5 times.

If someone says they were yelling 50 times, and they say they were also being suffocated, one of those things is untrue. In this case a witness heard yelling, so the evidence suggests he was not in danger of suffocating as he suggests.

The third one assumes nothing. The evidence from the phone calls simply doesn't support his version.

I would love to know what the motives are that drive people to just blindly defend Zimmerman given the information so far. Not just to argue he should be found not guilty - but to seriously defend and agree with his version of the events. Crazy. Anyway, carry on ELC, was fun to duck into the thread and check in on some crazy for a few minutes today...
 
Condescend much there, DC?

Evidence will eventually show that Trayvon was no "Steve Biko" but rather a kid fast tracking it to Thugsville.

And after that it will be your ass who "ducks in" to another hastily cobbled hot button news story.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top