He's Back...[George Zimmerman Arrested Again]

[Bricker]

@Honesty

You’re about 2 years late.

Huh? I said many times over the past two years I didn’t believe Zimmerman was telling the truth.

George Zimmerman gave a flatly dishonest and improbable recounting of what happened before, during, and after the conflict. You rejected Zimmerman’s history, which included bullying of colleagues, molestation/rape of his female cousin, his previous charges of spousal abuse and resisting arrest.

I rejected it?

What does that mean?

Do you mean I said it wasn’t legally relevant at his trial for second-degree murder?

Yes, that’s true. And I still do.

You combine this with Zimmerman’s cold and unemotional demeanor during the trial, his treatment of his wife, speeding tickets/brushes with the law, unnecessarily rescuing people from burning cars, inability to pay his lawyers, touring of gun factories used to kill unarmed children; this man was lying psychopath that’s desperate for attention and unearned recognition. And, what’s sad is that so many people believed his version of events and still do.

I don’t agree that it’s unnecessary to rescue people from wrecked cars, burning or otherwise.

And again, you seem to not understand the difference between “facts which are relevqnt and admissible at Zimmerman’s trial for second-degree murder,” and “facts which show what an asshole the guy is.”

[brickbacon]

@jtgain

But again, I hate to say it again: But all we have is his girlfriend’s word against his. Zimmerman is not guilty in the eyes of the law until he is convicted of domestic violence. He gets to put on a defense to these charges.

Okay, but how many times do unrelated people need to accuse him of doing essentially the same thing before you start to question his integrity? Of course there is a chance he didn’t do it, but at what point does he not deserve the benefit of the doubt in the court of PUBLIC OPINION?

@Bricker

I never thought he was particularly truthful.

So has your opinion changed at all?

@Bricker

But his honesty was not the reason that the state’s case tanked. The state’s case failed because they didn’t have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt as to each and every element of the crime of second degree murder. I never claimed that he should be acquitted because he was honest – I always said he should be acquitted because the state failed to adduce sufficient evidence to prove his guilt.

Are you really pretending that the jury’s opinion of him as a person, and his truthfulness, didn’t have a significant effect on the outcome?

[Steophan]

@brickbacon

Are you really pretending that the jury’s opinion of him as a person, and his truthfulness, didn’t have a significant effect on the outcome?

The jury didn’t get to hear a great deal about him, or for that matter hear a great deal from him. He wasn’t a witness at the trial, and his background was inadmissible.

[brickbacon]

@dracoi

Zimmerman wasn’t acquitted because he was believable.

First, that is not the question I asked. Second, you don’t know that. Like most defendants, his credibility and general likability matters a lot. If for some reason, all the events that have happened since the trial happened before, and were included in the trial as evidence, I would be very surprised if we got the same outcome.

@dracoi

Now, is Zimmerman still a dishonest, piss-ant, cop wannabe with a Napoleon complex? You betcha. But we don’t convict people of murder just because they’re assholes.

Actually, we do it ALL THE TIME. Of course that doesn’t make it right, but it does make it pretty much the standard of justice most non-White, poor, and un-famous people get. It’s nto the ideal, but it’s the general standard provided for people whose cases don’t get debated on TV ad infinitum. That’s one thing I think people on your side gloss over as if it means nothing. You want the (perhaps) correct standards applied to people like Zimmerman, but generally don’t give a shit when the average Joe gets nothing close to it.

[Steophan]

@brickbacon

You want the (perhaps) correct standards applied to people like Zimmerman, but generally don’t give a shit when the average Joe gets nothing close to it.

Whereas you want (correctly) the proper standards applied to these people, but want Zimmerman punished because you think he might be a liar.

[brickbacon]

@Steophan

The jury didn’t get to hear a great deal about him, or for that matter hear a great deal from him. He wasn’t a witness at the trial, and his background was inadmissible.

Like I said, I don’t feel like rehashing this whole trial, but your contention is false. They not only heard from a cadre of his friends and family talking about how great he is, but they also heard his testimony to the cops. The jury heard his recorded account. If they think he is not credible, then the weight of that is far far less.

[brickbacon]

@Steophan

Whereas you want (correctly) the proper standards applied to these people, but want Zimmerman punished because you think he might be a liar.

No, I want him punished because I think he is a liar AND a murderer. I also want some general consistency when cases like this come. Don’t single him out for what is exceptional treatment just because he has what some consider a compelling case.

[Steophan]

Telling blatant lies about what happened at the trial isn’t going to help your case when saying how evil he is for lying…

[Tom_Tildrum]

@brickbacon

4. He seems to have threatened his wife with a gun.

Remember, his wife now says that she never saw a gun, and no gun was found on him.

[Steophan]

@Tom_Tildrum

Remember, his wife now says that she never saw a gun, and no gun was found on him.

Come on, don’t let pesky things like facts get in the way of the OUTRAEG!

[brickbacon]

@Tom_Tildrum

Remember, his wife now says that she never saw a gun, and no gun was found on him.

Yes, after consulting with her attorney. I suppose I give more credence to what she said was happening at the time than to what she said after, especially George’s lawyer seems to have acknowledged his client had a gun on him. That said, I fully acknowledge that she is a liar as well.

On the 911 call, Shellie Zimmerman is breathing heavily when she tells a dispatcher that Zimmerman is still at the house.
“He’s in his car and he continually has his hand on his gun, and he’s saying, ‘Step closer.’ He’s just threatening all of us with his firearm,” she says.
Shellie Zimmerman also tells 911 that George Zimmerman punched her father in the nose, then smashed her iPad before getting in his truck.
“I don’t know what he’s capable of. I’m really, really scared,” she says.

Yes, she could have made it all up, but I find that less likely than her changing her story after the fact.

[Labrador_Deceiver]

@Belowjob2.0

Zim’s gonna beat OJ back to prison by several years. Go Zim, go!

Did you get some good sleep while you were in that coma?

[brickbacon]

@Steophan

Telling blatant lies about what happened at the trial isn’t going to help your case when saying how evil he is for lying…

Blatant lies? Please quote me lying about something.

@Labrador_Deceiver

Did you get some good sleep while you were in that coma?

I think s/he meant that the time between when they were acquitted in one trial and sent to jail in another. OJ, IIRC time in between trials was around 4 years.

[Boyo_Jim]

@Bricker

I never thought he was particularly truthful.

But his honesty was not the reason that the state’s case tanked. The state’s case failed because they didn’t have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt as to each and every element of the crime of second degree murder. I never claimed that he should be acquitted because he was honest – I always said he should be acquitted because the state failed to adduce sufficient evidence to prove his guilt.

Really. I thought Zimmerman got off because of an appallingly badly written state law that lets murderers walk. Of course, since the law defines who the murders are, I suppose he wasn’t one of them, :rolleyes:

[Labrador_Deceiver]

@brickbacon

I think s/he meant that the time between when they were acquitted in one trial and sent to jail in another. OJ, IIRC time in between trials was around 4 years.

What a strange way to phrase it.
Well, in that case, he’s got plenty of time to beat OJ’s record.

[Bricker]

@brickbacon

So has your opinion changed at all?

No. I thought he was a reckless, lying fool then, and I still think so now.

Are you really pretending that the jury’s opinion of him as a person, and his truthfulness, didn’t have a significant effect on the outcome?

He didn’t testify. It’s true that if the jury learned about unrelated, but bad, things he’d done in the past, they might have voted to convict.

But that’s precisely why we don’t permit the introduction of other bad acts evidence – it’s an impermissible inference to hear that the accused acted badly on some other occasion and, therefore, he must have acted in conformity on the occasion under review.

So I’m not “pretending” anything – the jury was hopefully ignorant of those other bad acts, because they should not have any bearing on deciding his guilt.

[Bricker]

@Boyo_Jim

Really. I thought Zimmerman got off because of an appallingly badly written state law that lets murderers walk. Of course, since the law defines who the murders are, I suppose he wasn’t one of them, :rolleyes:

He “got off,” because he did not violate the law. The fact that the law was poorly conceived is true, but certainly not relevant to the issue of why he was acquitted. The opposite result would imply a willingness to send someone to prison regardless of what the law actually says. Surely you can agree that this is a more undesirable outcome than letting any single killer remain unconfined.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Bricker

He “got off,” because he did not violate the law. The fact that the law was poorly conceived is true, but certainly not relevant to the issue of why he was acquitted. The opposite result would imply a willingness to send someone to prison regardless of what the law actually says. Surely you can agree that this is a more undesirable outcome than letting any single killer remain unconfined.

(bolding mine)
I think you meant “He ‘got off’ because the state could not show through evidence that he had violated the law”, didn’t you?

I find it difficult to believe that you might mean that a verdict of “not guilty” must necessarily mean that no violation of law occurred.

[BlankSlate]

Several years too late, but Psycho George finally has his guns taken away.

[dracoi]

@brickbacon

First, that is not the question I asked. Second, you don’t know that. Like most defendants, his credibility and general likability matters a lot. If for some reason, all the events that have happened since the trial happened before, and were included in the trial as evidence, I would be very surprised if we got the same outcome.

I do know that the prosecution brought up Zimmerman’s multiple versions of the story given to the police at different times. If this doesn’t establish his limited credibility… well, we’re back to the prosecution failing to make the case.

Even if the prosecution establishes that Zimmerman is like the fictional character who cannot ever tell the truth, we have a judicial system that requires the prosecution to prove that Zimmerman committed a murder. An honest defendant may be harder to convict, but proof of dishonesty is not proof of murder.

@brickbacon

Actually, we do it ALL THE TIME. Of course that doesn’t make it right, but it does make it pretty much the standard of justice most non-White, poor, and un-famous people get. It’s nto the ideal, but it’s the general standard provided for people whose cases don’t get debated on TV ad infinitum. That’s one thing I think people on your side gloss over as if it means nothing. You want the (perhaps) correct standards applied to people like Zimmerman, but generally don’t give a shit when the average Joe gets nothing close to it.

So… the way to fix problems with our legal system is to convict more innocent white guys?