Martin/Zimmerman: humble opinions and speculation thread

[Martin_Hyde]

@davidm

I think both Rand Rover and Shodan are attacking a straw man. The question, at least in my mind, wasn’t whether there were any injuries at all. The question was the extent of the injuries. The question is, do they or do they not coincide with the claims of repeated bashing against concrete.

Ultimately, the answer probably lies in the EMT report, but the unofficial photos and videos don’t seem to support the idea of serious life threatening injury.

And can we stop with the juvenile “Team Trayvon” crap? It adds nothing to the conversation and borders on ad hominem.

That’s not really a good question either, being bashed against concrete is ill defined and will have variable results.

I’ve never had my head bashed against concrete, but I’ve fallen on a knee in a grassy field before. Playing baseball, football, doing various outdoor activities my entire life, that happens sometimes.

Many times I’ve fallen on a knee in the grass and just get grass stains and a minor bruise.

A few times, it’s cut through my jeans/pants and actually given me a scrape.

One time I remember, it tore my jeans badly, caused a serious bruise, and caused a huge bloody scrape that basically caused my lower leg to be covered profusely in blood.

Just going from what I have experience with (and concrete + head interactions aren’t in that experience), but I don’t think there’s any factual way to say any given wound is proof or disproof of any given action.

[Martin_Hyde]

@Airbeck

What if there is a tiny pebble in the grass or a small stick poking up. Still say its impossible to get a scratch? Anyone speaking in absolutes on these topics is kind of showing their bias imho. To be so certain of things like this is folly at this stage of the process.

I’ve gotten lacerations from falling on the grass (interestingly I posted about this before reading that post.)

[Martin_Hyde]

@Jack_Batty

No. That would have taken hours, judging by that picture.

In what manner are you qualified to determine, based on grainy cell phone photos:

1. The seriousness of wounds
2. How likely those wounds were to be followed up with life threatening wounds

Your opinion is essentially worthless based on the two comments you’ve made about the purported Zimmerman wounds. You show vast bias and a strong proclivity to embrace only the information you wish–basically standard member of Team Trayvon and thus increasingly unworthy of serious attention.

[dngnb8]

Life threatening is determined at the time of the injuries.

Accepting for a moment that Zims statement of being straddled and having his head slammed into the concrete is true

How is he supposed to determine the point when it becomes life threatening? Is there a handbook that says 5 slams = life threatening? What sort of professional background is required to make such a determination?

LOL

[Shodan]

@Airbeck

Also, for the record, I cut school in High School one time. I guess I probably should have been shot for it too, rather than just a day of suspension.

What do you mean, “too”? Do you know of someone who was shot for skipping school?

Regards,
Shodan

[Airbeck]

What’s the relevance of the snide remark about the button on Martin’s jacket not being about his perfect attendance? How does that further the conversation in a beneficial way? What way does attendance record factor in to what happened that night?

[Magiver]

@PatriotX

Isn’t that the standard default position of the prosecution?
Isn’t that par for the course?

He was asked (something to the effect) while committing the crime did you …

If you answer the question then it’s like admitting to the crime. His lawyer should have objected to the wording. It falls along the line of “have you stopped beating your wife”.

[Stoid]

@Bricker

Yep, I have read every single Heinlein novel. I think I’ve worn out a couple of copies of Stranger and Harsh Mistress, and I might be able to reconstruct Starship Troopers from memory.

And do you agree that the idea of a Fair Witness is totally cool? I love that. I love that novel. I love Jubal. I’ve read it half a dozen times.

[Magiver]

@Martin_Hyde

In what manner are you qualified to determine, based on grainy cell phone photos:

1. The seriousness of wounds
2. How likely those wounds were to be followed up with life threatening wounds

Your opinion is essentially worthless based on the two comments you’ve made about the purported Zimmerman wounds. You show vast bias and a strong proclivity to embrace only the information you wish–basically standard member of Team Trayvon and thus increasingly unworthy of serious attention.

The seriousness of the alleged beat-down is what counts and is independent on the seriousness of wounds. It is the trauma to the brain that is in question. At best, the bleeding wounds are consistent with the impact of getting one’s head dribbled on the concrete. As I’ve stated before, it wouldn’t take too many wacks to instill a fear of a fatal injury.

What I believe the officer on the stand recounted was that Zimmerman said his head was beaten on the cement sidewalk by Martin and he then scooched to the grass (presumably for softer ground).

[Jack_Batty]

@Martin_Hyde

In what manner are you qualified to determine, based on grainy cell phone photos:

1. The seriousness of wounds
2. How likely those wounds were to be followed up with life threatening wounds

Your opinion is essentially worthless based on the two comments you’ve made about the purported Zimmerman wounds. You show vast bias and a strong proclivity to embrace only the information you wish–basically standard member of Team Trayvon and thus increasingly unworthy of serious attention.

The only information I’m relying on is, Martin is dead, Zimmerman is alive, and if those wounds represent anything close to a life threatening situation then I should have been dead at least 20 times by this time

Just because I’m not Team Responsible Gun Owner Who Irresponsibly Used His Gun, doesn’t mean I’m on Team Trayvon.

In fact, you pigeon-holing me as “Team Trayvon” in the first place proves to me that *you *are unworthy of serious attention.

So there.

[dngnb8]

@Jack_Batty

The only information I’m relying on is, Martin is dead, Zimmerman is alive, and if those wounds represent anything close to a life threatening situation then I should have been dead at least 20 times by this time

So… because you dont feel threatened in that situation, nobody should?

Just because I’m not Team Responsible Gun Owner Who Irresponsibly Used His Gun, doesn’t mean I’m on Team Trayvon.

In fact, you pigeon-holing me as “Team Trayvon” in the first place proves to me that *you *are unworthy of serious attention.

So there.

So… the only facts youre relying on are Dead and Alive, but without any other information, you will call it Irresponsibly.

I guess what that means is you come to conclusions without the necessary fact often?

[Jack_Batty]

I call it irresponsible, because Zimmerman didn’t need to pretend he was Baretta, and go chase down a perp. End result: dead kid.

[Bricker]

@Stoid

And do you agree that the idea of a Fair Witness is totally cool? I love that. I love that novel. I love Jubal. I’ve read it half a dozen times.

Uncle Tobias we kept in a bucket.

I always wanted Jubal to finish that story.

Yes, I loved the Fair Witness idea and I loved how Mike sensed a change in Anne when she was cloaked, like an Old One.

[Bricker]

@Jack_Batty

I call it irresponsible, because Zimmerman didn’t need to pretend he was Baretta, and go chase down a perp. End result: dead kid.

Could you learn anything that would change your mind?

[dngnb8]

@Jack_Batty

I call it irresponsible, because Zimmerman didn’t need to pretend he was Baretta, and go chase down a perp. End result: dead kid.

The kid didnt need to chase down barretta. Just because one was irresponsible before the other, doesnt absolve the other.

Imagine this scenario.

Trayvon runs home instead of confronting Baretta. Do you think Baretta chases him into his house and guns him down?

Zim’s actions arent faultess, but neither are Trayvon’s.

[Stoid]

@Jack_Batty

I call it irresponsible, because Zimmerman didn’t need to pretend he was Baretta, and go chase down a perp. End result: dead kid.

That’s pretty much the team I’m on.

@Bricker

Could you learn anything that would change your mind?

Since I’m on that team, I’ll answer that question: I don’t know. I cannot at this moment think of anything plausible (<—key. I can think of lots of outlandish things that don’t make much sense) that would significantly change my mind. I think GZ was, in an indirect way, looking for trouble. And people who go looking for trouble have a way of either finding it or actually creating it. Which makes such persons the guilty party for my money. GZ had lots of choices, and lots of moments when he could have made different ones. Every choice he made led to Martin’s death. Martin, on the other hand, didn’t have as many choices, and he didn’t have as many opportunities to make different ones, and he also wasn’t operating with the information that GZ was operating with.

As I’ve described a number of times, I see GZ’s actions as falling solidly within the idea of being the aggressor via his behavior, (which doesn’t have to be limited to striking the first blow) and thereby preventing him from using SYG as a shield for his behavior, and I also see his behavior as being extremely reckless. So no matter what Martin did, I think GZ is responsible for it right down the line.

And, as I said in the other thread, the voice crying for help on the tape is absolutely huge to me: it makes zero sense as GZ’s voice, and all the sense in the world as Martin’s- and I think it also conveys a terror and desperation that comes from seeing that gun and knowing that GZ was going to use it. And nothing about what GZ has supposedly said squares with that, as you somewhat agreed.

Someone reading this thread shared a theory with me that I wholedheartedly agree with. They didn’t want to share it publicly because they didn’t want to catch a ration of shit for playing amateur shrink, but I don’t care so I’ll say it because it captures my take on GZ exactly:

The actions I’ve read and the statements I’ve heard Zimmerman make lead me to suspect that he is a high-functioning person with some sort of mental defect- the things which strike me as significant include:

[ul]
[li]His repeated failures to be a cop (I bet those psych exam results would be an interesting read).[/li][li]His need to police his neighborhood armed & looking for trouble, without any supervision or training or accountability.[/li][li] His sense of entitlement which led him to disregard the instructions of a police dispatcher as if he was pretending he starring in an action movie.[/li][/ul]

In my speculative opinion, GZ is one of those people that should never be allowed anywhere near a gun, loaded or otherwise.

I have no direct evidence to show that guns excite him much more than an average adult or that this excitement might impair his judgement when he’s near them, but I would not be surpised if it is ever released that this is the case. I’m not saying he’d giggle like Beavus & Butthead near a Desert Eagle, but it’d be close.

I’m not surprised that he was found to be in Florida; I’d guess that if Florida had the toughest gun laws in the nation and Alaska had the easiest, we’d have found him in a parka in Fairbanks.

Moth > Flame
Zimmerman > Gun

So it’s almost guaranteed that the day would come when Zimmerman’s gun fetish would find him standing over a dead body. Now it has. And barring some really spectacular evidence to color this thing differently, I’ll be deeply saddened if he’s set free with a finding that he was entitled to kill that boy because he was defending himself.

[Bricker]

@Stoid

As I’ve described a number of times, I see GZ’s actions as falling solidly within the idea of being the aggressor via his behavior, (which doesn’t have to be limited to striking the first blow) and thereby preventing him from using SYG as a shield for his behavior, and I also see his behavior as being extremely reckless. So no matter what Martin did, I think GZ is responsible for it right down the line.

OK.

The problem I have is that you have laid out a case for moral responsibility, but not one for criminal responsibility. I know you see his behavior as reckless, but (speaking only of the behavior for which there is direct evidence) as a matter of law, I do not agree. It’s true, for example, that Zimmerman could be legally the aggressor without striking the first blow… but there would have to be some act beyond possessing a gun, approaching Martin aggressively, and asking him what his business was in the neighborhood.

Of course, the prosecution may indeed have that evidence. But after today’s hearing and the examination of one of the two affiants for the PC affidavit, I am more and skeptical that they do. As a matter of law, a reasonable jury cannot convict Zimmerman on the facts I just adduced.

I’ve become more familiar with Florida law since this case started than I ever thought I’d be, but one thing I have yet to research is whether the right to trial by jury belongs only to the accused, or to the accused and the state. Because the more I see of this case, the more I think a jury might indeed convict based on the reasoning you have offered, putting the judge in the uncomfortable position of a directed verdict or letting the appeals court be the heavy. I am leaning more and more towards the idea that Zimmerman might be best served with a bench trial. Yes, that still puts the onus on the judge, but at least he won’t have to disregard the jury’s verdict, which would be a bitter pill for the public to swallow.

Tell me: if you were to learn that Zimmerman requested a bench trial, and the state of Florida opposed his motion, what, if anything, would you think about their respective positions?

Listening to the prosecutor’s summary remarks at the bail hearing made me think that the roles were already reversed. By that I mean that in my experience, it was usually the prosecution with the specific arguments to the law, and the defense – because they had few other options – arguing for a “let’s look at the whole picture” approach. Today, I saw the defense attorney ask some very targeted, very specific questions about evidence and get curt ‘no’ after curt ‘no’ in response, and I saw a prosecutor say, in effect, don’t focus on the details, judge, the important thing to remember here is a boy is dead.

Yes, a boy is dead. But the prosecution bears the burden of disproving the self-defense story beyond a reasonable doubt, which means they need actual evidence. We may well see that evidence down the line, but today… it wasn’t there.

The state asked the judge to either remand Zimmerman with no bail, because of the seriousness of the case, or set bail at $1,000,000 cash.

The judge gave him $150,000 cash or bond.

[Magiver]

@Jack_Batty

I call it irresponsible, because Zimmerman didn’t need to pretend he was Baretta, and go chase down a perp. End result: dead kid.

While there is some truth to this I’ve been questioned about my activities in the neighborhood as a kid and as an adult and it never resulted in a fight let alone a knock-down-drag-out fight.

People shouldn’t die in fights but people shouldn’t have to put up with a deadly beat-down either. Would be nice to find out who started it and how it escalated.

[Stoid]

@Bricker

OK.

The problem I have is that you have laid out a case for moral responsibility, but not one for criminal responsibility. I know you see his behavior as reckless, but (speaking only of the behavior for which there is direct evidence) as a matter of law, I do not agree. It’s true, for example, that Zimmerman could be legally the aggressor without striking the first blow… but there would have to be some act beyond possessing a gun, approaching Martin aggressively, and asking him what his business was in the neighborhood.

Okay, I accept that. but I ahve a couple of questions:

1. would any attempt to argue it as I have been shut down by the court as legally unacceptable for a jury to decide?

2. no one has ever answered me about my martin-as-a-woman scenario: if GZ had behaved identically towards a lone female, and she had responded defensively, how do you think George Zimmerman’s choices would be viewed in a court, by a judge, a prosecutor, a jury? Would it be so difficult to argue that GZ’s behavior could and would easily be perceived as threatening by a woman, prompting her to act, and if that’s plausible, why is Martin held to a different standard? (That standard being that he did not have a right, in the face of GZ’s behavior, to act defensively when he perceived a threat. Because again, were I the type and I were in Martin’s shoes, I could easily see myself acting before this crazy stalker asshole got a chance to act. Self-defense 101.)

Sincere request for edification.

I’ve become more familiar with Florida law since this case started than I ever thought I’d be, but one thing I have yet to research is whether the right to trial by jury belongs only to the accused, or to the accused and the state. Because the more I see of this case, the more I think a jury might indeed convict based on the reasoning you have offered, putting the judge in the uncomfortable position of a directed verdict or letting the appeals court be the heavy. I am leaning more and more towards the idea that Zimmerman might be best served with a bench trial. Yes, that still puts the onus on the judge, but at least he won’t have to disregard the jury’s verdict, which would be a bitter pill for the public to swallow.

Tell me: if you were to learn that Zimmerman requested a bench trial, and the state of Florida opposed his motion, what, if anything, would you think about their respective positions?

If I understand you correctly, I’d think that the prosecution was going to try and reach a jury to get them to convict, assuming that a (presumably…may I snort loudly here?) dispassionate judge would abide strictly by the letter and not see a legal way to find as a jury would.

Yes, a boy is dead. But the prosecution bears the burden of disproving the self-defense story beyond a reasonable doubt, which means they need actual evidence. We may well see that evidence down the line, but today… it wasn’t there.

From what I gather in this thread, it would seem so. But I still have a HUGE problem with the way it’s found to be self-defense when GZ created the situation. I am also very curious about what evidence they are looking at that contradicts GZ - could it be many of the same details that a number of us have pointed to as making his story not-believable?

[Barrett_Bonden]

@Bricker

The problem I have is that you have laid out a case for moral responsibility, but not one for criminal responsibility.

This is why, if I were a proponent of the SYG Law, I would be praying for a conviction.