Martin/Zimmerman: humble opinions and speculation thread

[betenoire39]

@Redbrow

You seem unhinged and are not making sense. What slogans?

I printed a link to prove that ‘lynch mob’ was widely used by the media, even African American owned and operated media. How is that trolling?

Get the hell out of here with your crap.

This will be the last time I respond to you.

First off, I was responding to that individual who made a post about certain black people calling them names and basically saying the same shit that Robert Zimmerman Sr. said in his interview on a politically oriented show.

The same arguments I hear and read on certain political leaning media are being repeated.

I was responding to the usage of certain historical imagery being used to defend someone one on trial for killing a black kid.

This was my argument. You rebut it, or you don’t.

It would be like me using language referencing the holocaust or some other historical event to defend someone–what would be your response if someone brought up the Jews and the Holocaust for a damned criminal trial or Pol Pot or some other atrocity?

That is plain WRONG.

Yet, instead of answering the thread of my argument, you give some bullshit link of a publication where the term is repeated.

Then you go into some bullshit about " But now it’s time to let justice prevail and let the process play out."

What the hell does that mean? Why the hell would you come on a thread THAT WAS MADE TO DISCUSS THE CASE only to write something like that, only after you spent several posts DEFENDING ZIMMERMAN?

Who the hell isn’t “letting the process play out”? We are on an internet forum here…what the hell would that even mean?

Just meaningless slogans and rhetoric.

And please don’t conflate MY ARGUMENTS with shit you’ve read. I didn’t call for Zimmerman’s death. I never said that (I guess this is directed more to that unnamed poster).

Just because you heard others say that, doesn’t mean I DID. Remember, you are responding to me. I am an individual.

This is not some Borg collective.

[you_with_the_face]

@Bricker

If she said, unprompted, that what she heard was a child or a boy, then I agree probable cause existed.

@Bricker

If witnesses did indeed report hearing a despondent boy, that would create probable cause.

@Bricker

I am saying that probable cause to believe the force used was unlawful did not exist that night.

Why are you backpedaling now? I’ve put a cites and you’ve put up nothing except arrogant hot air.

[betenoire39]

P.S.

If you don’t know what a slogan is, look it up.

[Shodan]

Just don’t use Urban Dictionary.

Regards,
Shodan

[Redbrow]

Wow. You really are unhinged and paranoid. Nowhere did I accuse you of calling for Zimmeran’s death. The ‘slogan’ you are reacting so strongly to was part of the linked article that I quoted from, not from me.

I could not care less if you don’t respond to me. However, I will still respond to you and counter your bullshit propaganda with facts and evidence.

@betenoire39

Get the hell out of here with your crap.

This will be the last time I respond to you.

First off, I was responding to that individual who made a post about certain black people calling them names and basically saying the same shit that Robert Zimmerman Sr. said in his interview on a politically oriented show.

The same arguments I hear and read on certain political leaning media are being repeated.

I was responding to the usage of certain historical imagery being used to defend someone one on trial for killing a black kid.

This was my argument. You rebut it, or you don’t.

It would be like me using language referencing the holocaust or some other historical event to defend someone–what would be your response if someone brought up the Jews and the Holocaust for a damned criminal trial or Pol Pot or some other atrocity?

That is plain WRONG.

Yet, instead of answering the thread of my argument, you give some bullshit link of a publication where the term is repeated.

Then you go into some bullshit about " But now it’s time to let justice prevail and let the process play out."

What the hell does that mean? Why the hell would you come on a thread THAT WAS MADE TO DISCUSS THE CASE only to write something like that, only after you spent several posts DEFENDING ZIMMERMAN?

Who the hell isn’t “letting the process play out”? We are on an internet forum here…what the hell would that even mean?

Just meaningless slogans and rhetoric.

And please don’t conflate MY ARGUMENTS with shit you’ve read. I didn’t call for Zimmerman’s death. I never said that (I guess this is directed more to that unnamed poster).

Just because you heard others say that, doesn’t mean I DID. Remember, you are responding to me. I am an individual.

This is not some Borg collective.

[Terr]

@Bricker

OK. Before I waste time: do you agree that the extant affidavit establishes probable cause for manslaughter?

No, it does not. It misreports the evidence (“when the police dispatcher realized Zimmerman was pursuing Martin, he instructed Zimmerman not to do that”) and reports blatant falsehoods (“Zimmerman disregarded the police dispatcher and continued to follow Martin” and “Zimmerman confronted Martin”).

So - in light of that, which part of the affidavit do you think establishes probable cause for manslaughter?

[betenoire39]

Some people don’t know how to quote or know how to format then wonder why their posts get misinterpreted.

Yet I am unhinged?

Go back to school.

[betenoire39]

@Shodan

Just don’t use Urban Dictionary.

Regards,
Shodan

Oxford, Cambridge or American Heritage will do nicely.

[Steophan]

@betenoire39

Some people don’t know how to quote or know how to format then wonder why their posts get misinterpreted.

Yet I am unhinged?

Go back to school.

Can you explain the reasoning behind your implied inference that someone’s failure to format well demonstrates your hingedness?

Because it looks utterly irrelevant to me, and lord knows we don’t need any more inferences from irrelevances in this thread.

[Ellen_Cherry]

betenoire39, please settle down. Do not accuse others of trolling.

Everyone (betenoire39 included) civil discussion is required of you to post in this forum. Please do not refer to others as “full of shit” or the like. This is a fast-moving thread about an ongoing situation that I am not keeping up with minute-by-minute … but that does NOT mean that this thread is a free-for-all.

I will have to start handing out official warnings (which go on your permanent record!) if these moderator instructions are not complied with.

Thanks
Ellen Cherry

[doorhinge]

@dimmy_derko

This is an interesting point. TM is supposed to have been going for Z’s gun first, because dumb old George had forgotten he was carrying it - What’s the first rule of Carrying A Gun Club?..

How would you know what the rules are in FLA? Your government doesn’t trust you with firearms.

It was dumb old Tryvon who started punching someone. GZ didn’t approach TM with a weapon drawn. The weapon wasn’t produced until the beating was well under way. TM must have been operating under his usual fight club rules.

[Bricker]

@Terr

No, it does not. It misreports the evidence (“when the police dispatcher realized Zimmerman was pursuing Martin, he instructed Zimmerman not to do that”) and reports blatant falsehoods (“Zimmerman disregarded the police dispatcher and continued to follow Martin” and “Zimmerman confronted Martin”).

So - in light of that, which part of the affidavit do you think establishes probable cause for manslaughter?

Whoa, there, bucko.

You are conflating two different challenges to the affidavit. I’m talking about whether it’s facially sufficient to establish manslaughter. You’re claiming the affidavit is factually flawed.

On its face, does the affidavit establish probable cause for manslaughter?

[dimmy_derko]

@doorhinge

How would you know what the rules are in FLA? Your government doesn’t trust you with firearms.

It was dumb old Tryvon who started punching someone. GZ didn’t approach TM with a weapon drawn. The weapon wasn’t produced until the beating was well under way. TM must have been operating under his usual fight club rules.

Assumptions coming out of your ass there like you’ve had a dodgy curry.

[Terr]

@Bricker

Whoa, there, bucko.

You are conflating two different challenges to the affidavit. I’m talking about whether it’s facially sufficient to establish manslaughter. You’re claiming the affidavit is factually flawed.

On its face, does the affidavit establish probable cause for manslaughter?

Huh? Sure you can make up all kinds of facts that would be sufficient for any crime you want. That doesn’t mean you actually establish probable cause.

[Bricker]

@you_with_the_face

Where’s your evidence of this? Which witnesses told the cops on the night of the shooting that they heard Zimmerman screaming for help right before the gunshot? And please don’t insult my intelligence by including Zimmerman in with these witnesses. Which witnesses fingered Zimmerman as the voice on that 911 tape?

I don’t know. So I use the word IF to denote that I’m going to give an answer based on each option:

1. Another witness told the cop it was Zimmerman screaming, -or-
2. The cop corrected the witness who said it was a child without another witness first telling him.

If (1) happened, then I don’t agree probable cause exists.
if (2) happened, then I absolutely agree probable cause existed, as well as blatant police error.

Can you explain why Zimmerman’s words don’t count? His admission that he shot Martin certainly counts. Why not his other words?

I’ve outlined the totality of the circumstances that implicate Zimmerman. What other evidence is that negates all of that? Be specific.

You haven’t outlined the totality of the circumstances that speak to the force used being unlawful.

And that’s hilarious. Earlier you plainly stated if witnesses attested to hearing a teenager cry out before the gunshot, then that establishes probable cause. Now all of a sudden, that’s not the case. Why are you so inconsistent in your positions?

Because the revelation also included other witnesses who said something different.

Probable cause is not a one-way ratchet. You don’t tighten it upon hearing inculpatory evidence but fail to loosen it upon hearing exculpatory evidence.

Why did you fail to answer this:

@Bricker

It is not. What’s your authority for that statement?

Probable cause must be based on the totality of circumstances, not just on evidence that implicates the accused.

Your statement is utterly wrong. Cites: Lobo v. Metro-Dade Police Dept., 505 So. 2d 621 (Fl. DCA 1987); see also Doctor v. State 596 So. 2d 442 (Fl. 1992). Probable cause is determined by ALL the circumstances, not just the ones that disfavor the accused.

Please respond directly to this point. Don’t dodge it or ignore it.

This is why we’re having a problem. You seem to think you understand how to determine probable cause. But you also think " In any investigation, there’ll be some evidence that favors the defendant and some that implicates him. Probable cause is based on the latter."

That statement is wrong, as a matter of law.

Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, what citation to authority do you have?

[Bricker]

@Terr

Huh? Sure you can make up all kinds of facts that would be sufficient for any crime you want. That doesn’t mean you actually establish probable cause.

Well, yes, it kinda does.

The affiant lays out facts under penalty of perjury. Whether those facts are sufficient to establish probable cause is a matter of law.

The accused can challenge that affidavit. But that’s generally part of a probable cause hearing, or similar proceeding. The judge hears the testimony of the affiant(s) and rules on their credibility. It’s rare for a defense lawyer to challenge them in a meaningful way here. The general thinking is the result of the affidavit is a trial, and if the accused is convicted at trial, the claim that there’s no probable cause is moot: he’s just been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; it’s obvious that there was enough evidence to find probable cause.

Obviously we disagree on how true the claims in the affidavit were. I’m not going to try to make a factual determination of them.

What I want to know from you is: in your opinion, accepting the facts in the affidavit as true, does the affidavit establish probable cause for manslaughter?

[Bricker]

I have a feeling I am using words or phrases that may not be meaningful to the audience.

For anyone: what does “…as a matter of law…” mean?

[Terr]

@Bricker

What I want to know from you is: in your opinion, accepting the facts in the affidavit as true, does the affidavit establish probable cause for manslaughter?

Yes. What I want to know from you is, if a tail were a leg, how many legs does a dog have?

[doorhinge]

@dimmy_derko

Assumptions coming out of your ass there like you’ve had a dodgy curry.

Is it possible that you’ve finally found a subject that you are considered an expert on?

[Magiver]

@DragonAsh

So there’s an almost two-minute gap in between the end of GZ’s phone call, when he hung up with dispatch telling them to ‘have the police call me when the arrive’ (not ‘meet me at my truck’) and when the fight started. GZ says he spent the better part two minutes walking like or so wandering around looking for a non-existent street sign.

He wasn’t looking for a street sign. He was looking for an address on the street he lived on which was a circle. The sidewalk he was on took him to that street. If he’d stayed on the phone longer he would have had a house address the police could have navigated directly to.