And I’m supposed to believe that you and Condescending Robot aren’t wildly biased against Zimmerman, because you dislike the sort of person you think he must be to start a neighborhood watch, call police to report suspicious activity, and carry a gun?
I’ll be you decided the Duke lacross defendants were smug, privileged scions of wealth who’d never faced consequences for anything they did, eh?
Such as…? Him falling between two trees, and his head ping-ponging back on forth between them?
It’s consistent with a scenario of Martin atop Zimmerman. Other evidence suggests that this scenario included Martin beating Zimmerman.
My mistake, “covered in grass”.
I’ve done that thought exercise, at your prompting, and the only reasonable conclusion is that Zimmerman should be acquitted.
I’m sure you can imagine: “Martin was acting suspiciously” becomes “Martin was doing nothing suspicious” (CR has proposed exactly that).
And if Zimmerman hadn’t mentioned it at the scene, you’d say that meant it was a lie he thought up later to make his story stronger. This is confirmation bias in action, all facts are filtered through “Zimmerman must be guilty!”, instead of letting the facts determine his guilt.
Zimmerman stated that he thinks his head was struck against the sidewalk. Witness 6 reported that the fight was moving toward the sidewalk and “intensifying” when he went inside to call 911.
Such as? If Zimmerman’s wounds and a witness won’t convince you, what will?
And what’s the alternative, again? Zimmerman beating his head with a flashlight in front of witnesses, or an amazing pratfall that injures his nose and the back of his head?
Can’t help but notice that the proposed findings of fact explicitly disprove self-defense, thus meeting the burden I discussed above.
The one inferential leap he makes that I don’t endorse is this one:
I agree the jury can disregard testimony that claims the injuries were not serious, and credit testimony (or their own inference) from the photos to conclude that the injuries were minor. No problem there.
I don’t agree that it’s a permissible inference to conclude that because his vital signs were normal 15 minutes after the shooting, he was not in fear of serious bodily injury.
I honestly have no dog in this fight, except to see the truth come out. Full disclosure: I am an NRA member and have a concealed weapons permit in my state. But I have serious questions about this case, questions I expect will be answered in the coming weeks.
Why the rolleyes? Do you have an issue with the facts being presented to you without the spin you put on them?
You say we have evidence that Zimmerman was in fear for his life. I cannot think of one bit of evidence which even suggests such a thing to me, especially in the context of the whole, much less any evidence which proves it to the exclusion of any other possibility. The only evidence that I can think of for George Zimmerman fearing for his life is George Zimmerman’s claim that it is so.
[/quote]
So, after first claiming you can’t think of any evidence, you the provide the evidence… Good show. This should adequately demonstrate how pore your knowledge and reasoning is.
The evidence for the fear is his statement, and the screaming we hear, that may be him. The evidence from the injuries shows the fear may be reasonable. So, he may have been justified in killing Martin. So, he’s not guilty of murder.
That’s what I’ve been consistently doing, and I’ve done it again in my previous paragraph. You should try it yourself sometime.
Even if that is a logical conclusion to draw from the facts (it isn’t, but nevermind that for now), without actual evidence that it was Martin, rather than supposition, you’ll have a hard time convincing anyone beyond reasonable doubt that it was Martin and not Zimmerman, because it’s just as reasonable to assume that Zimmerman stopped screaming when the threat to him ended, and it’s far more reasonable to assume that the injured party, who was seen on the losing end of a fight, was the one screaming in terror, not the one with no injuries except to his fist, who was on top in the fight.
That is not proof it was Zimmerman. But we don’t need proof that it was him, just one single reasonable scenario where he’s innocent. And that I have repeatedly provided, and, as yet, no-one has been able to prove it false. Showing that there are other reasonable scenarios where he’s guilty is irrelevant.
Wrong, as usual. He is believable exactly as far as his statements are consistent with the other evidence.
That doesn’t mean his statement will be dismissed out of hand, that will depend on his testimony. As it will with Zimmerman. The jury may not prejudge this testimony.
Nah, I’ve demonstrated you’re wrong on enough points for one post.
Actually yes, one more thing. Stop acting as though Zimmerman has to prove his innocence. He doesn’t - the court, and the jury, must presume that. Remember well, the court is, of necessity, biased in favour of the defendant.
As do I. If Zimmerman is proven a murderer, I will gladly say I was wrong. But he needs to be proven so, not assumed so on the feeble grounds people here are giving. As I’ve said repeatedly here, people who want him convicted on a technicality or in spite of the evidence not due to it, are far more dangerous than he could ever be. That is why the bias should always be to the defendant - not to protect Zimmerman as an individual, but to protect you and me should we be accused of a crime.
It seems like you agree that while a piece of evidence can be used to prove (or disprove) multiple elements, it is still necessary that the prosecution’s evidence addresses each element. You agree that really really good proof on one element only matters to another element if that evidence is also independently relevant to that other element, and not by some rule about how proving one sufficiently is all you need. Whether or not that was your position from the outset, or whether people ever disagreed with you on it, you seem to be there now, yes?
You also seem to agree that the elements of self-defense are logically distinct from the elements of murder. In other words, it is possible to prove murder without disproving self-defense. For example, if all the prosecution introduced was evidence that Zimmerman intended to kill Martin when he pulled the trigger (which would be sufficient for a murder charge if no one raised self-defense), this would be insufficient for a conviction because that evidence does not address the elements of self-defense. Are we aligned on that point too? (If you’re not quite there yet, it might be because you think the phrase “prove murder” encompasses the disproof of self-defense, but when we’re using that phrase, we’re talking just about proving the elements of the murder charge, [intentionally] [causing] [the death] of a [human being].)
If you’re on board for both points, then you have the legal framework right.
I think the source of the misunderstanding is probably that when you imagine the concept of “prove murder,” you’re envisioning a whole bunch of specific evidence in this case about who was the aggressor, what kind of threat Martin posed, etc. etc. So then you reason that if the prosecution proves its case with this stuff, there is no need to talk specifically about self-defense. And that’s true, but the point being made was that you have to look carefully at each element and ask whether the prosecution’s evidence can disprove any of the elements of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. It is a mistake to just look at the big picture because the prosecution could put on a very convincing case for most of the elements at play, but if it doesn’t persuade beyond a reasonable doubt on at least one of the self-defense elements, then the jury must acquit.
By the way, here’s his self-reported “About” page contents:
And here’s a comment from Professor Leatherman about O’Mara’s motion to disqualify Judge Lester:
Interestingly enough, that motion – the one that “did not pass the straight-face test” – was granted by the appellate court.
I notice, Stoid you fail to disclose where Leatherman actually served as a professor. Answer: the Barkley School of Law, an unaccredited law school that has since shuttered its doors.
Except the evidence exists that someone WAS yelling (the 911 calls) someone WAS on top beating someone (eye witnesses and injuries) and the CBS’s voice analysis of Martin it appears Zimmerman was person who was brutally attacked. Go figure.
If only Martin had listened to his girlfriend’s warning about his behavior he would not have succumbed to her prediction of being shot in the chest.
Yes, Zimmerman was yelling for help and nobody came. Too bad people were too busy assembling furniture or watching reality TV to get involved.
Also interesting is to examine what Mr. Leatherman asserts to be “FINDINGS OF FACT”.
This is obviously not a fact, but an opinion. Martin would not have been shot if he had not (allegedly) attacked Zimmerman. Therefore it is equally a “FINDING OF FACT” that Martin created the situation that led to his death.
OK, this is a fact. It is also completely irrelevant, unless this “professor” thinks Zimmerman was under some legal or moral obligation to identify himself as the neighborhood watch. Since no such obligation exists, legally and morally this FINDING OF FACT means nothing.
Also true, and also irrelevant. Zimmerman was a resident in the same community, had a right to be where he was at all times relevant to this tragedy. He also had a right to do everything he did up to the moment of the shot.
Again, not a fact, but an opinion. Zimmerman believed that Martin’s actions were suspicious, just as he believed (correctly) that the previous time he spotted a burglar, that the person was acting suspiciously.
But again, it is not relevant. Zimmerman had a perfect right to ask Martin what he was doing whether Martin was acting suspiciously (by any standard) or not. And Martin had no legal or moral right to attack Zimmerman.
There is no good evidence that Zimmerman used the racial slur - that appears to be a Rorshach phenomenon. And again, Zimmerman broke no law by following Martin, and Mr. Leatherman’s FINDING OF FACT neglects to mention that Zimmerman ended the pursuit of Martin, and it was Martin who (as far as the evidence can show) doubled back and came looking for Zimmerman in order to attack him.
This is another of those FINDINGS OF FACT that are merely expressions of opinion without evidence to back them up. There is no evidence that Zimmerman was first to attack, and some evidence that it was Martin. There is no evidence that Zimmerman used force to detain Martin, and witness and circumstantial evidence to show that Martin detained Zimmerman (by sitting on his chest). So again, not a fact at all.
Since no evidence exists of force being used against Martin until after he attacked Zimmerman, this is also not a fact, but an unsupported opinion.
This is an interesting one. The first clause is clearly false (the injuries to Zimmerman’s face, the mark on Martin’s knuckles), and the second clause is an attempt to weasel. There is no evidence that Zimmerman used force, or assaulted Martin in any way, and therefore no legal justification for Martin to initiate an attack. Being asked a question is not an attack, and cannot be used to sustain a claim of self-defense if you then attack the asker.
As has been pointed out in this thread, Zimmerman was under no legal obligation to wait until after he had sustained life-threatening injuries to act in self-defense. As long as a reasonable person, in his situation, would suffer fear of death or serious injury, he would be justified in acting in self-defense. Having someone attack you, break your nose, knock you down, and begin bashing your head on the sidewalk, is a situation where many a reasonable person would fear for his or her life or serious injury.
No wonder this Leatherman’s “university” could never get accredited, and closed down. At least some of the faculty were idiots.
right now we’ve seen what the Prosecution has sent to the Defense and it’s been the Defense that has released the information. They could very well be holding back a text or video or something to show intent.
But the Prosecution had to by-pass the Grand Jury system to bring this to court and their actions regarding the release of evidence has not been honorable. It is their job to release information that could help in the defense of the accused and that is something they have not done willingly.
If Z’s truck was near the path leading to the T, that’s a leisurely twenty second stroll. The confrontation happened four minutes after Z said he was running. Multiple witnesses claim they could hear the confrontation beginning at the T, than moving south, plus Z’s apparently only functioning, still lit flashlight was found at the T. Z, without any knowledge it had been captured on the dispatcher call, said before he starting returning to the truck,he tried to bang his nonfunctioning second flashlight on something, and you hear the metallic sound of something being banged repeatedly, just before the call was ended. This, plus the fact that the wind noise had died down, would seem to indicate Z had stopped and was simply talking to the dispatcher. Z knew the cops were on the way and could arrive at any time, since he knew from previous experience the nearest patrol car responds. In fact, if you look at the responding officers report, they went to the wrong street, and if they lost a couple of minutes, they could have been there BEFORE the confrontation. Z told them to call when they got there. If the cops had done so, and gone directly top the front entrance, they would likely have gotten there before the shot. Unfortunate luck for Trayvon and George. But I can’t see someone who isn’t in fear of his life, intentionally shooting someone, realizing the police might caught him in the act of intentionally shooting someone. If his aim was to capture Trayvon why bother calling dispatch at all. Do it when Trayvon is right there, not when he runs away, and don’t even know where he’s going.
I dislike the sort of person who uses a pretend “neighborhood watch” as a pretext to stalk around his neighborhood harassing and killing blacks. I dislike the sort of person who calls the police to report that a kid is “looking into houses” and is going to “get away” because his racism and his paranoia are so acute that if he even sees a black person walking down the street it filters as burglary in his brain. I certainly don’t trust that sort of person to relay any kind of accurate description of the situation, especially when he’s been caught in multiple other lies.
If you think I have any problem whatsoever with gun rights or legitimate self-defense, I invite you to use the search function and read my other posts on this board in threads about gun rights issues. I support the right of every free American to buy and carry any kind of gun they want. I don’t see how that obligates me to support street executions of 17-year-olds by slow-witted white supremacists who think they’re superheroes, or to buy into the ridiculous narrative of cherry-picked or nonexistent “evidence” needed to see the situation any other way.
No-one supports those things. Of course, that bizarre hypothetical has nothing to do with what happened in this case. I suggest you put your prejudice aside and look at the actual evidence - you know, the stuff that shows Martin was the aggressor, stuff like that.
Yes, if someone’s walking through a private neighbourhood looking into houses, someone should damn well call the police - whether a neighbourhood watchman (pretend or otherwise), or just an ordinary concerned resident.
Oh, and maybe have a look at a photo of Zimmerman before you call him a white supremacist again. Then look at his history - you know, the complaints against the police for racism, the mentoring of black kids, that sort of thing, and realise that what you’re saying is entirely unfounded, and entirely idiotic.
Then, even if you still don’t get why you are so ridiculously wrong, try to explain why he called the police before “murdering” Martin, and why he seemed so pleased when told the whole encounter had been filmed (it hadn’t, he was told that by the police precisely to gauge his reaction).
If you don’t support the right to self defence of someone who has been punched to the ground and is being beaten, and screaming for help and being ignored for several minutes before even attempting to defend himself, you don’t support it even slightly.
Well, I got about halfway through addressing your claims one by one, but what’s the point? Every other discussion of facts with you has bounced off, you inevitably reply with a screed like the above, light on evidence, strong on righteous fury. For Pete’s sake, you now allege that Zimmerman is a full-on white supremacist (who…self-identifies as Hispanic?). This is bordering on performance art.
The sad fact is, in this case it appears that a young black male violently attacked another person for offending him. I know that’s irritating, stereotypes aren’t supposed to be true, and they generally aren’t. But just as there’s a non-zero number of Asians who are good at math, or white men who are uptight and greedy, some number, greater than “none” and far less than “all”, of young black males are violent, just as some number of all demographic groups are. Accepting that Trayvon Martin was one of them, or at least that a reasonable doubt exists that he wasn’t, needn’t shatter your worldview, or force you to instead cling to an entirely different stereotype, the racist wannabe cop, against all reason and evidence.
I don’t know if that is what motivates your opinions here, I’m just speculating. But something is up, because what you’ve written on this thread is closer to theology than criminal justice or even reasoned discourse.