Here is a pretty exhaustive discussion:
How Much Injury Is Required Before Self-Defense is Justified?
Depending on what evidence is presented, there’s a whole lot of things the jury has to decide, including the simplest of all things: did Zimmerman shoot him in the way that he described?
I’ve read quite a bit of anal-retentive analysis of the forensic evidence, and there are many who think that it could not possibly have happened the way Zimmerman described. If the jury is convinced that Zimmerman’s account (which has to be introduced somehow someway at some point…doesn’t it???) of the actual shooting is a lie, then what? Does the prosecution get to float scenarios that fit the forensic evidence better?
Actually, now that I think about it, if the prosecution goes that route, they aren’t “refuting” anything, they present the evidence and the experts who then say “Based on X, the trajectory was Y, therefore the parties had to be Z distance apart in W positions”…right?
I mean, in most murders you don’t get any eyewitnesses at all, so the prosecution has to work with the missing gaps and formulate what likely happened based on the forensic evidence available, I suppose this is no different, except that after the prosecution presents all this evidence and expertise saying it could only have happened this way or that way, then the defense has to counter that somehow. If GZ isnt’ going to testify, they have to try to tear down the experts…
Kimmy, Bricker:
What are the rules about GZ’s statements and videos? What can be shown to the jury no matter what, and what can only be shown to the jury if GZ testifies? I’ve been seeing lots of confusing stuff about it.
Homicide. 2nd degree. The evidence is his admission that he killed him. His claim that it was justified is untrue.
He was being assaulted. The only way it’s homicide is if he attacked Martin.
“Zimmerman was being assaulted to the point that his life was in danger and used lethal force to defend himself. Instead of explaining this in conformity with what actually happened, he made up a series of easily detectable lies about it because: _______________.”
There is nothing that completes that sentence. Zimmerman escalated the fight himself, shot Martin after the danger had passed out of pique, or otherwise did something that throws his self-defense grounds out the window. There is no other explanation for why he won’t just tell the truth besides that he just enjoys prison food so much that he really wants to chow down on it for the next 25 years.
Why don’t you articulate the lies first? There’s no general consensus on what Zimmerman has said that’s untrue, and what isn’t, for a start.
That’s certainly possible, but how would you go about proving it?
Again this depends on what alleged lies you’re talking about, but remember that there’s no bright-line distinction between a lie and being mistaken, i.e. misremembering.
It’s also quite possible that Zimmerman felt he needed to burnish his account to make it the strongest case for self-defense possible, but that doesn’t mean that the case that’s supported by the evidence isn’t enough.
The key element of this is the phrase “otherwise did something”. You don’t even know what you are accusing Zimmerman of - just “something” that makes him guilty. That’s the assumption that makes your posts worthless - they are based on the assumption of guilt, and not on any evidence. Not even on any coherent theory of the incident. You are going to make things up, based on no evidence, because you want Zimmerman to be guilty of something, no matter what really happened.
Regards,
Shodan
“Innocent people don’t repeatedly lie about what happened” is the inescapably applicable conclusion based on the evidence. As I have readily conceded in the past, it may not be enough to convict him, legally, but it sure is enough to know that he did it, factually.
Correct, they don’t. Innocent people do, however, often misremember the exact details of what happened when someone punches them in the face, and jumps on their chest and pounds their head against the ground. Therefore, guilty or innocent, it makes the most sense to believe those parts of a narrative that are backed up by the evidence.
Regards,
Shodan
Relevant Zimmerman lies:
The reason he left the car was to find out what street he was on, in a neighborhood he lives in with five streets in it.
He was punched in the face 25 to 30 times.
His head was repeatedly slammed into concrete.
Zimmerman moved Martin’s arms outward after the shooting.
Martin was “looking into houses.”
Other Zimmerman lies we know about that are not particularly relevant to the self-defense claim:
He was the “captain” of a recognized neighborhood watch organization.
A person who had just been fatally shot through the lung spoke a catchphrase while dying.
Zimmerman was impoverished at the time of his bail hearing and had no means to flee the jurisdiction.
How many more don’t we know about? I’ll edit this post to keep a catalog as further Zimmerman lies are pointed out.
Ok, thanks for the swift reply. We can generally divide these into two categories: exact details about the fight, and other.
Exact details about the fight. All of these memories were subject to high stress, and are thus categorically unreliabe.
Possibly a lie, possibly just poor recall due to stress and fear. How do you know which it was?
Possibly true, considering he did have wounds on the back of his head, or possibly a lie, or misremembering. How do you know which it was?
Possibly true, Martin didn’t die instantly and could have moved his hands toward his wound before expiring. Or, Zimmerman misremembered. Or he lied (for no readily apparent reason, in this case). How do you know?
Possibly true, possibly a lie, or possibly misremembering. How do you know which it was?
Other:
This one has some substance to it. I agree that Zimmerman has been oddly reluctant (given the NEN recording that makes it seem rather obvious why he left the vehicle) about his reason for leaving the vehicle. It may have been the reason he didn’t promptly return to his vehicle, but it wasn’t the reason he left it in the first place.
That said, your original remark was:
“Zimmerman was being assaulted to the point that his life was in danger and used lethal force to defend himself. Instead of explaining this in conformity with what actually happened, he made up a series of easily detectable lies about it because: _______________.”
In this case, it could be “because…he’s concerned about being falsely convicted based on the assumption that he continued to pursue Martin, and attacked him, after the point in the NEN call where he’s stopped running and paused to whack his flashlight.”
Possibly a lie, but how on Earth do you know? There’s no evidence either way external to Zimmerman’s statement.
Cite that Zimmerman told others that the watch organization was “recognized”, whatever you intend that to mean?
That’s more of a Shellie Zimmerman lie, and how is it connected to what happened on the night of the shooting?
Three streets, the one he was going to, taking him even farther from his vehicle and the house he thought Martin was “looking at”, to look for a street sign was the street he lived on.
CMC fnord!
I listed it under “not particularly relevant” because it only impacts Zimmerman’s general credibility due to the fact that it was a lie (and George did participate in formulating it); its truth in and of itself doesn’t say anything about what happened with Martin.
rational people don’t accuse others of lying without proof. You don’t believe anything Zimmerman says and then go on to invent scenarios that might have occurred. In short, your argument assumes he’s guilty, therefore anything he says is a lie.
It’s clear by the phone call that he:
-Intended for the police to come to the area and look for Martin
-doesn’t remember the name of the street
-avoided direct contact with Martin when Martin approached the truck
-avoided direct contact Martin by not following him South
-was never directly pursuing Martin because of the head start Martin had.
-Followed the suggested course of action given by the Dispatcher
-lost sight of Martin while on the phone
What we know from the evidence provided:
-Martin took 46 minutes to walk from the store to the point in the neighborhood first seen by Zimmerman. That’s a walking speed less than 1/4 of the normal pace.
-Martin was at his father’s house and loses sight of Zimmerman
-The fight starts near the T intersection
-Martin starts the verbal confrontation
-Martin was on top of Zimmerman in a fight
-Zimmerman shows signs of a beating and Martin does not
-The physical evidence is consistent with the description of the beating
-Zimmerman shot Martin at close range
Fair enough, since you listed it I thought to respond to it. We can agree that it’s not particularly important.
At any rate, I hope you understood my point: the people who are disagreeing with you don’t accept that the lies you listed are, in fact, lies, so they don’t feel the need to explain how Zimmerman can be both lying and innocent.
I’m inclined to agree with them, given the lack of proof either way on some (such as Martin looking at houses or otherwise being suspicious, there’s just no possible way to establish if he was or not without a time machine), and the fact that failures of memory are to be expected after what Zimmerman went through, whether he’s guilty or not.
For the exact details of Zimmerman’s account of the fight: smothering, the struggle for the gun, Martin’s words, etc, there are four general possibilities:
- Zimmerman is lying because he murdered Martin.
- Zimmerman is lying because while he did shoot Martin in fear of death or great bodily harm (that is, he’s innocent of the crime), he embellished details to make his claim of self-defense stronger out of fear of a false conviction.
- Zimmerman is misremembering from stress and fear.
- Everything Zimmerman said happened really did happen.
The problem is, how can you prove one possibility over the others? I don’t see a way, thus Zimmerman must be acquitted.
Repeating this doesn’t make it true. My argument is solely based on biology and basic behavior and how Zimmerman’s account doesn’t match those realities.
People who get punched in the face 25 to 30 times have burst blood vessels, faces swollen beyond recognition, and multiple broken bones in their face. They don’t have a bloodied nose that turned out to be broken only after a day had passed and didn’t require hospitalization.
People who get their head slammed repeatedly into concrete have concussions, bruising, and enormous gaping wounds. They don’t have a 2-centimeter cut not requiring hospitalization and no altered mental state.
People who are hanging around houses looking to burglarize them don’t carry snacks in their hands.
People don’t get confused about what street they are in when they are in the neighborhood they live in which has no more streets than can be counted on one hand.
People whose hands are moved outward after death don’t resurrect themselves to put their hands under their bodies.
People who get fatally shot through the lung don’t talk, and people in general don’t say snappy movie dialogue while dying.
If you believe these things happen, you might as well speculate that Martin was killed when Harry Potter teleported into the neighborhood and ran him through with a lightsaber, because you’re existing in a realm that our understanding of science and human behavior would view as fantasy. I choose to base my opinion of Zimmerman’s credibility and guilt on what science and human interaction have demonstrated to me and other normal human beings throughout my life.
Just to pick the low-hanging fruit -
[ul]
[li]How do you know this[/li][li]what makes you think Martin was looking to burglarize houses[/li][li]how do you know that Martin had snacks in his hands?[/li][/ul]Regards,
Shodan
Let’s examine this aspect, since it’s first on your list. Again, we should ask, what are the possibilities?
- Martin did, in fact, punch Zimmerman 25 to 30 times, and Zimmerman recalled this accurately.
- Zimmerman was punched, but doesn’t clearly recall the number of punches (that is, he’s mistaken).
- Zimmerman was punched, and does clearly recall the number, but exaggerated it for effect (that is, he’s lying).
- Zimmerman was never punched.
Which possibility is the true one, and can you prove it beyond a reasonable doubt?
(I suspect #2, as it happens).
That his account doesn’t match reality doesn’t show he’s lying, as people who’ve been through traumatic experiences are often mistaken.
He didn’t say he was punched 25-30 times, he said it felt like that many.
That really depends how hard it’s slammed. Serious brain damage can be caused by head trauma that doesn’t even cause any noticeable wounds, so that he doesn’t have those wounds doesn’t show that he wasn’t bashed, or that he wasn’t at risk of serious injury from the attack. It simply means that the physical evidence doesn’t corroborate his story, but it’s consistent with it.
How on earth could you know that? Anyway, Zimmerman didn’t claim to know Martin’s intent, only that he found his behaviour suspicious. The simple evidence of the time he was walking in the rain, in a private neighbourhood of which he wasn’t a resident, is sufficient proof that a reasonable person could find that behaviour suspicious.
You can hear on the call that he’s not certain what street he’s on, while he’s still in the car. So, you’re demonstrably wrong here, with the audio recording to prove it.
Prove that he was dead at the point Zimmerman got off him.
Probably true. So, how do you know Zimmerman is lying, and not mistaken? Martin is unlikely to have been entirely silent after he was shot, and it’s not beyond the realms of possibility that Zimmerman misheard something.
Yeah, no. You should probably stop thinking so much about physics and think a little more about psychology. A lie is not a simple false utterance, it requires intent to deceive. You’ve shown absolutely nothing that suggests Zimmerman had that intent, and yourself have pointed out how foolish he would be to lie about these things.
So yes, feel free to disbelieve his statement where it disagrees with the other evidence. But to ignore the parts of his statement that agree with the evidence (that is, most of it) because he was mistaken about a few details is ridiculous, and shows that you’ve already decided his guilt based on nothing but your dislike of him.
The projection of dastardly motives on anyone who disagrees with shooting unarmed teenagers to death and then lying about it repeatedly sure is something.
For what it’s worth, I am a total supporter of gun rights and self-defense. 25 to 50 percent of my posts on this board are about those topics. Please use the search function and read them.
I have no particular illusions that white people are always in the wrong or black people always in the right. I believe I am very neutral and unconcerned with political correctness when discussing these issues. I have a problem with certain people on this board accusing me of being racist for not liking it when black people run scams or for not liking certain policies of the Obama administration.
I have been in street fights. I once received a concussion after being sucker-punched in the temple by a black person, and I picked up a baseball bat and was prepared to defend myself with any level of force necessary when the cops arrived.
So now that we’re psychologizing, what is my motive for not liking Zimmerman other than the fact that the evidence shows he is lying about why he fatally shot a 17 year old? I don’t oppose guns, self-defense, or white people, and I know exactly what happens when someone gets hit in the head. Is it possible that I know what I’m talking about and people who are too far to the right on these racial issues are the ones being blinded by their preconceived notions?