already answered
Are you not considered innocent until proven guilty? In a court of law if not on the internet?
It’s the prosecution’s job to prove that a defendant is guilty of violating some state statute? In GZ’s case, the prosecution failed to convince a jury that GZ was guilty of violating Florida laws. Innocent UNTIL proven guilty.
Well, put it this way: It is a pity the jury had not the third option of the “Scots verdict,” or “Not proven.” (Which has been translated as “Not guilty and don’t do it again.”)
(shortened for clarity)
The jury probably didn’t know (it wasn’t introduced in court) that TM was in the area because he serving yet another suspension from high school. A 10 day suspension this time.
TM was having a convesation with a friend. That friend said TM was by his daddy fiance house which was some 300 feet away from where GZ was. TM returned to where GZ, exchanged some words with the creepy ass cracker, and then broke his nose.
It appears that TM created a situation of imminent danger instead of leaving the area, staying where he was, or entering his daddy fiance house.
In Scotland. Are there any states in the U.S. that offers an option of “not proven”?
No, not at all!
I simply don’t believe it happened like that to George Zimmerman specifically because ***all ***the evidence we have for his state of mind and emotional response to his Big Adventure, in the form of witnesses, video and audio, vital signs, and his own statements then and since tell us that he did not find the even particularly traumatic at all. Especially post-shooting. So it doesn’t matter what happens to some people sometimes or even most people most of the time. There is *no evidence at all *that it happened to this person this time, and I’m not going to assume that it did in spite of evidence to the contrary. I’ve been endlessly berated, without foundation, for ignoring evidence, so it would be pretty funny to be told I should ignore it for this particular issue.
Nope, I’m stickin’ with what the evidence and the reasonable inferences that flow from that evidence tell me about these people in this instance, not interested in suppositions, theories, hunches or other guesswork that doesn’t involve the actual evidence.
And part of that evidence, by the way, is the way GZ’s implausibilities, inconsistencies, gaps, etc. are all centered around details crucial to determining whether he actually had a right to act in self defense and whether he actually did so. And that makes a difference.
How do you manage to equate not climbing on a mortally wounded man’s back with administering CPR?
Give me a link to the video and tell me what time to look at. Duh.
In her recent interview Rachel Jeantel made the claim that she thought Trayvon Martin threw the first punch.
Eh? That is clearly what Zimmerman says he thought was happening: “After I shot him, he like sat up…and I didn’t think I hit him, because he sat up and he said, uh, ‘you got me, you got it, you got me’, something like that, so I thought he was just saying ‘I know you have a gun now, I heard it, I’m giving up.’ I don’t know if I pushed him off me or he fell off me. Either way, I got on top of him and I pushed his arms apart.”
But, for us lesser lights, tell me: what can I expect from someone if they are atop me, fighting, and I pull and fire my gun? I’m sure you have tremendous experience with this. Zimmerman didn’t, though.
As for “alert”, the bullet didn’t hit his CNS, so I don’t know why you’d expect him to suddenly become “sleepy”. Beyond that, I have no medical training or personal experience to tell me how people react in the seconds after being shot in the heart. Do you?
Do “sleepy” acting people usually move quickly?
Fun fact: Ronald Reagan was shot in the rib, and neither he nor the Secret Service realized it until they had driven away from the scene, when Reagan coughed up frothy blood. What liars, am I right?
Believe whatever you want, just don’t pretend it’s based on anything but gut feelings.
And what makes you think that a “freak out” is required for memory to be affected? Your gut?
So he never hints that he might have memory issues, except when he says he “doesn’t know” or doesn’t remember things he’s asked. Got it.
I’ll just wait for your evidence that memory loss only occurs when the person ends up babbling incoherently and freaking out.
Are you sure about that? [url=http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/2012/07/18/exclusive-george-zimmerman-breaks-silence-hannity?page=5#ixzz2ZLXqWDhY]On Sean Hannity
[/quote]
, he said:
ZIMMERMAN: Like I said, he sat up and he said something to the effect of “you got it” or “you got me”. I assumed he meant, OK, you got the gun, I didn’t get it. I’m not going to fight anymore. At which point I got out from under him.
In his first interview with Serino, he said:
Zimmerman: He kinda sat up and he said, “You got me.”
and then
Zimmerman: I don’t know…after “You got me”… I don’t remember.
I’ve already quoted the walkthrough.
In the second Serino interview, he isn’t asked about it.
And in the Singleton interview, he says:
Zimmerman: And then he falls off and he’s like all right, you got it. You got it.
So, I can’t agree that he said “You got me” over and over, or more consistently than anything else.
Actually it’s the difference between “you got me” and “you got me or you got it or something like that” [I’m paraphrasing]
Anyway, the distinction is important, because your argument is as follows:
(1) Zimmerman stated that he did not know at the time whether his shot hit Martin.
(2) Zimmerman also stated that he heard Martin say “you got me”
(3) After hearing “you got me,” Zimmerman would have known that his shot had hit Martin.
(4) Therefore Zimmerman is not credible.
Although it’s arguable that after hearing “you got me,” Zimmerman would have known, that’s not what he says he heard. He says he heard something far more ambiguous.
It’s unfortunate that you are unable to grasp this distinction.
Do you agree that “you got me” is far less ambiguous than “you got me or you got it or something like that”?
Since Rachel Jeantel is now going on talk shows and claiming that Trayvon threw the first punch, you either have to accept that Trayvon did begin the altercation, and George Z is telling the truth, or that Rachel Jeantel is lying. Though she also claims Trayvon would have stopped before Z’s demise.
I agree and I think this is an important point. It seems that for Team Trayvon, their main argument is that Zimmerman is not a credible witness.
The funny thing is, I agree with this to a large extent. Peoples’ recollections of events tend to be extremely self-serving. And if the case hinged on Zimmerman’s credibility, I would be a lot more open to the claim that he is culpable.
But the case does not hinge on Zimmerman’s credibility – the important aspects of his story are corroborated by credible evidence. Evidence which is so compelling that people on Team Trayvon have been largely unable to construct a plausible and reasonably detailed scenario in which Zimmerman is culpable. Instead, they must use words like “stalking” “profiling” and “struggle” which gloss over important details.
Unless the gun misfired somehow. That’s been known to happen. Firing pin crushes the primer. Primer contents burst into flames. Flames enter the brass case igniting the propellent. Solid porpellent converts to gas. Gas pressure fails to push the bullet all the way thru the barrel. No bullet exits the barrel. It happens.
Was the muzzle pointed at TM’s heart, or at his chest, or in his general direction? How fast did this “draw and shoot” occur? Was there time to aim? What this some kind of “squeeze and pray” situation?
Some people expect a gunshot victim to instantly collapse into a heap. That only happens if the victim was struck in the brain stem or upper vertebrae which disrupts all body motor functions. The body would collapse and fall straight down.
How long does it take for the average gunshot wound to the chest to totally disable the victim, assuming the heart hadn’t been damaged?
As an aside, it’s well known by hunters and veterinarians that a heart and/or double lung shot can stop a deer within minutes. A deer can run a long time with only one collapsed lung plus associated broken rib(s) and surrounding muscle tissue damage.
If TM had spoken, had sat up, had stood up, had moved a short distance, it’s reasonable to assume that GZ would be confused about whether he had actually hit his attacker or knew whether his attacker was disabled, dead, or dying.
GZ reaction to having shot TM had nothing to do with whether or not GZ reasonably believed that his life was in imminent (immediate) danger when he made the decision to shoot.
Perhaps I’m missing some pieces here, but what evidence is there that he did not find the event traumatic?
Vital signs such as heart rate, blood pressure, pupil dilation and respiration start returning to normal pretty quickly, particularly in a reasonably fit male in his late 20s. Only takes about 5-7 minutes.
I’m not aware of any video or audio from the time of the incident, aside from the 911 call where someone is heard screaming at the top of their lungs.
Zimmerman has no special training or experience with situations like these so it’s highly unlikely he’s acclimated himself.
If I’m missing something please let me know.
To be clear, I’m not saying with certainty that he was in this state, though I do think it’s probable. I’m saying it’s a possibility and I don’t see how someone automatically dismisses its possibility simply because it doesn’t conform to how they think someone should act.
No. After shooting him at point blank range he would have known it hit because there was nowhere it could have conceivably gone other than into Martin, unless he made a special effort to make sure it didn’t, because Martin made up the majority of the space in front of the gun. He aimed. He shot. Even if he didn’t hit dead center (as he pretty much did!) he would have hit Martin somewhere. He never even tried to claim anything that might make that believable, along the lines of “we were struggling for the gun and it went off in the struggle and I had no idea he was hit.” That is a way he could not have known. But that isn’t what he said. He said he took control of Martin, took aim, and fired. Point blank. Inches away. Directly on top of your body.
Sorry. ***No way on earth ***does he not know he hit under those circumstances. A first grader would know. Try it yourself with a non-lethal shooter..someone on top, you take aim and fire and tell me how often you miss. I’m guessing never with a toy, and absolutely never with a real gun.
Then the rest is just gravy bonus confirmation:
After hearing you got me he would have known it hit.
Then after Martin turning to a compliant rag doll keeling over or letting himself be pushed he would have known it hit.
Then when he climbed on him, and, as he reported in his first interview, before he said he didn’t know he hit him, heard him saying “ow ow ow” he would have known it hit.
He knew he hit him. If there had been the slightest, most minor doubt, (and there wasn’t) listening to his first interview, wherein he didn’t mention a thing about it, sealed it. Zimmy’s pants went right up in flames.
Did you read his medical report?
We judge based on our knowledge and life experiences, out in the world and as jurors. We judge based on evidence. There is no evidence suggesting trauma. There is no claim of trauma. So, were I a juror, it wouldn’t be appropriate for me to think of possibilities for which I have no evidence.
Consult all the witness statements, police station video, Zimmerman statements and medical reports. Nothing anywhere suggests trauma. So I don’t think trauma, and I shouldn’t. That would be an assumption, that would be inserting things for which there is no evidence, and that’s a no-no.
Stoid, you’ve convinced me that it is inconceivable that he didn’t know he missed. What should I take from that?
Yeah, well, the problem with that is that for me it’s not evidence: Zimmerman has zero credibility, especially when it comes to completely self-serving statements that are unverifiable.
And because he has no credibility and I view his lies as proof of his knowledge of his guilt, every statement he makes that can’t be verified that says something entirely useful and favorable to him just works to convince me even more that he’s completely aware he’s guilty and lying as fast as he can to get out of it.
And I see he’s got ADD… we ADD folks have serious impulse control issues, I’m here to testify. So another mark in favor of guilt.