Not true. Your comparisons are completely invented, with absolutely nothing to support them. Zimmerman’s very real remark was followed immediately by very real actions and intentions that he clearly admitted to:
Immediately after the “assholes” remark, Zimmerman changes gears. It is more than reasonable to assume that the remark itself was prompted by Martin moving beyond easy viewing, potentially “getting away” and Zimmerman was already following, in his truck. 22 seconds later, he announces, in an irritated tone, that Martin is running, and just a few seconds after that, the door is open and he’s out on foot.
This is a profoundly important difference from just flapping his gums about random topics. At virtually the same instant that he is swearing about the fact that such people always “get away”, he is taking clear, direct action to follow the person who triggered the remark and admits that this is what he is doing seconds after that. That he intends to prevent this particular asshole from getting away goes beyond being merely a well-founded inference and borders on being a mandatory one.
Ah but the dispatcher, after Zimmerman tells him that Martin is running, asks him which way he is running. That is when Zimmerman leaves the car. So he is leaving the car to see which way Martin is running, in order to respond to the dispatcher’s query.
Again, you completely ignore the fact that in the meantime he was asked by the dispatcher to ascertain which way Martin was running, and he got out of the car to do exactly that.
Can you clarify for me what you mean, because I don’t understand how GZ could accurately and successfully ascertain that Martin had shifted from walking to running without also simultaneously seeing which way he was running. And he tells them. And then he tells them he’s following him.
Wait, wait, don’t tell me… are you going to try and argue that Zimmerman thought that the dispatcher was directing him to stay on top of Martin and report future directional changes? Cuz if you are, well, you little rascal, you, THAT will be a sight to see! Can’t wait! Go right ahead… (especially since he explained his actions very differently, so if you are going to argue this let us all keep in mind that it can only be a mental exercise, the evidence belies such an argument)
By the way, fresh off doing an “oops I screwed up” on the reversible error of not allowing the toxicology evidence in, Judge Nelson is angling to do the same thing again. She is fighting tooth and nail not to allow texts from Martin’s phone in which he describes his fights, including one on how he was able to hit someone on the nose and make them bleed. The reason she is trying to exclude those - she claims they are not authenticated as Trayvon’s. That’s in spite of the fact that they are on a password-protected phone in a secret directory that Trayvon kept so that his parents wouldn’t find these.
The following case clearly demonstrates that she is wrong about authentication:
State v. Lumarque 44 So. 3d 171, 172-3 (Fla Dist. 3d 2010)
"At an in limine hearing, the trial court found the two images and one text message the [defendant’s] ex-wife testified to admissible, but concluded the remaining exhibits inadmissible as the ex-wife could not authenticate them. The court erred. The images and text messages were found on the defendant’s cellular telephone, seized pursuant to a search of the defendant’s home through a warrant shortly after the alleged incident. This fact, testified by the State’s forensics expert, is sufficient to authenticate these exhibits.
If she tomorrow decides that these text messages are not admissible due to her thinking they are not authenticated enough, this is clearly a reversible error.
Don’t play dumb. You are aware that sometimes people don’t run in straight lines, right?
No. The dispatcher asked Zimmerman which way Martin ran. It is quite possible that Zimmerman could not ascertain that from his position in the car and had to step outside to do that. Of course, you dismiss that because it doesn’t fit your agenda.
And GZ answered. And then admitted that he was following Martin. And also never said anything remotely similar to this and actually said something quite different so of course, again, mental exercise only..
No. First, GZ left the car. Then he answered. He left the car immediately after the dispatcher’s query and before he told the dispatcher where Martin ran. Which is a clear indication that he left the car in order to get the information to answer the dispatcher. Which you seem to find very inconvenient, since you keep dropping that little fact from your narrative.
Let us all pause for just a moment and soak this up… ah… Never let life’s little pleasures pass you by unnoticed.
Alright, moving along…
Oh, I think not. But I’ll just assume you were so in a tizzy you rushed your reply.
Umm, facts, evidence, speculation, inference… this, here…not a fact. Inference. Gosh, do we have any evidence that Zimmerman even tried to escape, as you put it? Seems like his ability to wristlock Martin and pin his arms would have given him a pretty decent opportunity to escape, assuming that happened at all, of course, which we can do if we decide to believe GZ, but there’s no other evidence for it. So true, not true, whatever we believe, it’s not really a fact that can’t be “gotten around”.
Well, this is certainly an area for argument (assuming that you did misspeak earlier and we aren’t talking about a scenario in which Zimmerman started out with the intention of committing first degree murder) but before you get back to your unyielding defense of self-defense, we have to prove that Zimmerman actually did try to get out of the mess he created. More formally:
Do you suppose he could have done it when Martin punched him the first time? (Well, except we don’t know that Martin DID throw the first punch, do we? We are momentarily accepting that he intended to continue to look for Martin, and if he found him he intended to prevent him from getting away. So ok, let’s stick with my scenario.) Well, he didn’t know how terrifyingly deadly martin was, so I guess not. What other means did he exhaust? And since we have to examine this so closely, can I get a refresher on what you believe happened between Martin’s first punch at the T and the two men on the ground by Good’s townhouse seconds before the shot? Do you have any thoughts on that?
Hey now, there IS that, isn’t there? So what makes you think that the imminent arrival of police would have prevented Zimmerman from being the aggressor by following and detaining martin? Wouldn’t that have been exactly the point? Remember “aggressor” doesn’t mean exclusively the first person to get physical, and hardly anyone is saying that (are they?). In this situation, GZ is the aggressor by virtue of provoking the use of force against himself by seeking to find and detain Martin. He could have simply placed a hand on Martin’s shoulder and scared the bejesus out of him under those circumstances. But he would be doing it to try and detain Martin for the police, so the imminent arrival of the police doesn’t undermine the notion of GZ as aggressor, it supports it.
And his knowing that the police were arriving any minute also gives us pause to wonder at his decision to shoot Martin instead of trying to simply use the wristlock and arm pin to hold Martin off just a tad longer than he held him off to take good aim, if nothing else. Which he would be obligated to at least TRY to do if he did in fact follow up on his intentions, went looking for Martin, found him, tried to detain him and provoked Martin into hitting him.
All of this this highlights exactly why Zimmerman’s intentions and the proofs for and against are absolutely critical to this case and cannot be waved away or speculated about or treated as meaningless.
The details matter. The truth matters. The fact that Zimmerman has said so many things that do not make sense matters.
Hey, have it your way, since we all know it didn’t happen this way, even though you keep ignoring that fact. George himself made that very clear not only in the moment but in every single post interview opportunity he was given to explain his actions. So this is just a mental exercise and if you like toying with the notion that GZ got out of the car because the dispatcher asked him a question and that was the the whole story, well you go right ahead and do that… no reason you shouldn’t enjoy yourself.
Such a [del]delusional[/del] amusing world you live in. If I want to submit a video from a security camera as evidence, I enter the video along with an affidavit stating that to the best of my knowledge, said video is accurate and unedited. If the opposing counsel wants to contest the validity, it’s on them to provide evidence that there is a problem with the video. It will never be on the presenter to prove a negative. ie. it didn’t happen.
While they may be authentically Martin’s they may also be authentically full of inauthentic bullshit: on what basis would a kid’s boasting to friends be an admissible proof of his physical capabilities and knowledge of fighting? Especially since Martin is the victim, not the accused?
And what difference does it make, given Zimmerman’s injuries and the fact that he doesn’t even need to be injured in order to justify self-defense? Why would the defense need to push this in front of the jury? Maybe to add a little prejudice into the pot? You down with that, Terr? Everybody else who is so vocally defending what is legal and what isn’t? Is this groovy in your book?
The court finds the texts have no probative value and would unduly prejudice the jury. BAM! Denied.
(Not a prediction, just playing judge for a moment…)
The judge stated that the only reason those messages may not be admitted (she didn’t issue her decision yet) is because of authentication. Which, as I pointed out with the cite, is incorrect, legally.
But of course, **Stoid ** thinks she knows better than everyone, judge and appellate courts included.
Yes, precisely as I said! Nothing is simply “accepted as factual” (your words), someone with some type of authority to say so has to “vouch” for it in some respect.
An affidavit (which is sworn testimony, for all intents and purposes - in Cali it’s a Declaration) by you (“you” being whichever person is in a position to *actually *know that the video came from the security camera located in the particular location, etc.) is a perfect example!
Now, why and how your offering an example to illustrate my point also serves as an opportunity to indulge your baser nature by insulting me as delusional, and in this forum, oh dear…bad form, remains a mystery.
Ya, got all that. Just wondering how dead teenage victims’ history of puffing out their chest to impress their buddies would ever be considered a legitimate proof of anything at all to begin with, much less physical abilities and knowledge of fighting.
Any ideas about that? Anyone? Bricker, can you help out? Does that seem kosher to you?
Probably because you seem to be so emotional involved in being “right” that you have been getting more and more smarmy and condescending in your rebuttals. This despite not too long ago putting on airs as the voice of reason and calling for congenial communication (in this or the other thread, I forget which).
Let’s see.. sworn testimony.. Declaration.. Nothing about actual proof. An affidavit is proof of nothing except that someone is making a statement. A statement of belief based on someone’s personal knowledge or experience.
The party submitting the video doesn’t have to prove anything about it, they simply state that to the best of their knowledge it is accurate.
Your point remains unillustrated by my contributions. My observations concerning your world view remain validated.
Oh, absolutely… but before we do, you are aware that these posts remain available for reading, right? You weren’t thinking that they fall of the bottom of the screen forever or written in invisible ink, were you? Cool…so let’s go back and look at that again, only by “that” let’s actually look at the post you were responding to.
I don’t recall interacting with you prior to this. It’s remarkable to see how quickly a person can let you know exactly who they are and where they are coming from. Thank you for that, simplifies things enormously.
Can you clarify for me what you mean, because I don’t understand how GZ could accurately and successfully ascertain that Martin had shifted from walking to running without also simultaneously seeing which way he was running. And he tells them. And then he tells them he’s following him.