Unarmed black 17 year old shot by Neighborhood watch captain in gated community...

[Aegeon]

I think it says a lot about your character if your reaction after killing someone would be "I better adjust the situation to paint myself in a more favorable light before the police arrive."

FWIW, Zimmerman called the police. Had his goal been to get away with killing TM scot-free, the first step in his master plan probably would have been to not call the police.

Personal attacks aside, the point was in the extremely profoundly unlikely circumstance where I realize I just shot someone under circumstances where I am worried the police will likely find the act not justified, making things better before the police arrive is a possible panicked reaction I might have, (generally with the likely view being I was justified but the police wouldn't understand) with injuring myself plausibly further being an especially good idea if I know something about Florida laws. A large number of people who would end up doing such a think would likely have a similar reaction if they are thinking clearly enough, with the main question being if they do so effectively.

I never was taking the position that Zimmerman actually possibly planned to kill Martin from the start of this scenario, and neither is the prosecution actually since the charge is not first degree murder. A likely scenario if Zimmerman started things physically is he thought Martin was potentially going to get away before the police arrived, (or was convinced he was guilty of planning to rob someone in the neighborhood but the police wouldn't do anything without more evidence) so he initiated the fight with idea he could subdue Martin and put him under citizen arrest until police arrived when he assumed they would buy his claim Martin started it, and he gets to play neighborhood hero. (This would seem more likely to work out if Zimmerman believed at the time that TM was an intruder who did not live in the neighborhood and actually was on drugs or the like.) Alternately Zimmerman may have actually gotten in a verbal confrontation with TM and then GZ lost his temper and attacked him, with it not being hard to see why he would lie about this after the fact. Either way when TM had more physical success in the fight than he anticipated, he may have rather promptly resort to his gun, but it was not some long term plan.

The point I was making was that if you look at the logical consequences of interpreting the law in certain ways on this subject, someone else could in fact use the situation to set up a murder and get away with it, which would probably involve them only calling the police after the fact to be safe.

 

[TerryMathews]

Personal attacks aside, the point was in the extremely profoundly unlikely circumstance where I realize I just shot someone under circumstances where I am worried the police will likely find the act no justified, making things better before the police arrive is my likely reaction, with injuring myself plausibly further being an especially good idea if I know something about Florida laws. A large number of people who would end up doing such a think would likely have a similar reaction if they are thinking clearly enough, with the main question being if they do so effectively.

I never was taking the position that Zimmerman actually possibly planned to kill Martin from the start of this scenario, and neither is the prosecution actually since the charge is not first degree murder. A likely scenario if Zimmerman started things physically is he thought Martin was potentially going to get away before the police arrived, (or was convinced he was guilty of planning to rob someone in the neighborhood but the police wouldn't do anything without more evidence) so he initiated the fight with idea he could subdue Martin and put him under citizen arrest until police arrived when he assumed they would buy his claim Martin started it, and he gets to play neighborhood hero. (This would seem more likely to work out if Zimmerman believed at the time that TM was an intruder who did not live in the neighborhood and actually was on drugs or the like.) Alternately Zimmerman may have actually gotten in a verbal confrontation with TM and then GZ lost his temper and attacked him, with it not being hard to see why he would lie about this after the fact. Either way when TM had more physical success in the fight than he anticipated, he may have rather promptly resort to his gun, but it was not some long term plan.

The point I was making was that if you look at the logical consequences of interpreting the law in certain ways on this subject, someone else could in fact use the situation to set up a murder and get away with it, which would probably involve them only calling the police after the fact to be safe.

Personal attack? You were the one that said it. If you don't like the way the shoe fits, you probably shouldn't wear it.

It would never cross some people's minds to alter a crime scene to make their case look stronger. Some people really truly do believe that "the truth will set them free."

 

[Aegeon]

Personal attack? You were the one that said it. If you don't like the way the shoe fits, you probably shouldn't wear it.

It would never cross some people's minds to alter a crime scene to make their case look stronger. Some people really truly do believe that "the truth will set them free."

It was clearly a personal attack as presented, and not especially relevant to the actual debate too boot.

If they are honest enough, allot of people might possibly end up trying to make things look better if they really think the police are going to convict them of murder based on the available evidence if they ever found themselves in such a situation, although its hard to say for sure without actually being in such a position. "The truth will set you free" taken to its logical extreme means you shouldn't worry about talking to police investigating the case without a lawyer, but any defense attorney will tell you its an extremely bad idea and there are cases where it has led to false convictions.

More problematically if you're actually applying this argument as relevant to Zimmerman is he engaged in rather clearly significantly premeditated deception of the court where his wife actually lied under oath regarding their actual assets at the time of the bond hearing. In other words he clearly had not entirely lived up the to "truth will set you free" ideal.

 

[TerryMathews]

It was clearly a personal attack as presented, and not especially relevant to the actual debate too boot.

If they are honest enough, allot of people might end up trying to make things look better if they really think the police are going to convict them of murder based on the available evidence if they ever found themselves in such a situation. "The truth will set you free" taken to its logical extreme means you shouldn't worry about talking to police investigating the case without a lawyer, but any defense attorney will tell you its an extremely bad idea and there are cases where it has led to false convictions.

More problematically if you're actually applying this argument as relevant to Zimmerman is he engaged in rather clearly premeditated deception of the court where his wife lied under oath regarding their actual assets at the time of the bond hearing. In other words he clearly had not entirely lived up the to "truth will set you free" ideal.

So it's a personal attack to call a kettle black?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

So it's a personal attack to call a kettle black?

At least he didn't call you a racist for not accepting his story line.

 

[lotus503]

To me, it's irrevelant. To quote House, "Everybody lies."

The state has to be able to convict GZ based on the evidence from that night. It really doesn't matter if he lied or not, they need to prove it absent his comments and testimony.

It does go to his credibility, but his credibility is moot if he doesn't take the stand. If he invoked the 5th Amendment from the word go, the police and prosecution wouldn't have any statements to use correct?

If he made some incriminating or contradictory statements I'm sure the prosecution will use them against him at trial (as they should). But if their whole case is his word, he will walk.

It may be irrelevant to the ability to prove guilt, but no, thats bullshit not everyone lies to the police or judge. It takes a special disregard for authority to lie to the cops and a judge.

 

[Aegeon]

So it's a personal attack to call a kettle black?

It was clearly an irrelevant point to the debate, and clearly a very nasty attack upon me personally with all sorts of implications involved while utterly missing the actual point I was making.

In other words, if I was trying to put myself in the shoes of someone who had already had somehow unimaginably screwed up enough to find myself in such a situation, I could possibly see my panicked reaction to the situation being to try to make things look better. While it was not explicitly stated, the other implication was that I was putting myself in the shoes of George Zimmerman and what I might do if I was such a person and already in a specific situation.

Basically I find your doubling down on this point the way you are remarkably self rightious and incredibly offensive. It also certainly appears to be an extremely clear case of you trying to attack the messenger rather than the present facts and analysis of this case.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

It was clearly an irrelevant point to the debate, and clearly a very nasty attack upon me personally with all sorts of implications involved while utterly missing the actual point I was making.

In other words, if I was trying to put myself in the shoes of someone who had already had somehow unimaginably screwed up enough to find myself in such a situation, I could possibly see my panicked reaction to the situation being to try to make things look better. While it was not explicitly stated, the other implication was that I was putting myself in the shoes of George Zimmerman and what I might do if I was such a person and already in a specific situation.

Basically I find your doubling down on this point the way you are remarkably self rightious and incredibly offensive. It also certainly appears to be an extremely clear case of you trying to attack the messenger rather than the present facts and analysis of this case.

So in other words you were in a fantasy role playing mode without knowing what really happened or the mindset of those involved. No wonder your scenario is so off base.

 

[OCNewbie]

It may be irrelevant to the ability to prove guilt, but no, thats bullshit not everyone lies to the police or judge. It takes a special disregard for authority to lie to the cops and a judge.

If GZ believes (knows) he's innocent, and thinks (like many people do) that he's being railroaded for the sake of quelling riots, or padding a prosecutor's resume, then I can understand WHY he lied (or "mislead the court"), though indirectly. Does that mean it was a wise move? Absolutely not. It was a stupid (literally) move, and didn't do anything to help his case.

I think the fact that he and his wife did such a horrible job disguising their knowledge of the contents of the paypal account is completely contradictory with the idea that he somehow masterminded the events of that night (in such a short span of time), especially considering how uncontrolled the environment was (in the back yards of numerous houses, where untold number of witnesses could have been, and were there), and was able to tell a story/scenario, that thus far, doesn't seem to have any significant holes in it.

 

[lotus503]

If GZ believes (knows) he's innocent, and thinks (like many people do) that he's being railroaded for the sake of quelling riots, or padding a prosecutor's resume, then I can understand WHY he lied (or "mislead the court"), though indirectly. Does that mean it was a wise move? Absolutely not. It was a stupid (literally) move, and didn't do anything to help his case.

I think the fact that he and his wife did such a horrible job disguising their knowledge of the contents of the paypal account is completely contradictory with the idea that he somehow masterminded the events of that night (in such a short span of time), especially considering how uncontrolled the environment was (in the back yards of numerous houses, where untold number of witnesses could have been, and were there), and was able to tell a story/scenario, that thus far, doesn't seem to have any significant holes in it.

Why did he lie to the police the night of the shooting?
Why two weeks later did he lie to the booking agent?
were not talking about just one.


I dont think he made up all the events that night banged his own head or other stupid stuff, I do think its possible even probable he lied about details given his track record.

 

[TerryMathews]

It was clearly an irrelevant point to the debate, and clearly a very nasty attack upon me personally with all sorts of implications involved while utterly missing the actual point I was making.

In other words, if I was trying to put myself in the shoes of someone who had already had somehow unimaginably screwed up enough to find myself in such a situation, I could possibly see my panicked reaction to the situation being to try to make things look better. While it was not explicitly stated, the other implication was that I was putting myself in the shoes of George Zimmerman and what I might do if I was such a person and already in a specific situation.

Basically I find your doubling down on this point the way you are remarkably self rightious and incredibly offensive. It also certainly appears to be an extremely clear case of you trying to attack the messenger rather than the present facts and analysis of this case.

And remind me again, your message is that you believe that Zimmerman killed Martin, then injured himself to make it look good?

To go back to DVC, you're assassinating the character of someone without any proof. Just like so many have accused Spicey of doing to Martin.

No one has suggested that Zimmermans injuries are self inflicted. None of the evidence released suggests it. The prosecution didn't charge him with tampering with evidence or disturbing a crime scene.

It may be irrelevant to the ability to prove guilt, but no, thats bullshit not everyone lies to the police or judge. It takes a special disregard for authority to lie to the cops and a judge.

I'm tying these posts together for a reason. Lotus, I was only specifically taking about guilt. Hence the talk of the 5th. I don't think I've ever argued that GZ is "a good guy." That said, we shouldn't be railroading people over crimes they didn't commit based soely on their being lying douches.

But the point I really wanted to make is, injuring yourself after the fact is a form of lying to the police. Once you tell the story it is lying.

So it's not just me that finds your position distasteful Aegeon. And to be honest, Lotus and I have barely agreed on anything.

 

[OCNewbie]

In other words, if I was trying to put myself in the shoes of someone who had already had somehow unimaginably screwed up enough to find myself in such a situation, I could possibly see my panicked reaction to the situation being to try to make things look better. While it was not explicitly stated, the other implication was that I was putting myself in the shoes of George Zimmerman and what I might do if I was such a person and already in a specific situation.

Ok, but let's focus on how that theory pertains to this particular situation. There were eyewitnesses viewing GZ literally as the gunshot went off, or a matter of seconds after this happened (based on the witnesses saying they say GZ on top of TM after the gunshot went off, standing up, not looking injured, etc.). He literally had zero time, or a matter of seconds, if that, to inflict all these wounds/abrasions which he had ALL over his head. Not all of them broke the skin, but he had abrasions on his nose, cheeks, chin, all over the back of his head (in addition to the gashes). So in a matter of seconds, he did all that to himself, and nobody saw it? If it's not impossible, it's virtually so, and therefore pointless to somehow give the idea any real credence.

 

[Aegeon]

So in other words you were in a fantasy role playing mode without knowing what really happened or the mindset of those involved. No wonder your scenario is so off base.

Uh, unless I'm missing something you certainly don't have some inside track on George Zimmerman's mindset at the time either.

Anyone in this thread claiming that for instance Martin is definitely "a thug who jumped Zimmerman" is clearly leaping to specific conclusions based on limited evidence. In fact the key piece of evidence doesn't appear creditable at all.

Why its hard to keep track of everything, it is notable how many people have attacked TM regarding things that should not be particularly relevant to the actual case. (Things that suggest TM might have been more likely to initiate the fight or continue it are one thing, but others come across as simply suggesting TM had it coming because he was not all that great a person in general and otherwise don't seem relevant.)

 

[OCNewbie]

Why did he lie to the police the night of the shooting?
Why two weeks later did he lie to the booking agent?
were not talking about just one.


I dont think he made up all the events that night banged his own head or other stupid stuff, I do think its possible even probable he lied about details given his track record.

Is there proof of the 2 lies you mentioned? What specifically did he lie about? I presume you're talking about him saying he had never been arrested? What did he say to the booking agent?

 

[Aegeon]

He literally had zero time, or a matter of seconds, if that, to inflict all these wounds/abrasions which he had ALL over his head. Not all of them broke the skin, but he had abrasions on his nose, cheeks, chin, all over the back of his head (in addition to the gashes). So in a matter of seconds, he did all that to himself, and nobody saw it? If it's not impossible, it's virtually so, and therefore pointless to somehow give the idea any real credence.

To be clear a least with the scenario I was presenting the possible idea was he made things look worse, not that he didn't have injuries in the first place. It would in fact seem possible to bang your head hard enough to cause additional injuries in a few seconds if you think of it at least.

As I noted, the main overall point was we had not heard all prosecution's evidence as of yet, and the behavior of the defense attorney also seems a bit weird if he feels he has such a strong case and is confident that the prosecution's evidence is not strong enough to make GZ's reliability as a witness relevant.

 

[lotus503]

Is there proof of the 2 lies you mentioned? What specifically did he lie about? I presume you're talking about him saying he had never been arrested? What did he say to the booking agent?

Yeah there is proof is was in the first evidence dump

the 2nd lie was telling the booking officer he had never been part of a diversion program.

 

[lotus503]

And remind me again, your message is that you believe that Zimmerman killed Martin, then injured himself to make it look good?

To go back to DVC, you're assassinating the character of someone without any proof. Just like so many have accused Spicey of doing to Martin.

No one has suggested that Zimmermans injuries are self inflicted. None of the evidence released suggests it. The prosecution didn't charge him with tampering with evidence or disturbing a crime scene.



I'm tying these posts together for a reason. Lotus, I was only specifically taking about guilt. Hence the talk of the 5th. I don't think I've ever argued that GZ is "a good guy." That said, we shouldn't be railroading people over crimes they didn't commit based soely on their being lying douches.

But the point I really wanted to make is, injuring yourself after the fact is a form of lying to the police. Once you tell the story it is lying.

So it's not just me that finds your position distasteful Aegeon. And to be honest, Lotus and I have barely agreed on anything.

The issue with Zimmerman being a liar is that he is the only living witness.
Zimmerman being a liar limits his ability to take the stand and present his side as the prosecution could use his lies especially the first two, to discredit him.

So if the Jury is left to decide whos version is the truth I suspect it wont be zimemrmans.


They still have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, but Zimmerman made the job of discrediting him easy.

Furthermoore to actully lie to the cops the night of the shooting about his previous arrest demonstrates epic judgement failure. and open must ask the question why woudl a guy who was only defending himself lie to police?, it calls his entire account into question.

We still have actual non testimonial evidence and I do think it supports his account. But if they have evidence that contradicts him and demonstrates he is a liar, he is not getting any favor with the jury or judge.

Also keep in mind they haven not released everything and witness statements now are not as favorable to his side.

 

[corwin]

Yeah there is proof is was in the first evidence dump

the 2nd lie was telling the booking officer he had never been part of a diversion program.

I haven't had time to go through that whole thing...is there specifics of these lies or just statements of it? Did he sign something that said "I have never been on a diversion program"? Honestly I would be inclined to think it was probably some fine print on something he signed...not to be too honest here but I've been arrested on felony charges and nobody asked me shit about having been in a diversion program before, it's a weird ass question to ask when booking someone honestly...and was he asked if he had ever been arrested before or if he had ever been convicted before, big ass difference there...I think maybe his first two "lies" might be a little inflated, his wifes perjury is a little more clear and a stupid dumb shit move on their part...but if someone could give me more of the specifics on those other two I would appreciate it

 

[Aegeon]

And remind me again, your message is that you believe that Zimmerman killed Martin, then injured himself to make it look good?

To go back to DVC, you're assassinating the character of someone without any proof. Just like so many have accused Spicey of doing to Martin.

You're obviously comparing blatant utter apples and oranges. Personally attacking someone on this forum, in a way not even relevant to the actual debate in question, is very different than a personal characterization of someone not on this forum who is the subject of the news.

My statement also didn't quality as a personal attack because it very clearly noted that this was merely a possibility in the first place which would explain the prosecution's confidence in their case. It was also highly directly relevant to case and GZ's guilt as opposed to an irrelevant attack which seemed to be the case for some of the TM issues brought up, especially given he's obviously not giving additional testimony regarding this case personally. You can present an argument that my reasoning regarding this particular possibility was flawed, but that's different than a personal attack not actually relevant to the facts of the case.

(I would for the record still in particular question how precisely confident the cops are that the shooting occurred within the same minute they arrived in particular.)

I will note that you have not apologized for the specifically personal attack at all.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

So in other words you were in a fantasy role playing mode without knowing what really happened or the mindset of those involved. No wonder your scenario is so off base.

In fairness posters have clogged this thread with innumerable speculative theories about what happened that night, and/or about the background of the involved parties, mostly without complaint by anyone.

It is increasingly clear to me that this thread is a pointless exercise and a waste of time for all involved. I respect many of you in this thread, including you, L_J, but for weeks this thread has been one big, repetitive spin cycle of the same arguments over and over (and over and over). Many of those arguments are senseless, speculative, naive, disingenuous, mean-spirited, bigoted and/or based on false premises. Pretty much all of them, in my opinion, evince a lot of unjustified confidence given that we don't yet know all the facts. This is a moderately interesting case but it's not THAT interesting. This feels like a colossal waste of time and it's pulling me away from working on cases I can actually influence, and am paid to work on. I think I am out for the time being, until there are some real new developments. If anyone wants me to weigh in on anything you can PM me.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Uh, unless I'm missing something you certainly don't have some inside track on George Zimmerman's mindset at the time either.

Anyone in this thread claiming that for instance Martin is definitely "a thug who jumped Zimmerman" is clearly leaping to specific conclusions based on limited evidence. In fact the key piece of evidence doesn't appear creditable at all.

Why its hard to keep track of everything, it is notable how many people have attacked TM regarding things that should not be particularly relevant to the actual case. (Things that suggest TM might have been more likely to initiate the fight or continue it are one thing, but others come across as simply suggesting TM had it coming because he was not all that great a person in general and otherwise don't seem relevant.)

As it's been stated many times in here GZ doesn't lose his right to self defense even if he was the aggressor (though I haven't seen anything that shows he was the aggressor). The witness places GZ on top prior to the gun shot. The probabilities are quite high that the injuries that GZ had was inflicted by TM. During the altercation GZ exercised his right to self defense using force which in this case wound up being deadly force.

Now, either GZ/his law team must prove to the judge during the immunity hearing with a preponderance of evidence that he acted in self defense. Or the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that GZ's use of force was unlawful.

All these scenarios don't mean anything without backing evidence or witnesses. No where has GZ been accused of inflicting wounds upon himself. The ballistics data tends to corroborate GZ sequence of events as does the witness that place GZ on top mere seconds before the shot was fired.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

The issue with Zimmerman being a liar is that he is the only living witness.
Zimmerman being a liar limits his ability to take the stand and present his side as the prosecution could use his lies especially the first two, to discredit him.

So if the Jury is left to decide whos version is the truth I suspect it wont be zimemrmans.


They still have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, but Zimmerman made the job of discrediting him easy.

Furthermoore to actully lie to the cops the night of the shooting about his previous arrest demonstrates epic judgement failure. and open must ask the question why woudl a guy who was only defending himself lie to police?, it calls his entire account into question.

We still have actual non testimonial evidence and I do think it supports his account. But if they have evidence that contradicts him and demonstrates he is a liar, he is not getting any favor with the jury or judge.

Also keep in mind they haven not released everything and witness statements now are not as favorable to his side.

The prosecution will have to prove that most of these so call lies are relevant to what actually transpired during the altercation before the judge will allow them to be used during a trial should one occur.

 

[TerryMathews]

You're obviously comparing blatant utter apples and oranges. Personally attacking someone on this forum, in a way not even relevant to the actual debate in question, is very different than a personal characterization of someone not on this forum who is the subject of the news.

My statement also didn't quality as a personal attack because it very clearly noted that this was merely a possibility in the first place which would explain the prosecution's confidence in their case. It was also highly directly relevant to case and GZ's guilt as opposed to an irrelevant attack which seemed to be the case for some of the TM issues brought up, especially given he's obviously not giving additional testimony regarding this case personally. You can present an argument that my reasoning regarding this particular possibility was flawed, but that's different than a personal attack not actually relevant to the facts of the case.

(I would for the record still in particular question how precisely confident the cops are that the shooting occurred within the same minute they arrived in particular.)

I will note that you have not apologized for the specifically personal attack at all.

Because I didn't attack you. You are allowed to feel as you wish. I however don't share your feelings.

It would be a personal attack if I said Aegeon is the kind of person who would kill a man and then fake the evidence. All I did is reply to what you said.

I'm sorry if that bothered you. I assumed if you took the position that you were prepared to back it.

That said it's still slandering Zimmerman, no different than Spidey taking about urban justice and ghetto stomps and robowhatever.

Either they are both acceptable, or neither is. I have limited my commentary to others comments and the released evidence. Not once have I made a "whole cloth" story up.

I will note that you have not apologized for calling me illiterate or intellectually bankrupt.

 

[MH2007]

I haven't had time to go through that whole thing...is there specifics of these lies or just statements of it? Did he sign something that said "I have never been on a diversion program"? Honestly I would be inclined to think it was probably some fine print on something he signed...not to be too honest here but I've been arrested on felony charges and nobody asked me shit about having been in a diversion program before, it's a weird ass question to ask when booking someone honestly...and was he asked if he had ever been arrested before or if he had ever been convicted before, big ass difference there...I think maybe his first two "lies" might be a little inflated, his wifes perjury is a little more clear and a stupid dumb shit move on their part...but if someone could give me more of the specifics on those other two I would appreciate it

I've looked through the entire discovery .pdf and I don't remember anyone saying anything about Zimmerman saying anything about diversion. I agree it's possible that it was buried in some fine print somewhere and someone somewhere on the internet latched onto it and claimed it as "proof" of Zimmerman lying.

As far as saying he had a clean record most likely he thought he was being honest. Usually when employers ask about your record they are asking about felony convictions, most likely it was an honest mistake not to mention the arrests

 

[MH2007]

I think maybe his first two "lies" might be a little inflated, his wifes perjury is a little more clear and a stupid dumb shit move on their part...but if someone could give me more of the specifics on those other two I would appreciate it

We'll have to wait and see about what the wife said under oath. Even though the prosecution provided a bank record showing a balance of X amount on a certain date as far as I know they didn't actually show any transactions corresponding to the so called "coded" discussions. If there were actually transactions that were 1000x the "coded" amounts surely they would have provided annotated bank records tying everything together. But in reality they hardly talked about the bank records at all, they just pointed to the out-of-context phone transcriptions as "proof" and harped on and on about that

Don't forget that their quote of the wife at the bond hearing left out the part about getting the brother in law on the phone to ask him about the account, yet they quoted what she said right before and right after that with no indication whatsoever that anything what left out. It would be standard operation procedure for the prosecution to take things that were said out-of-context to make things sound more incriminating than they actually are