response to line one: Claiming a right to his own court system? How in the world do you read that into a political stunt to shine the light on problems??? Do you seriously think that he believes he is entitled to create his own court system and then has the authority to make that stick within the US code of Justice? Response to line two: Let's stay honest with the arguments, here, please. I am not equating your beliefs with his. I am asking you if you would consider him a "left wing extremist" since the things he's done is on par with, if not worse than Ders..." Response to line three: Your last line is a complete sidestep of my entire argument. I am not arguing Israeli/Palestinian conflict. I pointing out that using a source with such a hard core bias against someone who is Jewish does not reflect well on your argument that you're unbiased, since the bias of your source is blatant and your offer it as evidence.
I do tend to have different views than other people, but I'm also confident I'm well informed. Vigilantism is an extreme right wing view: "The Supreme Court has confirmed that the grand jury belongs to the American people, not the three branches of government. (504 U.S. 36, 48 (1992) (quoting United States v. R. Enterprises, Inc., 498 U.S. 292, 297 (1991)). By indicting Florida State Attorney Angela Corey, the people are exercising their God given rights, recognized by our Founding Fathers, to mete out justice when the political and legal establishment subverts the rule of law." Dershowitz is an extreme right wing activist. You all are welcome to hold different opinions. The tu quoque Sharpton argument is a non sequitur. And the sidestep was just to let anyone know who is interested in defending Dershowitz's Zionism, I'm not taking that bait.
Getting back to the thread topic, the defense opening arguments were replayed and I caught the part where they play the tape with the screams. The defense makes the point that regardless of not being able to say who is screaming, you can say that the person screaming is in fear for their life. The screams go on for a minute or so, maybe longer. What do we know for certain from the evidence? Not opinions, not who do we believe, not what could have been going through Zimmerman's mind, but what can we say for certain from the evidence? Zimmerman was only struck once or twice with any significant force. Regardless of what he feared was coming next and regardless if he was hit by blows that did absolutely no damage, the evidence is he was hit once or twice with any significant force. If you were hit once or twice, would you scream help for that long? Why? Was Martin holding Zimmerman down and threatening to hit him again? That is not Zimmerman's story. If, on the other hand, you were facing a man with a gun it does fit the scenario of the screaming.
According to the evidence and autopsy, Martin was standing over or was above Zimmerman when he was shot. This doesn't fit a scenario where Martin was scared for his life and screaming.
Where did you read that? Martin had on two layers of sweatshirts. There were muzzle burns on both, per the forensic expert. That only happens when the barrel is tight against both shirts pressed together. The autopsy found no stippling on the skin. There are two possibilities for no stippling on the skin, the muzzle was a distance away, or the two layers of sweatshirt prevented the stippling. The forensic expert already answered that question. The ME who did the autopsy testifies tomorrow. Stay tuned.
Meh. Dershowitz is a propagandist. He's nominally leftist, but his audience does have a high proportion of right-wingers in it so of course you're going to see that reflected in his books or diatribes. He's basically the guy who tries to fold up Israel into a progressive liberal box and present it to secular American Jews. Left-wingers, including Jewish ones, aren't often fans of Israel's wars, so I can understand the purpose behind this (although the community is becoming increasingly dominated by conservatives and Orthodox Jews). I don't see where "right-wing activist" comes into it. Sure, his arguments and beliefs are consistent with certain right-wing ideas, but the same can be said of any good politician. There are three general groups in the Jewish community; those that are religious Zionists, those that are secular or socialist but are pro-Israel, and those that oppose the settlements and are critical of Israel for perpetuating the conflict. He tries to convince all three of them that he stands with them, but in doing so, he sometimes comes off as disingenuous because of the obvious internal contradictions in these viewpoints. Learn the definition of these terms; right-wing politics refers to a whole system of economic and social beliefs and doesn't just inform people about which countries and religions they should support. I'm not sure how you made the quantum leap from "agrees with certain ideas that right-wingers share" to "is an extreme right-winger." The right-wing crowd likes him because he gives them confirmations of their previously held viewpoints from someone who appears intelligent and is even left-wing himself. That said, I am reasonably pro-Israel myself, but I'm hardly a lefty. And I definitely agree with Scrubb on that ridiculous Aljazeera rant. I don't understand how propaganda can be any more concise or blatant. Nowhere in that article, in any sentence or claim, do you see anything resembling an actual 'argument.' It's like they think if they feel something deeply enough and can embellish it with enough rhetorical stimulants it becomes harder to refute.
Read that here: http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/06/10/george-zimmerman-murder-trayvon-martin-autopsy We all know it was a close-range shot, I don't think that is in question. But shooting someone on top of you is different that shooting someone you're pinning to the ground. The witness evidence, combined with the physical evidence, indicates that Zimmerman was underneath Martin when he shot him. We also know that the cries for help stopped directly after the gunshot. Why would Martin, who is straddling Zimmerman, be crying out for help? Makes no sense.
I'm not sure I understand how you're getting that impression? I used to be a hardcore libertarian myself; I know the difference perfectly well. Regarding the Zimmerman trial, I'm not exactly sure why this is getting so much attention. My understanding is that this was a simple murder case that got the African-American community universally enraged, dragging in the media.
Well, wether it was murder or not is what the jury is deciding. Right now Zimmerman only killed Martin, it's up to twelve of his peers to determine if he murdered Martin.
That's what I meant. The question is why this one particular case is getting so much hype. Zimmerman will have to change his identity if he walks. (Dershowitz, ironically, might have something useful to comment because this is his area of expertise.)
It got hyped because the racists in this country got wind of it and made a super huge deal out of it. Without them, this would be over already.
Like I said, stay tuned. You are claiming we know Martin was straddling Zimmerman. The one eye witness who believes that is what he saw contradicted Zimmerman who claimed he got on top of Martin after shooting him and that he was on top of Zimmerman when that man came out of his condo. Zimmerman said he asked the guy to help him hold Martin down. Zimmerman impeached his own best witness. Of course if Z had been on top, he might have made up that part of the story if he was worried someone saw he had been on top. I don't know if Z is that smart or that calculating, so I only mention it as interesting. But what we do have for sure is Z claiming he was on top of M when the witness came out of the condo. And Z said he asked said witness for help, i.e. he spoke with the witness. The other witnesses said Z was up and pacing and the victim was on the ground not moving right after the gunshot. That is more consistent with a person who just shot someone. Whereas Z's story is consistent with making up a, "I was cool and collected, controlling the suspect," all that cop wannabe fantasy stuff. His story is classic, but the evidence refutes it. As I reread the autopsy, it does say stippling, "3/8 inch round entrance defect with soot, ring abrasion, and a 2x2 inch area of stippling". And I looked into the definition of intermediate range. But that doesn't tell the whole story. That may not be true with no exit wound. Rather than trying to educate myself in forensics, I shall wait for the ME's testimony tomorrow. But you can bet the prosecutor already knows what the testimony will be and there's a reason they saved it for last. And, more importantly, the autopsy says the trajectory was directly front to back. How does "standing over Zimmerman" (from your link) fit with that angle?. Not to mention if Martin was standing he couldn't have been pounding Zimmerman's head into the sidewalk. And as long as I'm going here, if you take a gun out of a waist holster during a struggle, when someone is grabbing for it, how do you manage to line your shot up so carefully front to back? Wouldn't a struggle be more likely to result in an angled shot? OTOH, if you are holding a gun on someone for a minute or two, a straight shot front to back is more likely. This is just a probability argument. The main evidence here is the injuries sustained by Zimmerman contradict his story. BTW, who cares that Martin smoked pot. It doesn't cause aggression, it's the opposite.
Ginger, I just listened to the 911 audio that has the screams and the gunshot. Have you listened to it? It's quite chilling. http://trayvon.axiomamnesia.com/people/witnesses/witness-11-files-trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-case/ Somebody was screaming bloody murder, that's for sure.
I'm sorry, but regardless of the severity of his wounds, if a suspicious character attacked me from the shadows and began assaulting me on the ground, I would scream for help too. Z wasn't sure whether this guy had a gun or a knife and he was getting attacked. He knew people would hear him if he screamed, so he did. I can't imagine the horror of being attacked and forced to the ground with an assailant on top of you. One witness said the police arrived 5 seconds too late. The police that Zimmerman called.
I get all that empathy stuff. What about the evidence Z was hit once, maybe twice? You can't square that with your scenario of a man defending himself. You can't square that with a man claiming a teenager was on top of him pummeling him blow after blow, smashing his head into the concrete again and again, smothering his screams. You can't square Zimmerman's scenario with the physical evidence. I can square the physical evidence with my scenario. Martin got one good punch in, maybe even a sucker punch. Then Zimmerman got up, maybe got on top, maybe forced Martin down at gunpoint. He held Martin at gunpoint while Martin screamed for his life. I know you believe in the 'can't prove' whatever. Can you square the physical evidence Zimmerman was hit once, twice at the most with those screams on that tape?
Ginger, I believe the physical evidence and the 991 call both square with Zimmerman's account. More testifying today, but it's just Martin's mother and brother, who are, obviously, extremely biased. Trayvon Martin's Mother, Brother Testify That Teen Was Voice Heard Screaming For Help On 911 Call They both testified emphatically that it was Martins voice on the 911 call but so does the Zimmerman family and, as it turns out, Martins own father: http://i.cdn.turner.com/dr/teg/tsg/release/sites/default/files/assets/serino911call.jpg I think these witnesses are pretty useless, except to try to sway the jury emotionally. There's no facts to be learned here, and if I were a juror, it wouldn't affect my decision.
How is it you are ignoring the ME's and the PA's testimony about Zimmerman's lack of injuries corroborating Z's account of multiple blows? You're just not going to allow your brain to address that? Not going to try to explain it other than to say Z could have still felt his life was threatened? I'm sorry, but I can't comprehend how you can do that. The ME who did the autopsy is a cross cultural nightmare for everybody. He doesn't seem to understand a number of things about the court process. It sounds like he's read and oddly interpreted a number of things about court testimony in general. I think that's where all this discussion of fact vs opinion, and memory vs relying on the autopsy notes seems to have come from His testimony so far though, Martin would have still had brain activity for up to 10 minutes but he would not have been able to move after the shot. And more importantly, there is not a single mark or bruise on his right knuckles. Martin was right handed. We know Martin got in at least one blow. We know it probably knocked Zimmerman to the ground and he hit his head on the sidewalk. There's no physical evidence corroborating Z's account of multiple blows. NONE! You have Zimmerman's story. Eye witnesses who saw various things in the dark. You have the 911 call recordings. And there is the physical evidence. Only one of these is objective, and that is the physical evidence. That seems to be the evidence you are most interested in ignoring. Why is that?
I'm not sure I understand your point. Yes, witness testimony is important. But in weighing objective and subjective (eye witnesses) evidence, objective evidence is more reliable. The physical evidence (objective) does not support Zimmerman's claims. That's the bottom line. Confirmation bias leads one to discount or ignore certain facts, and add weight or credibility to others. Perhaps it's my experience in the medical field, but I find the physical evidence refutes GZ's claims he was struck again and again. Zimmerman is lying. There's evidence he was not struck again and again. There's evidence he was not on the verge of losing consciousness. There's evidence Martin did not put his hand over GZ's mouth. I'm asking people who are discounting the evidence that GZ lied about what happened, how they explain the fact his injuries and the condition of Martin's fist do not corroborate Z's claims? Instead of answering, my direct question has so far been talked around, but not answered.
Ginger, I'm not avoiding the evidence. We both agree that only one person has physical evidence of being assaulted. Zimmerman. We know for a fact that there was a physical altercation in which both parties became physically entangled. There's no possible scenario in which Z could have been holding M at gunpoint. The problem is that you are refusing to see the forest through the trees. You are saying that instead of three or four blows, Z was only hit one or two times. While this may not perfectly fit his account of a life-or-death situation, nobody is arguing that he wasn't assaulted. The physical evidence points to M being on top of Z. It's reasonable that M wasn't aware of the gun before the ground struggle, otherwise he wouldn't have attempted a fist-fight with an armed man. So the evidence says: Zimmerman was pinned to the ground by Martin before Martin knew Zimmerman had a gun. We know Martin assaulted Zimmerman. We know Zimmerman didn't lay a finger on Martin. With all this evidence to support Z's story, I don't see how any juror could believe otherwise. When they look at the evidence, they will see a lot of reasonable doubt that Martin was murdered.
That's silly, of course there is a scenario that fits this. Martin punches Zimmerman who falls over, pulls his gun and holds it against Martin's chest. Given the screaming instead of running away, Z could have tripped or tackled M after Z was punched and hit the ground, and in Z's mind he was holding the "suspect" at gun point until the cops arrived. It's not that it doesn't fit Z's story 'perfectly', it's that the physical evidence is proof Z's story was mostly a lie. I give you Z's own words: Zimmerman’s [written] Police Statements Are Not Consistent With Established Facts Notice here Z even says, the punch knocked him onto his back. That explains the single head injury. The rest, 'M climbed on top and began slamming Z's head', the physical evidence supports only one conclusion, it never happened. Complete Transcript, Singleton Interview, 1st Tape, 2/26/2012 Again, Z fell back with the first (and possibly only punch). But the rest does not fit the physical injuries he received. This is the detective who supposedly believed Z "25 to 30 punches". Really? You don't think the evidence shows that's a significant lie? I missed that evidence, what was it specifically? There is physical evidence Z fell back and hit his head, that doesn't put M on top. I'm truly trying to see what you see but I don't. What specific physical evidence, now that we have the actual ME testimony as opposed to the blogger's opinion you cited, are you referring to that M was on top of Z? BTW, after a long rambling appeal by O'Mara just now to drop the 2nd degree murder charge because malice and ill will wasn't in evidence, the prosecution is giving a killer rebuttal argument. Both presentations amount to a preview of closing arguments. I think the defense motion is normal routine whether they expect it to be successful or not. If Z was sucker punched, he had a duty to attempt to run away. Not only was there no stand your ground issue here, the defense did not claim it as a defense. That leaves self defense. And one sucker punch does not support a claim of self defense. Not if Z could easily have gotten away. But he was pissed, "they always get away" he didn't want some punk to hit him and get away. The most likely scenario based on the corroborating physical evidence is that this is the scenario, not the one Z purports of being trapped and beaten.
I guess since have a significant amount of medical expertise I have a good understanding of the validity of the ME's (the one who looked at Z's injury records) descriptions and conclusions. I don't see that a person who looked out a window in the dark is giving the same kind of subjective evidence as a physician with forensic expertise drawing conclusions from carefully evaluated objective evidence. So no, not only can I not agree with you, I also saw the objective physical evidence the ME used to support her conclusions. But it's interesting, I take it some are discounting the conclusions about the objective evidence of Z's injuries based on not recognizing just how competent that physician was.
He said he doesn't remember how many times he was punched. He doesn't recall. That doesn't make him a killer. The evidence that M was on top came from a medical examiner with a lifetime of experience. See my previous link. It's a nice theory you created, but honestly it doesn't make much real-world sense. You're in at least four people's backyard, the police that you called will be there any second, and you contend that he drew his gun on him and stood there while Martin screamed help over and over? That's a lot to swallow. I'm sorry Ginger but we're gonna have to agree to disagree. You may have medical knowledge, but I have law enforcement knowledge. It doesn't fit. The 911 call shows he stopped following M and was waiting for the police. We know Zimmerman was assaulted by Martin. He can't remember how many times he was slammed to the ground but we know he was punched at least once, and his head was smashed at least once. That's enough to shoot someone. Case closed. From the moment Z ended the 911 call, M had so much time to get home but we know he didn't. But, it's a good thing that Z doesn't need to prove his innocence, because he's already innocent until the prosecution can, beyond a reasonable doubt, declare him guilty. That seems highly unlikely at this point and I don't see anything changing that.
Do you understand self defense? Self defense is used to prevent great bodily harm or death. Prevent, not used after you're harmed or killed. It's reasonable to assume that Zimmerman didn't know when Martin would stop his onslaught, but it's good that he had a firearm to defend himself. But if you believe that Zimmerman should have waited longer and sustained more injuries before defending himself, then you are entitled to that opinion.
