Aguila Blanca
Staff
But why should we consider the implications of Zimmerman "flashing" his gun at Martin when there is zero evidence to suggest that he did so?gc70 said:
State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman
- Thread starter Tom Servo
- Start date
- Status
Aguila Blanca said:
You raise the question of evidence, of the lack thereof ... which is my point. Is the theory that Zimmerman flashed his gun as plausible as the theory that Martin jumped Zimmerman? There is no hard evidence of who was legally the aggressor - who first committed an illegal act. There is only the defendant's statement about how the altercation started. Once the altercation was underway, there is a variety of evidence of what transpired and how it ended.
I am glad I am not a juror in the Zimmerman trial.
OldMarksman
Staff
This case, and this discussion, should make some things very clear to anyone who has not reflected realistically on things:
This whole thing should drive a nail through the heart of that ol' "a good shoot is a good shoot" idea.
There is no such thing as a "good shoot" if it can possibly be avoided.
- The triers of fact must piece together fragmentary evidents with gaps and sometimes with contradictons;
- the testimony of the defendant is going to be self-serving, by definition;
- the same may apply to the testimony of wtnesses who knew the victim;
- any contadictions in statements and testimony, and any discrepant facts, may serve to damage the credibility of any wintess, or of the dfendant, if he or she does not testify; and
- relevant evidence regarding state of mind can be critical.
This whole thing should drive a nail through the heart of that ol' "a good shoot is a good shoot" idea.
There is no such thing as a "good shoot" if it can possibly be avoided.
Glenn, sorry, but you do seem to have an anti-Zimmerman bias in this thread. It's fine to say you are trained at analysis; you should not think you are the only one, even if you may be the only PhD in psychology. Others here (LEO, military, etc) may have you trumped in fields such as threat identification, hand to hand fighting, etc, and we may be able to analyze factors you may not take into account.
Additionally, you have commented several times on Zimmerman's honesty, or lack thereof, and personality issues. Considering that you have never interviewed Zimmerman, that seems a bit of a reach... but if you have objective facts to back your opinions and claims, you might offer those, rather than saying you have lost respect for those such as dakota.potts who dare to disagree with you.
Since you are a PhD in psychology, and since you do have a lot of background in analyzing court proceedings, perhaps you'd like to comment on the following areas:
1) The reliability of eyewitness testimony, as compared to forensic evidence. (Last I studied this area, eyewitnesses are very unreliable at identifying perpetrators, unless they know the people they are looking at; they also tend to miss details most of us would find obvious, from our armchairs.)
2) The reliability of any victim of a traumatic incident to have 100% accurate recall of major details, let alone minor details; related to:
a) the tendency of the brain to provide "details" the eye misses, in real time (see "blind spot" and other physiological factors that affect, among other professions, pilots - we have to study aviation physiology for myriad reasons, including blind spots);
b) the tendency of the brain to fill in blank spots in memory of traumatic events.
3) The tendency of ANY accused, or for that matter of most people engaged in any debate, to shade arguments in their favor, consciously or unconsciously.
You are the PhD, Glenn, so you of all people should not expect perfect, 100% accurate or honest testimony of anybody in the real world, nor expect it to be the yardstick by which all are judged.
If that were the yardstick, we'd all be doomed.
Additionally, you have commented several times on Zimmerman's honesty, or lack thereof, and personality issues. Considering that you have never interviewed Zimmerman, that seems a bit of a reach... but if you have objective facts to back your opinions and claims, you might offer those, rather than saying you have lost respect for those such as dakota.potts who dare to disagree with you.
Since you are a PhD in psychology, and since you do have a lot of background in analyzing court proceedings, perhaps you'd like to comment on the following areas:
1) The reliability of eyewitness testimony, as compared to forensic evidence. (Last I studied this area, eyewitnesses are very unreliable at identifying perpetrators, unless they know the people they are looking at; they also tend to miss details most of us would find obvious, from our armchairs.)
2) The reliability of any victim of a traumatic incident to have 100% accurate recall of major details, let alone minor details; related to:
a) the tendency of the brain to provide "details" the eye misses, in real time (see "blind spot" and other physiological factors that affect, among other professions, pilots - we have to study aviation physiology for myriad reasons, including blind spots);
b) the tendency of the brain to fill in blank spots in memory of traumatic events.
3) The tendency of ANY accused, or for that matter of most people engaged in any debate, to shade arguments in their favor, consciously or unconsciously.
You are the PhD, Glenn, so you of all people should not expect perfect, 100% accurate or honest testimony of anybody in the real world, nor expect it to be the yardstick by which all are judged.
If that were the yardstick, we'd all be doomed.
To those who keep saying, "he should never have left his vehicle," I agree with you, as far as tactics go. It was unwise.
But part of me keeps reminding myself how many times I've lamented that people don't do anything, and how many others I've heard make the same lament.
"Why didn't anybody say something? Why didn't anybody help that person?"
It seems to me that it's unreasonable to hope that neighbors will act like neighbors, and help, intervene, or even call the authorities if we are going to say that it's criminally wrong to follow a person far enough to ascertain a destination.
But part of me keeps reminding myself how many times I've lamented that people don't do anything, and how many others I've heard make the same lament.
"Why didn't anybody say something? Why didn't anybody help that person?"
It seems to me that it's unreasonable to hope that neighbors will act like neighbors, and help, intervene, or even call the authorities if we are going to say that it's criminally wrong to follow a person far enough to ascertain a destination.
maestro pistolero
New member
If Zimmerman's story is to be believed, and I think it is, this is pure blaming the victim.
Is a rape victim wise for having worn a short skirt and exposing a little cleavage in a bad neighborhood? No. Was it illegal, or did she not have a right to dress as she wished? Of course not. Was she to blame for the rape? Definitely not.
I agree completely.
OldMarksman
Staff
Not at all.
Zimmerman reportedly got out of his vehicle to better see someone whom he considered suspicious and believed to be high on drugs. In so doing, he put himself at risk. His injuries attest to that.
By the way, in the murder trial, Zimmerman is not the victim.
You're right, but this isn't about ferreting out the truth. A prosecution is about presenting a certain set of facts in a certain way to sway the opinion of a jury.
In this case, they're going to be expected to dig up and color as much of Zimmerman's history as they feel appropriate to that end. He was a vigilante because he volunteered for neighborhood watch. He was waiting to shoot someone because he took classes on Florida law. He was spoiling for a fight because he took some MMA classes. It goes on.
By that yardstick, any of us could be in the same position if we were involved in a shooting in which there's room for doubt. It all brings us back around to Old Marksman's point:
Things are different today than they were when I started carrying. Back then, we had it drilled into our heads that drawing a gun at all was going to change our lives for the worse. Nowadays, the laws have loosened, and we keep hearing more people (with little or no real training) claim that a "good shoot" is whenever they feel justified.
I can't articulate what a dangerous mindset that is.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
IMHO, leaving his vehicle and trying to follow a person he considered to be suspicious was unwise only in retrospect, in consideration of the way the incident ultimately played out.MLeake said:
I grew up in the country. Across the street from my parents house were several hundred acres of my grandfather's farm -- partially fields, and partially woodlands. It was not uncommon, despite the fact we kept the land posted against trespassing, to have people drive into the fields and roar around making tire tracks through the crops, or to have people just decide that a nice open tract like that was a good place to hunt.
Typical police response time was between 30 and 45 minutes, so by the time I hit early to mid- teens I usually went across the street myself to see what was going on. If it was joy-riders, I would "confront" them and inform them that they were trespassing on private property and that the police had been called. That usually was enough (although I did have one punk start after me with a tire iron when he saw me writing down his license plate number. Good thing my "little" brother arrived on the scene).
I was a bit more circumspect about hunters, because ... well, hunters carry boomsticks. With them I would approach with caution, and take down a truck description and license plate number from as far away as I could, after verifying that the truck was unoccupied.
But ... by the logic being applied to Zimmerman, I should have just stayed in my own front yard and waited for the police to arrive. Which would generally have been long after the miscreants had vacated the theater of operations. Given the history of unsolved break-ins in Zimmerman's community, I can fully appreciate why he would decide to follow a perceived suspicious person. His only mistake, IMHO, was in failing to anticipate that the "suspicious person" might not react like a civilized person.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
Except Dr. Meyer was not opining on those other matters. He opining on matters within his field of expertise.MLeake said:
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Oh, dear - I stand by what I said based on what was presented. I present alternatives to the rush to Zimmerman was in the right. I presented possibilities. If you don't like what I said or that I argue for a position you don't like, that's life.
Mleake - in fact, you make my case - not to belabor or repeat the points.
Zim's testimony comes from the fog of his mini-war and thus I take it with a grain of salt. Similarly, all the testimony about who was crying for help is just a psychological jumble of expectations. The eyewitness research demonstrates that people's perceptions are worth little in many cases.
Mleake - in fact, you make my case - not to belabor or repeat the points.
Zim's testimony comes from the fog of his mini-war and thus I take it with a grain of salt. Similarly, all the testimony about who was crying for help is just a psychological jumble of expectations. The eyewitness research demonstrates that people's perceptions are worth little in many cases.
post #145; yard-birds....
Post #145 brings up a good point.
Many of the residents or on-lookers could have gone outside & either broke up the fracas(if it was a fight) or witnessed they events from a better stand-point.
As a private security officer, I've seen many property incidents(condos, resorts, apt bldgs, office parks, etc) where employees or tenants pout & stew then when security or sworn LE officers show up, want to get involved.
These "yardbirds" are a real pain because they don't honestly witness or know all the facts then run outside when they see flashing lights.
People shouldn't take a "don't get involved" mindset & if they do witness a event or come to a victim's aid, they should be honest or make truthful statements.
CF
Post #145 brings up a good point.
Many of the residents or on-lookers could have gone outside & either broke up the fracas(if it was a fight) or witnessed they events from a better stand-point.
As a private security officer, I've seen many property incidents(condos, resorts, apt bldgs, office parks, etc) where employees or tenants pout & stew then when security or sworn LE officers show up, want to get involved.
These "yardbirds" are a real pain because they don't honestly witness or know all the facts then run outside when they see flashing lights.
People shouldn't take a "don't get involved" mindset & if they do witness a event or come to a victim's aid, they should be honest or make truthful statements.
CF
I've read your posts. You haven't presenting possibilities. You've been presenting an agenda. You're as blindly anti-Zimmerman as some here seem to be pro-Zimmerman. I won't speculate as to your reasons, but in reading your posts, in each and every one you present Martin in the best light possible and Zimmerman in the worst light possible.
dakota.potts
New member
Glenn, I was curious if you would have an opinion on the eyewitnesses describing whose voice was on the phone call. I forget the word for it, but there's an effect where your expectations shape what you hear when it's ambiguous. Like when you listen to a Led Zeppelin track backwards and you hear lyrics if they're written out in front of you.
Anyways, I thought that was quite ridiculous.
Anyways, I thought that was quite ridiculous.
I haven't seen blindness. What I've seen is skepticism, and we certainly need that.
There's certainly no shortage of confirmation bias going on in the gun culture when it comes to this matter. Everybody wants a 2A hero, and they keep grabbing at straws. Sorry, but this guy might not be 100% right in his actions, he may go to jail, and he may not be the best representative for our cause.
Tactical Jackalope
New member
I second that. I really was following through unbiased and quietly this whole time, until Di Maio was called to the stand and testified. I think my mind is made up now.
Some people are so hell bent on Zimmerman being "guilty" I feel they don't make any sense. Given today's evidence, they're still in denial.
OldMarksman
Staff
"The way the incident played out" certainly does substantiate that he did make a serious error in judgment, but I would not limit that error to a failure to anticipate anything about whether a "suspicious" person "might not react like a civilized person."
Rather, I think the error resided in his failure in the first and most important important part of risk management: the identification of the risks.
So, what were the risks that he should have considered before venturing forth? How about these:
- The risk that the suspicious person might have been armed and used deadly force;
- that he might thave been ambushed by one or more unseen accomplices;
- that his pursuit might have resulted in a confrontation, which would entail its own risks, one of which might have entailed death or injury to himself, and another of which may have involved escalation resulting in his own use of force, which could have been prevented.
It seems that in the event, one of those risks materialized, and that's why we're having this discussion.
One could go on and on. What about being mistaken for a perp? Who was watching his vehicle?
Some time after the incident occurred, there was an episode on The Best Defense that portrayed similar judgmental errors on the part of a neighborhood watch volunteer. In one scenario, the volunteer was attacked and injured after heading back to the street. He could not access his weapon.
The best strategy? Use a cell phone, from a safe location.
Oh, and don't be obvious about it.
I don't think I agree. If the story goes that "Martin jumps on Zim, beats the poo out of him, says 'I'm going to kill you' and finally at that point, Zim pulls out his gun and shoots Martin" - Then I think it's exactly the way it should be.
The problematic part of it seems to be when people want to interject things like "Martin was really a good kid" or "Zim was a vigillante". I say If Martin was a good kid and Zim is a vigillante, it was still taken to the point of nothing left for Zim to do but shoot Martin.
I think about the only better "representative for our cause" would be "Gray haired grandma gets beat up by gang of thugs and shoots the one that was just about to stab her".
Tactical errors on Zim's part are a non-issue to me. He's not a cop or a soldier. There's no expectation for him to know or exercise police or military tactics. Even if getting out of his truck was a move less safe than staying in his truck, it's not a display of vigilante-ness, it's something that plenty of people would do as well.
In simplest terms, a guy allowed a thug to beat him up to the point where he felt there was no other option but to shoot him. I think that's what "our cause" is all about.
Sgt Lumpy
- Status