State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman

[Brian Pfleuger]

...there's an effect where your expectations shape what you hear when it's ambiguous.

The same effect happens when written word doesn't conform to your own biases. Instead of seeing it as "fair", we see it as biased against our opinion.

----------------------------------------

I can assure all that Dr. Meyer is not "Anti" Zimmerman in the sense of the accusations in this thread, as I have had numerous interactions with him on the topic.

Let's drop the "Glenn is an anti-Zimmerman zealot" nonsense and get on with the topic of the thread.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Tom Servo: There's certainly no shortage of confirmation bias going on in the gun culture when it comes to this matter.

I see that all the time, whether the incident involves a trespasser, a bicycle thief, an argument over a parking space, or the Fuller Brush Man.

If the incident is related from the point of view of "the gun guy", many quickly identify with him and believe him to be "the good guy."

I have from time to time thought of framing a similar incident and relating it from the point of view of the other party, just to test the results.

"I was leaving a party, and some guy in a pickup truck stopped across the street and got out a rifle or a shotgun...".

Zimmerman? Based on what I've seen, I do not think the state has made its case, if they ever really had one, but I'm not sitting in judgement.

But it's pretty clear to me that he did not exercise very prudent judgment at all.

 

[OPC]

Edit: Just found MP's post #72. Question withdrawn.

 

[dakota.potts]

Brian, I retracted some of my statements in an earlier post. I did expressly mean to question what evidence Glenn had for his beliefs and why he was so rigid in adhering to them.

I did not, however, mean to insinuate that he was not capable of rational thought (certainly he's got many more years practice than me) or that he was doing so on an emotional basis or anything. I did mean to challenge his ideas but did so with inappropriate wording and was over the line in some of what I said.

My last post in regards to Glenn was an attempt to put that behind me and move on with the conversation at hand and let it be water under the bridge as it were. I was wrong in my persecution of some of the sentiments expressed and while I still largely disagree with the evidence correlating to Zimmerman being the aggressor we do need skepticism and I appreciate the need for it.

But, as I was saying, I think the whole "Yes, I can hear his voice clearly now" testimony is bunk and I see it as easily discredited

 

[gc70]

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.

I will repeat my assertion that evidence does not always equal truth, and expert testimony is often just enlightened speculation.

Watching the trial should remind us all to treat 'evidence' cautiously.

One witness testified he had seen the person on top hitting the person on the bottom. When questioned by the prosecutor, the witness admitted that he had seen the person on top's arms going up and down, but had not actually seen or heard blows landing. To one of Glenn's points, the witness saw something, but allowed his expectations to fill in missing details around when he had actually seen.

Today's testimony about powder tattooing is pretty convincing that Martin was on top when he was shot by Zimmerman. That one piece of evidence does not prove Zimmerman's entire story, it only validates a specific point in the story.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

dakota, that comment wasn't directed at you.

 

[dakota.potts]

I see now on reading your post again, Brian. I thought your line above the dashes was saying something that it really wasn't.

So now that the state has rested their case, how long can we expect it to be before a verdict?

 

[csmsss]

So now that the state has rested their case, how long can we expect it to be before a verdict?

Zimmerman's attorneys are now presenting their case. Once they rest (and how much more of their case remains to be presented remains to be seen - the judge has yet to rule on whether a defense re-enactment will be permitted to be presented as evidence), the prosecution will have the opportunity to call any rebuttal witnesses they may have. After rebuttal (if any), both sides have the opportunity to present their closing statements/arguments, then there will be haggling over jury instructions, followed by submission to the jury for the verdict. There's probably zero chance this particular judge will dismiss the case before handing it to the jury (though other judges conceivably might).

I'm sure the judge would like to get this case to the jury on Friday, but I suspect it to be more likely next week.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

Zimmerman? Based on what I've seen, I do not think the state has made its case, if they ever really had one, but I'm not sitting in judgement.

But it's pretty clear to me that he did not exercise very prudent judgment at all.

I think this is about the most concise portrayal we can have.

The only part of the case that's open to "reasonable doubt", IMO (and this is from listening to the majority of the trial), is who may have initiated the violence.

I don't see any way that the state could have (and certainly didn't) prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman initiated the violence. The available physical evidence is at best (from the prosecution perspective) ambivalent and eyewitness testimony seems to imply (they missed the start) that it's unlikely that he did.

What we have left, as OldMarksman said, is a series of imprudent choices. None illegal (beyond reasonable doubt), by Zimmerman, but unwise and he'll pay a heavy price, even if acquitted. Martin, apparently, also made a series of imprudent choices, except that his crossed the line into illegal violence and he also paid a heavy price, the ultimate price.

 

[Tactical Jackalope]

I really don't believe Zimmerman was being a "vigilante" in any way. He was doing what he was supposed to and felt passionately. Nothing he did was illegal. He can legally follow him. Martin can legally ask him why he is following him. Martin however cannot legally attack Zimmerman. That's was a bad move on his part that costed him his life.

I really believe that Zimmerman just got in way over his head and didn't expect that reaction. Drew his gun and squeezed the trigger one time.

All these holes in the prosecutions witnesses isn't helping their story whatsoever. Every witness is unreliable, yes. But the prosecutions witnesses are like Swiss cheese. Way too many inconsistencies. Facts are there.

Defense did great today.

I hope this wraps up soon.

 

[SHR970]

One thing to note here as a take away for the rest of us.

GZ fired ONE shot. He discharged his firearm the number of times necessary to STOP TM from continuing the course of action that resulted in the discharge in the first place.

Had GZ emptied the mag or simply fired multiple shots into TM this conversation would be vastly different. Everything that happens before, during, and after a discharge that results in a fatality comes into play.

Unless you have a HD video with audio that captures the entire event from start to finish, expect to have your integrity questioned, your reputation dragged through the mud, and your life put in a tail spin.

 

[csmsss]

GZ fired ONE shot. He discharged his firearm the number of times necessary to STOP TM from continuing the course of action that resulted in the discharge in the first place.

Had GZ emptied the mag or simply fired multiple shots into TM this conversation would be vastly different. Everything that happens before, during, and after a discharge that results in a fatality comes into play.

Maybe I'm slow, but one shot doesn't necessarily stop all deadly encounters. Zimmerman's shot punctured Martin's heart, inflicting a reasonably instantaneous end to the fight. But what if it hadn't? What if his shot didn't hit the vitals and he had to shoot repeatedly? The number of shots fired isn't necessarily irrelevant, but it's far from the most important factor in the determination of whether a shooting is legally justified or not.

 

[Young.Gun.612]

I don't think the implication is that one shot will stop a violent confrontation, only that in this case it did. And frankly, I think it erodes the vigilante claim, or that GZ was a hothead looking to shoot. He stopped firing when the threat stopped.

 

[SHR970]

csmsss wrote: Maybe I'm slow, but one shot doesn't necessarily stop all deadly encounters.

How do you think the Prosecuting Attorney would frame the questioning if GZ fired six times? Bear in mind that the case is a Second Degree murder trial here. If multiple shots were needed to STOP TM; they would use that in an attempt to prove GZ's depraved indifference / depraved mind which is a necessary element in a Murder 2 Conviction.

Too many people seem to fail to understand that we shoot to STOP someone from seriously harming us or others. That attempt to STOP may but not always result in a fatality. If you are on the wrong end of this type of situation and make the mistake of saying that you tried to kill the person; bet your life savings that you are in for a Murder trial. Even if you said you had to shoot several times to STOP the person, bet your life savings on you need to prove the number of shots taken was necessary.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I don't think the implication is that one shot will stop a violent confrontation, only that in this case it did. And frankly, I think it erodes the vigilante claim, or that GZ was a hothead looking to shoot. He stopped firing when the threat stopped.

Precisely. And he didn't administer a coup de grace after the fight was over -- unlike that pharmacist who shot one robber, chased the other one out of the store, then came back in and emptied a revolver into the robber who was lying on the floor.

I think the fact that Zimmerman wasn't a bloodthirsty vigilante looking to "off" anyone he had an excuse to shoot is also supported by the testimony of the female cop who was part of the initial investigation. She testified that, when told Martin had died, Zimmerman acted surprised and said, "He's dead?" That's not the probable reaction of someone who intentionally set out to kill someone.

 

[csmsss]

My point is that if Zimmerman's initial shot hadn't hit Martin's heart, he would have had to shoot again...possibly several more times. Should this then be construed as him being more culpable rather than less? I don't think so. I don't think it should be considered at all.

The number of shots isn't what determines criminal culpability - it's shooting after the threat had ended that does this.

 

[dakota.potts]

csmsss, you already think that Zimmerman should be acquitted, don't you? Yet the jury is giving him a hard time.

They would give him a harder time if he had to fire more. You know all the "He needed a gun to deal with a 17 year old?" comments? Imagine if he had to fire 5 times to stop the threat. "Zimmerman has to be guilty, nobody needs 5 hollowpoint bullets to stop a 17 year old".

"He was just a vigilante. Look how many times he fired. Nobody needs to shoot more than once" etc. etc.

Regardless of what may or may not be morally or legally right, it doesn't matter if the jury convicts you anyways.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

csmsss, you already think that Zimmerman should be acquitted, don't you? Yet the jury is giving him a hard time.

How is the jury giving him a hard time? The jury hasn't said a word. They just sit there and watch and listen, they are not in a position to give anyone a bad time.

 

[dakota.potts]

Because I'm an idiot, that's how. I didn't mean the jury. I meant the prosecution obviously. Freudian slip or doing too many things at once? Who knows?

 

[magnum777]

I think that George Zimmerman is a disgrace to law abiding gun owners. If Zimmerman had listened to the 911 dispatcher and stopped following the Martin kid, like he said he would. Martin would be alive today, Zimmerman would not be on trail and the anti-gun crowd would not have another weapon the attack our 2nd amendment rights.
As for the story about Zimmerman following Martin, then somehow losing him and then Martin jumps out of some bushes and attacks Zimmerman is ridiculous,this was a small condo community, not the deep woods how could that happen? ( I understand from one news commenter, that in the video Zimmerman used to explain what happened and the area where it happened, did not have any bushes).
I don't think that voice on the tape was Zimmerman's( I heard him talk on Hannity) that was a kid's voice. Zimmerman was also 200 lbs, Martin was about 160LB, Zimmerman was also trained in mix martial arts, Martin was not. I am an NRA member and I can't recall all the years I read the armed citizen column, a story of self defense like this.