Let's break down the story using Zimmerman's own story.

I chased this guy through the neighborhood for no other reason than I did not like the way he looked. I ended up right by his house. He confronts me about chasing him without reason. I shoot him. He is dead. I am innocent.

I'm pretty sure that I would prefer people that do things like this go through a trial so a jury can actually make that last statement. Whether or not he is guilty I cannot answer. But I'm not just going to take his word for it even if I take his version as the gospel truth. And he would seem to have a whole lot of reason for telling a story that reflects positively on himself.

So I guess what you are saying is that you are against the concept of probable cause?

Like I said before, there are going to be some really pissed off people when this case is decided.

Weak!

Like I said before, there are going to be some really pissed off people when this case is decided.

Not sure if this is what you meant, but that statement will be true regardless of the final dispostion of the case.

Let's break down the story using Zimmerman's own story.

I chased this guy through the neighborhood for no other reason than I did not like the way he looked. I ended up right by his house. He confronts me about chasing him without reason. I shoot him. He is dead. I am innocent.

I'm pretty sure that I would prefer people that do things like this go through a trial so a jury can actually make that last statement. Whether or not he is guilty I cannot answer. But I'm not just going to take his word for it even if I take his version as the gospel truth. And he would seem to have a whole lot of reason for telling a story that reflects positively on himself.

I''m objecting to the fact that you keep mischaracterizing Zimmerman's story.

He doesn't claim that Martin "confronted" him, for example. He claims that Martin hit his head against the sidewalk repeatedly.

Weak how? I have no emotional investment in this case. I wasn't there, I don't know either party, and I am not privy to any witness statements.

Zimmerman's story is that he followed Martin because he thought he looked suspicious. Martin confronted him. Zimmerman shot him. Martin is dead.

Not sure what you are objecting to.

So you're saying there is no other relevant information? Come on, you're smarter than that.

Well, I clearly shortened it an awful lot. so it is short of any detail.

You didn't shorten it, you spun it like a top. To the point where it no longer represents Zimmerman's story, but looks more like the prosecutor's story.


In this situation it may very well have been Martin that was standing his ground and defending himself against an aggressor. That sounds like a real good question for a jury to decide.

It might have been. If so, one hopes that the prosecutor has some actual evidence to present.

It appears that there really isn't a smoking gun piece of evidence in this case.

John Lott looks at the "case" against Zimmerman, as laid out by the prosecution in the charging document:

http://www.nationalreview.com/...cause-john-r-lott-jr

The charges brought against George Zimmerman sure look like prosecutorial misconduct. The case as put forward by the prosecutor in the “affidavit of probable cause” is startlingly weak. As a former chief economist at the U.S. Sentencing Commission, I have read a number of such affidavits, and cannot recall one lacking so much relevant information. The prosecutor has most likely deliberately overcharged, hoping to intimidate Zimmerman into agreeing to a plea bargain. If this case goes to trial, Zimmerman will almost definitely be found “not guilty” on the charge of second-degree murder.

Might as well say what you really want to say. "A white-hispanic racist saw an opportunity to shoot a black kid and did."

No.

I don't know why you're getting impatient with me about this: You're the one who said you were going to examine the case using Zimmerman's story. And you've not done that.

If you want to present alternate versions of the story that are equally plausible, that's fine with me. I just don't understand why you don't just say that you're presenting an alternative to Zimmerman's story. You know, to keep everything honest and all.

Moving on half a step, do you think the prosecutor has evidence that will disprove Zimmerman's story?

You repeatedly use the word "chase" even though the evidence currently available to the public suggests no such thing.

Why do people keep focusing on the unarmed kid part. I know several people, myself included who can beat to death people with our bare hands. Lets just say if I was pounding ont Zimmerman the way this beanpole was (as supported by a witness) I wouldn't have been shot because Zimmerman would be dead or in a coma. Even when I was 17 that would have been the case. And guess what? I probably would have been arrested for assault.

"We've been over this ad nauseum, but you have

1) Witness testimony Martin telling his girlfriend he was scared and trying to get away.
2) Zimmerman ignoring direction by the police to back off.
3) Zimmerman giving unsolicited commentary to the 9/11 dispatcher of "these assholes, they always get away" and "these fucking punks." This indicate, to me, that Zimmerman held considerable animosity towards Martin, and has reason to pursue (they always get away).
4) Testimony and voice analysis that says the scared screaming is Martin, not Zimmerman.
5) The large size differential between Martin and Zimmerman. "


Looks like we need to go over it again.

The "police" didn't tell Zimmerman to "back off." the 911 dispatcher told him it wasn't necessary for him to follow Martin. The two statements are NOT the same thing. Zimmerman's animosity, demonstrated by the comments you quoted, seems justified if there had been recent robberies or vandalism in the neighborhood and no one was arrested, right? Testimony about the voices is unreliable at best, and I'd be surprised if any real expert would stake a reputation on it, or on the idea that he could confirm scared screaming as opposed to angry screaming, or scared screaming that might still have been uttered by an attacker, as opposed to a victim. The size differential is a complete misdirect. The size has nothing to do with who was or was not the aggressor. Being taller doesn't automatically make you the bad guy.

Please differentiate "follow" from "chase" in the context of keeping track of a kid walking quickly through his neighborhood.

If I'm chasing someone, I'm trying to catch them. If I'm following them, I'm just following them. There's a difference.

If your kid was followed through his own neighborhood by some guy he did not know would he not come home and say he was chased?

No, he'd probably say he was followed by some guy he didn't know.

While I agree that the physical stats have nothing to do with it, I would like to see that actual stats. As I recall, the booking document indicates that Zimmerman was 5'8" and 178 lbs. I have not seen anything with regard to Martin's actual size. I've only seen the childhood photo of him which is several years out of date.

Please differentiate "follow" from "chase" in the context of keeping track of a kid walking quickly through his neighborhood.

I'm willing to use follow if you like. But let me ask you this. If your kid was followed through his own neighborhood by some guy he did not know would he not come home and say he was chased?

Because the guy that started the whole deal had a gun. The kid doing nothing but going on a candy run that was being followed/chased/pursued/tailed and was legitimately in the neighborhood did not. The guy with the gun lived. The kid did not.

It goes to the whole question of being reasonably afraid. If Martin had pulled out a gun this would be a very different discussion.

And you do not know that. You know exactly as much as I do. That Zimmerman claims to have started walking back to his car after being advised to do so and after losing sight of the boy. That would make Trayvon the aggressor whether he is armed or not. If Zimmerman can prove this or convince a jury this, he will be a free man whose life is forever ruined. Trayvon may well have been spared a life of crime based on the post he made on his website and based on the way he appears to carry himself.

Given Martin's history, it is within reason to suspect that his actions were less than an innocent candy run.

What would he need to be casing the neighborhood?

>The "police" didn't tell Zimmerman to "back off." the 911 dispatcher told him it wasn't necessary for him to follow Martin.


We're both wrong. The exact were "We don't need you to follow him." That sounds like a request to now follow. Followed by a Zimmerman apparently complying with the request. "OK." And the the dispatcher arranging for cops to meet Zimmerman at a specific location. That's pretty clear direction, to me. The totality of that conversation, to most reasonable neighborhood watch types would be that's signal to pull off and turn it over to the pros. And if I was the dispatch, my understanding of that conversation, is that Zimmerman had peeled off and headed to the meet-up location.




>The two statements are NOT the same thing. Zimmerman's animosity, demonstrated by the comments you quoted, seems justified if there had been recent robberies or vandalism in the neighborhood and no one was arrested, right?


Whether it was justified is irrelevant. What matter is consistency of testimony.


> Testimony about the voices is unreliable at best, and I'd be surprised if any real expert would stake a reputation on it


Are you an expert on forensic voice analysis, and aware on the statistical accuracy given the quality of the recording equipment and circumstances of recording, or you just suggesting that it *might* not be reliable?


What about Zimmerman's testimony that he was the one screaming? Is that more "reliable" the all the other testimony. :)




>Being taller doesn't automatically make you the bad guy.

Please.

While I agree that the physical stats have nothing to do with it, I would like to see that actual stats. As I recall, the booking document indicates that Zimmerman was 5'8" and 178 lbs. I have not seen anything with regard to Martin's actual size. I've only seen the childhood photo of him which is several years out of date.

How is there not probably cause? He admits to shooting and killing the unarmed kid.

>Moving on half a step, do you think the prosecutor has evidence that will disprove Zimmerman's story?

We've been over this ad nauseum, but you have

1) Witness testimony Martin telling his girlfriend he was scared and trying to get away. Valid however it may not be admissible in court

2) Zimmerman ignoring direction by the police to back off. Inaccurate

3) Zimmerman giving unsolicited commentary to the 9/11 dispatcher of "these assholes, they always get away" and "these fucking punks." This indicate, to me, that Zimmerman held considerable animosity towards Martin, and has reason to pursue (they always get away). I think this will carry some weight

4) Testimony and voice analysis that says the scared screaming is Martin, not Zimmerman. Testimony both ways, voice analysis not verifiable.

5) The large size differential between Martin and Zimmerman. Not True, where have you seen the height and weight of both parties on the night of the incident?

None of this is consistent with Martin suddenly turning and attacking Zimmerman. From the facts this is not a conclusion one can come to at this point, you are entitled to your opinion though.

In my lay opinion, that seems sufficient to bring before a jury.

>The "police" didn't tell Zimmerman to "back off." the 911 dispatcher told him it wasn't necessary for him to follow Martin.


We're both wrong. The exact were "We don't need you to follow him." That sounds like a request to now follow. Followed by a Zimmerman apparently complying with the request. "OK." And the the dispatcher arranging for cops to meet Zimmerman at a specific location. That's pretty clear direction, to me. The totality of that conversation, to most reasonable neighborhood watch types would be that's signal to pull off and turn it over to the pros. And if I was the dispatch, my understanding of that conversation, is that Zimmerman had peeled off and headed to the meet-up location.




>The two statements are NOT the same thing. Zimmerman's animosity, demonstrated by the comments you quoted, seems justified if there had been recent robberies or vandalism in the neighborhood and no one was arrested, right?


Whether it was justified is irrelevant. What matter is consistency of testimony.


> Testimony about the voices is unreliable at best, and I'd be surprised if any real expert would stake a reputation on it


Are you an expert on forensic voice analysis, and aware on the statistical accuracy given the quality of the recording equipment and circumstances of recording, or you just suggesting that it *might* not be reliable?


What about Zimmerman's testimony that he was the one screaming? Is that more "reliable" the all the other testimony. :)




>Being taller doesn't automatically make you the bad guy.

Please.

> you are entitled to your opinion though.

Precisely. It's your opinion to take Zimmerman at his word (apparently), it's my opinion there are are enough inconsistencies to bring before a jury. I'm not sure about the 2nd-degree murder, but nevertheless.....

>I don't like the idea of sending this to a trial just to find out what happened.

I do like that idea. The shooting death of an unarmed kid is serious. I think the 911 transcript and testimony of the girlfriend is enough to warrant moving the decision from the executive decision of the DA to a public forum.

I don't like the murder charge. I think some form of manslaughter is more appropriate, even a misdemeanor.

I see little evidence that Zimmerman is either racist or a killer. I see plenty of evidence that he's a whackjob, and there should be *some* accountability for killing someone when the circumstances as a whole are largely inconsistent with the use of deadly force.

> Can you admit that this is very, very far from "perfect self-defense."

> An eye witness says he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman punching him. That same witness says it was Zimmerman screaming for help.

I should have clarified. By "overall" I meant an unarmed kid walking home from the store, talking on the cell phone with his girlfriend. (all facts!)

>I don't like the idea of sending this to a trial just to find out what happened.

I do like that idea. The shooting death of an unarmed kid is serious. I think the 911 transcript and testimony of the girlfriend is enough to warrant moving the decision from the executive decision of the DA to a public forum.

I don't like the murder charge. I think some form of manslaughter is more appropriate, even a misdemeanor.

I see little evidence that Zimmerman is either racist or a killer. I see plenty of evidence that he's a whackjob, and there should be *some* accountability for killing someone when the circumstances as a whole are largely inconsistent with the use of deadly force.

Ohhhh! Ooooohhhhhhh! I want to play!!!

According to the Florida jury instructions, for second degree murder, there are 3 elements that must be met -

• The victim is deceased,
• The victim's death was caused by the defendant's criminal act, and
• There was an unlawful killing of the victim "by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life."

Let's break it down.

Element 1: The victim is deceased. CHECK.

Element 2: The victim's death was caused by the defendant's criminal act. Uh oh. Florida has that pesky "stand your ground law." The affidavit admits Zimmerman was engaged in a struggle. There is no assertion that he could have fled, but, chose not to. Oops.

Element 3: There was an unlawful killing of the victim "by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life." Uh oh! See element 2, above. There is an admission in the affidavit that there was a struggle. There is no allegation in the affidavit that Zimmerman followed Martin with the intent to confront him with the gun Zimmerman was carrying.

We could have a problem here ...

> JSA outlined above in post #53.

JSA's post is based on the actual 2nd-degree murder charge and the actual affidavit. I've, already, stated several times I believe that to be excessive, and stated even a misdemeanor might be appropriate.

From my wide-angle lens, I see a well-meaning, but nutty and aggressive, self-appointed neighborhood watch guy who made bad decision after bad decision leading to the point where, for whatever reason, he killed TM.

A sequence of very bad decisions leading to a death of an innocent person (innocent until the point where he suddenly turned into a bad-ass, and pounced on the creepy, weird dude who'd been stalking him) should be subject to some accountability.

I think you were trying to reply to my response to you, but, it did not show up in your post.

>It just seems to me that the prosecutor has set the bar high

I agree, there.

For better or worse, we sometimes seem to reward our DAs for high profile convictions of any kind, rather than "justice."

I agree with trail. That is the way I see it as well. The rub for me is -- what is the appropriate level of accountability? I dunno, but, it sure as hell isn't second degree murder (a point trail makes in his post, which I quoted above, and earlier in this thread).

Another post says he was probably casing the neighborhood, what evidence is there of that?

That was my post and once again you've misrepresented it. Do you distort the truth intentionally, or do you have reading comprehension challenges?

I'm just curious how much of your opinion was spoon fed to you by the crap the media gave us in the beginning. If they had posted TM's switter pictures and GZ's current ones would there have been any outcry beyond the black community. Which for right or wrong legitimized this whole case to most of America? If we had been presented with the reason TM was suspended from school with as much regularity in the beginning as we were presented with the fact that GZ "assaulted a cop" years earlier in the beginning would there be the same outrcry?

Polls suggest that most americans do not believe GM is guilty of murder, but when you look at the actual numbers a different picture emerges. Most blacks believe GZ is guilty of murder. 33% of all americans believe GZ is guilty. But only 15% think he is innocent. That means the rest think like many of us do. We don't know what happened and are reserving judgement until the facts are presented. That disturbs me as that means only about 50% of people are willing to let due process run its course.

Posting them completely out of the context in which they were written further confirms that you are purposefully distorting the truth.

Welcome to YaHey'hood. You're one of his top interns - just behind Tasha.