Zimmerman Released On Bond

[W.E.B. Du Bois]

I don't recall saying that "they will trump what was said in a police report." Could you please provide a quote with a link to where I said that?

Post #6 on this thread:

http://politicalforum.net/showthread...ull=1#post9422

"This paints a different picture of Zimmerman than the one the prosecution will be trying to paint. He has many supportive people who will undoubtedly be willing to testify on his behalf regarding his character. The only real concrete "criminal" behavior documented was his scuffle with the officer, who he claimed was in plain clothes and was pushing his friend around. Even if the officer was in uniform, alcohol was involved, and Zimmerman has made amends for that particular incident. " - JL95

I'm not seeing any records for this girl he supposedly picked up and threw at a party. When I'm searching google, I'm seeing a lot of accounts of his ex girlfriend claiming that he hit her and threw her on a bed, but I haven't seen any that say he picked up a girl and threw her on the ground at a party.

There's no supposed about it. GZ was employed as a private security guard for a private party. He was fired from this job for picking up a drunken girl and throwing her, resulting in her getting a twisted ankle. His employer called him "Jeckle and Hyde" like he has a split personality and he just exploded on this girl in a fit of "pure rage." I highly doubt him employer completely manufactured a story of a fake thrown girl and manufactured his characterizations of GZ.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/forme...ed-he-snapped/

The New York Daily News reports the former co-worker saying Zimmerman — who made between $50 and $100 a night — was fired from his job as a security guard in 2005 for “being too aggressive.” Usually “he was just a cool guy,” he said. “He liked to drink and hang with the women like the rest of us. But it was like Jekyll and Hyde. When the dude snapped, he snapped.” From the report:

He had a temper and he became a liability. One time this woman was acting a little out of control. She was drunk. George lost his cool and totally overreacted. It was weird, because he was such a cool guy, but he got all nuts. He picked her up and threw her. It was pure rage. She twisted her ankle. Everyone was flipping out.

While the source conceded that Zimmerman “loved being in charge” and “loved the power,” he said. “Still, I could never see him killing someone. Never.”

The story notes that, also in 2005, Zimmerman “was arrested for fighting with a cop trying to arrest his friend for underage drinking, and he and his ex-fiancée took out protective orders against each other.”

Even if that's considered a "history of violence," the prosecution still has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that this "history of violence" tied in to his actions regarding what happened to Trayvon Martin. They have to prove it. They can't just say "Zimmerman has a history of violence, ipso facto, he murdered Martin." That's not proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Well yeah, obviously. I've made that very case against GZ on this forum again and again, so of course it can easily be done. It certainly wouldn't look like the straw man you just provided.

I also heard by the same sources that he filed a similar injunction against her for her being the aggressor in the situation, so a conclusion cannot really be made from that based on any kind of factual matter. You would have to either take her word for it or take his word for it. I don't believe it ever became a criminal issue, they both claimed opposite things and no actual investigation took place. No facts in that particular instance. Just two differing stories.

Regardless of how bad the blow is; it's still a blow against GZ. The juror's can discount the blow or not, but the thing is is that it's a FOURTH person saying that GZ assaulted him/her. That fact is just as meaningful as whatever she has to say.

That would be a snap-judgment, especially considering that there was alcohol involved. He obviously made a mistake and was aggressive, but a conclusion overall can't be reached about his sober personality from one incident during which he was under the influence. It's common sense that people often lose control when under the influence and if they're outright drunk, a lot of people do a lot of stupid things. Sometimes they're more aggressive. That doesn't constitute a snap judgement on their entire personality, only that they did something stupid while under the influence or while drunk. That happens a lot.

It's not a snap judgment. First of all, it's an overall pattern of aggression and a volatile temper. It doesn't make sense to keep excusing GZ for every assault he makes. How many free passes is one person supposed to get before it can be concluded that there's something wrong with him? It's the same thing every time with GZ - (1) GZ gets angry, (2) GZ puts his hands on somebody.

If they can discredit her reliability as a witness and persuade the jury that her testimony can't be trusted, then the jury won't trust her testimony. That relies on whether or not they can actually persuade the jury about her credibility, but because it is still an issue of whether or not the jury ends up trusting her testimony, her credibility as a witness is not only not irrelevant, it's a crucial part of the defense--if she's brought to the stand.

That's called a tautology. If it rains tomorrow, then it will rain tomorrow. It's a meaningless statement. In any case, even in the worst case scenario (for which there is no evidence to believe will be the case), GZ's defense still gets weakened due to the fact that he had to discredit yet another person in order to lessen their accusations against him. The very act of doing so weakens the tactic when applied to others (i.e. TM) and thus weakens GZ.

There isn't enough evidence to actually support this, even the State investigator on Corey's team admitted during the bond hearing that they do not have enough evidence to disprove Zimmerman's contention that he was assaulted on his way back to his truck.

There is enough evidence to actually support this. Dale Gilbreath (hereafter referred to as DG) was probably referring to the evidence on the crime scene and not the 911 call, which is evidence. DG also said that GZ's account of having his head smashed was not consistent with the evidence, as well as that there are inconsistencies with GZ's report of what happened to the police.

That is a red herring. How does that isolated incident have anything to do with George Zimmerman's case?

That is a lie. Your question was answered before you asked it in the comment you are replying to.

I already made a post regarding this. The prosecution doesn't have to contain proof of the defense's theories, but they must establish how they connect a certain action of the accused with criminal intent--in the case of second degree murder, it has to do with a "depraved mind," according to Florida law. The article I posted above discusses the absurdity of how weak the affidavit was and how such an affidavit never should have been signed off on. The writer of the article breaks down the paragraphs of the affidavit individually and explains how there is never any criminal action identified, especially none that would warrant a charge of murder in the second degree.

You are not directly supporting your stated opinion that the prosecution needs to include a picture of GZ's bloody head in its affidavit. To my knowledge you have never actually stated a valid reason (if any reason at all) as to why this must be done. Your attack on the affidavit on your claim that it is vague is a different matter. This point is completely different. There is no reason to include inflammatory pictures into a legal document and you have not provided any valid reason or any reason at all about why it should be otherwise.

As for your "article", it's actually a blog post, which has about as much authority as any post on this forum - zero. Secondly, it was a worthless blog post at that, as I've pointed out.


WEB

[Locke9-05]

Post #6 on this thread:

http://politicalforum.net/showthread...ull=1#post9422

"This paints a different picture of Zimmerman than the one the prosecution will be trying to paint. He has many supportive people who will undoubtedly be willing to testify on his behalf regarding his character. The only real concrete "criminal" behavior documented was his scuffle with the officer, who he claimed was in plain clothes and was pushing his friend around. Even if the officer was in uniform, alcohol was involved, and Zimmerman has made amends for that particular incident. " - JL95

That's still a blatant strawman and a lie, as I never once said "they [family testimony] will trump a police report." I simply pointed out that Zimmerman undoubtedly has a lot of people willing to testify in favor of his character. I never undermined the police report, I never said it wouldn't hold up against the people testifying in favor of Zimmerman's character, I never even implied it. I just pointed out facts, fact 1 being that Zimmerman probably has a lot of people willing to testify positively regarding his character and fact 2 being that he made amends for his scuffle with the officer--in that he took the alcohol education, anger management, etc. and payed the fine or whatever else came with the misdemeanor sentencing. Your argument addressed a dishonest strawman of its own creation, something that I never actually said nor even implied. I predict your argument will counter by attempting to paint the picture that I somehow "implied it," but that would be even more of a stretch than the dishonest strawman already in play.

There's no supposed about it. GZ was employed as a private security guard for a private party. He was fired from this job for picking up a drunken girl and throwing her, resulting in her getting a twisted ankle. His employer called him "Jeckle and Hyde" like he has a split personality and he just exploded on this girl in a fit of "pure rage." I highly doubt him employer completely manufactured a story of a fake thrown girl and manufactured his characterizations of GZ.

I never argued nor implied that he did, I simply said I had not seen this article. Now I have.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/forme...ed-he-snapped/

The New York Daily News reports the former co-worker saying Zimmerman — who made between $50 and $100 a night — was fired from his job as a security guard in 2005 for “being too aggressive.” Usually “he was just a cool guy,” he said. “He liked to drink and hang with the women like the rest of us. But it was like Jekyll and Hyde. When the dude snapped, he snapped.” From the report:

He had a temper and he became a liability. One time this woman was acting a little out of control. She was drunk. George lost his cool and totally overreacted. It was weird, because he was such a cool guy, but he got all nuts. He picked her up and threw her. It was pure rage. She twisted her ankle. Everyone was flipping out.

While the source conceded that Zimmerman “loved being in charge” and “loved the power,” he said. “Still, I could never see him killing someone. Never.”

The story notes that, also in 2005, Zimmerman “was arrested for fighting with a cop trying to arrest his friend for underage drinking, and he and his ex-fiancée took out protective orders against each other.”

So we have one incident which was actually documented in his criminal record. Were charges not filed when he was alleged to have thrown this woman, twisting her ankle? Because if he overreacted and was fired as a result, I would find it highly unlikely for there not to have been criminal or at least civil charges filed against him by the alleged victim of that particular incident. And the domestic disputes are just a matter of "he said, she said," there's no real evidence to support either story. Pretty much a dead end.

Well yeah, obviously. I've made that very case against GZ on this forum again and again, so of course it can easily be done. It certainly wouldn't look like the straw man you just provided.

False accusation of strawman, my statement of "They can't just say 'Zimmerman has a history of violence, ipso facto, he murdered Martin.' That's not proof beyond reasonable doubt." was not referring to your argument, it was not a strawman dress up of your argument, I was pointing out the self-evident fact that the prosecution is going to need more than what some would call a "history of violence" to actually prove that Zimmerman was not acting in self defense. Making wild hypotheses regarding how he probably killed Martin in a violent fit of rage will not make their case. They're going to need fairly concrete evidence to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt." If there is reasonable doubt and the jury is composed of fair and non-biased individuals who know the law, Zimmerman will walk. And I disagree that your arguments have made a case "again and again" which prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman is guilty of second degree murder. There isn't enough evidence available to the public to prove that Zimmerman is guilty of second degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt, and that's what has to be done if Zimmerman is to be convicted.

Well it depends what hat you're going to wear. Regardless of how bad the blow is; it's still a blow against GZ. The juror's can discount the blow or not, but the thing is is that it's a FOURTH person saying that GZ assaulted him/her. That fact is just as meaningful as whatever she has to say.

The fact means nothing in a trial if the jury isn't persuaded. The jury's opinion of the prosecution's case and the defense's case is what matters. A conviction means the jury will have to believe the prosecution's arguments. If the prosecution brings this woman in to testify, it will become clear in the cross examination that it was a matter of "he said, she said" and if the defense is able to persuade the jury that the woman is either dishonest or not a credible witness, then the fact that she made a claim against Zimmerman is meaningless.

It's not a snap judgment. First of all, it's an overall pattern of aggression and a volatile temper. It doesn't make sense to keep excusing GZ for every assault he makes. How many free passes is one person supposed to get before it can be concluded that there's something wrong with him? It's the same thing every time with GZ - (1) GZ gets angry, (2) GZ puts his hands on somebody.

I see your point, but for every story that claims Zimmerman overreacted or behaved angrily or was aggressive, there's at least another story claiming that Zimmerman is not an angry person and that he's an asset to the community. The prosecution is going to need more than a "history of violence" to actually prove that Zimmerman is guilty of anything criminal, especially second degree murder.

That's called a tautology. If it rains tomorrow, then it will rain tomorrow. It's a meaningless statement. In any case, even in the worst case scenario (for which there is no evidence to believe will be the case), GZ's defense still gets weakened due to the fact that he had to discredit yet another person in order to lessen their accusations against him. The very act of doing so weakens the tactic when applied to others (i.e. TM) and thus weakens GZ.

Yes, but the defense has a lot less to do than the prosecution. The prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman committed second degree murder. His character isn't going to accomplish that. And it doesn't really weaken the defense to discredit witnesses against Zimmerman's character, because the defense isn't tasked with proving anything beyond a reasonable doubt. They simply have to defend Zimmerman's claim of self-defense against the prosecution's arguments.

There is enough evidence to actually support this. Dale Gilbreath (hereafter referred to as DG) was probably referring to the evidence on the crime scene and not the 911 call, which is evidence.

It's evidence, but it's definitely not a "home run," like Tom Owen implied. I listened to that recording and as much of a professional Tom Owen is and everything, he was comparing a panicked and strained yell to a calm voiced Zimmerman on the phone with the dispatch operator. The defense will likely bring that up and bring their own set of expert witnesses to testify as to how such comparisons are not ideal for making conclusions using the kind of software Owen was using.

DG also said that GZ's account of having his head smashed was not consistent with the evidence, as well as that there are inconsistencies with GZ's report of what happened to the police.

Since he didn't elaborate, I guess we'll have to wait to find out exactly what that means.

That is a lie. Your question was answered before you asked it in the comment you are replying to.

Your contention that my comment is a lie is actually the lie. The discussion progressed as follows:

Based on what I have seen, I do not believe Zimmerman is guilty of second degree murder. I think charging him with that was definitely a stretch and I'll get into that more below. If anything, he's guilty of manslaughter, but if his claim of self-defense isn't disproved by the prosecution, then he isn't guilty of that either. That's all I'm saying. I'm saying I'm not going to pretend to know whether or not he is guilty, I just have an opinion based on what I've seen and I think the prosecution is going to find it difficult to get a conviction if he receives a fair trial.

I disagree. I think GZ is guilty of murder, whether it be second degree or third degree I do not know. I believe GZ climbed on top of TM, held him there while TM cried for help for approximately 30 seconds while GZ unholstered his gun, loaded a round aimed it at TM's chest, fired it and ended his life. GZ seems to have executed TM from what I've heard on those 911 calls. That is murder, not manslaughter.

There isn't enough evidence to actually support this, even the State investigator on Corey's team admitted during the bond hearing that they do not have enough evidence to disprove Zimmerman's contention that he was assaulted on his way back to his truck.

In any case, over-charging GZ is fine if it gets him to plea to a manslaughter. I read an article just today about a black couple who moved into a home, were changing the locks and their neighbors assumed they were breaking in and pulled shotguns on them. When the police arrived, the homeowners could not produce a certificate of sale document and the police charged them with loitering and prowling. The police had no proof, but they charged these people anyway. If that is the standard to charge people, even if you have no reasonable suspicion to do so, then that standard is being applied to GZ.

That is a red herring. How does that isolated incident have anything to do with George Zimmerman's case?

None of my arguments there "ask a question," therefore your contention that "my question was answered" is false. The story your argument mentioned about the black couple who moved into a home, were changing the locks and ended up being charged with criminal activity despite that they owned the home had nothing to do with the Zimmerman case. Your contention that "that same standard [the standard used in that instance of charging people] is being applied to GZ" doesn't make sense. Just because those people were falsely charged without enough evidence doesn't in any way indicate that it's a "standard" of charging people without having enough evidence to do so and that's why Zimmerman was charged or justification for him being charged, despite that the affidavit made no mention of any blatantly criminal act committed by Zimmerman whatsoever. All the acts of Zimmerman's that the affidavit mentioned were legal or justified according to his claim of self-defense. The affidavit didn't even really address his claim of self-defense and even if it had, it failed to include important information regarding injuries sustained by Zimmerman in the physical altercation--information which would have been completely accessible to the prosecution and the investigators for the State. The argument that the standard which was used to charge the black couple applies to Zimmerman is simply ludicrous. So they were wrongly charged, it's unfortunate and I hope they're able to fight the system. But that in no way justifies a similar charge being made without sufficient supporting evidence in the Zimmerman case.

You are not directly supporting your stated opinion that the prosecution needs to include a picture of GZ's bloody head in its affidavit. To my knowledge you have never actually stated a valid reason (if any reason at all) as to why this must be done. Your attack on the affidavit on your claim that it is vague is a different matter. This point is completely different. There is no reason to include inflammatory pictures into a legal document and you have not provided any valid reason or any reason at all about why it should be otherwise.

If I ever argued that the prosecution should include the actual photo in their affidavit (I'd like to see a quote of that), then I misspoke. What I meant is that the information surrounding the revealing photo (ie some sort of mention that the medical reports documented Zimmerman's injuries, etc.) should have been included in the affidavit. The photo itself was not necessary, but because the evidence surrounding the photo--the documented injuries Zimmerman suffered--were relevant to the prosecutor's charge that Zimmerman did not act in self-defense, it was either an act of incompetence or blatant perjury to omit such information from the affidavit.

As for your "article", it's actually a blog post, which has about as much authority as any post on this forum - zero. Secondly, it was a worthless blog post at that, as I've pointed out.


WEB

Your argument did not address any of the points made by the article and you didn't even thoroughly read all of it by your argument's own admission. Your argument attempted to discredit the article as "worthless" for opinionated reasons about the tone of the article, that it was "whiny" and "bitchy," which are hardly arguments against the validity of the points made by the author. The article stands, as I share the arguments listed by the author of that article. The arguments listed in the article can either be addressed one by one or they can simply be dismissed, but dismissing the entire article and all the points it made for the previously given reasons is hardly a logically valid tactic and in no way supports the assertion that the article or the validity of the points made in the article are "worthless."

[W.E.B. Du Bois]

Strawman logical fallacy. I never said that at all. Affidavits are required to spell out “all relevant information." That's a legal standard. If the state of Martin's body is relevant to the prosecution seeking charges for Zimmerman, then it would also be unethical to purposefully omit that information as well. But the fact of the matter is that they didn't omit that information. The affidavit clearly describes information which was gathered from Martin's body and the scene in general with statements such as "Zimmerman shot Martin in the chest" and "Assistant Medical Examiner Dr. Bao performed an autopsy and determined that Martin died from the gunshot wound." They clearly address what Martin suffered in the affidavit, I would guess they came to their conclusions in that regard based on evidence such as pictures of the body, the autopsy, etc. They did not, however, include information regarding Zimmerman's condition after the incident, which was relevant to their charge that he did not act in self-defense and that rather, he committed murder in the second degree. That is what is unethical.

Misrepresentation of my comment as a straw man logical fallacy. Your comment doesn't even make clear what you deny having said. It's pretty bizarre to call something the straw man logical fallacy and not explain exactly where the straw man is. Failure to do so just makes your comment look like random logical fallacies thrown out at random and inserted into the first sentence of the sections of your reply, thus providing merely an appearance of logical criticism as an easy one-liner defense of your flawed statements.

I think it is possible but not totally certain that the prosecutor's affidavit has ethical flaws in it. According to this brief government webpage there is not the kind of definitive language used which the prof used:

http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/fo...9/crm00605.htm

It should explain the facts of the case and its procedural history and identify the remaining documents submitted in support of the request, which are attached to the affidavit as exhibits.
...
The affidavit should describe the facts of the case succinctly and plainly.


"All relevant facts" (the prof) vs "the facts of the case" (the government website). The prof could be right or not.

In either case, it might be fair to say that the prof, even if right would only be right technically and not in substance. The fact that GZ is injured is not necessarily relevant, since the prosecution alleges that GZ killed a defenseless TM. Even if TM threw the first punch, and at some point banged GZ's head against the ground, that's still not necessarily relevant to the prosecution's case. The prosecution alleges that TM was rendered helpless by GZ and thus GZ shooting TM was an execution, thus second degree murder. So whether or not GZ had his head smashed at some point and TM may or may not have thrown the first punch is irrelevant. Executions are still illegal, regardless of who started it and what them starting it might have caused any self-proclaimed victim.

Incidentally, this has been my argument since day one.

Like I said before, affidavits are required to spell out “all relevant information." If they do not, then they are unethical and potentially illegal--if it can be shown that relevant information was purposefully omitted. I never used a double standard, the double standard is a strawman invented by your argument and posted here as if it's something I believe. Your strawman argument is a lie, because I never said that, in fact, when questioned on it just prior, I put that strawman in its place. The affidavit did address the state of Martin's body with the explanation that Zimmerman shot Martin in the chest and an autopsy was performed on Martin's body and it was concluded that he died from the gunshot wound to the chest. They did include the information which was relevant to Martin's death in seeking their charge. What they omitted, however, was information which was relevant to their charge that Zimmerman was not acting in self-defense. The wounds he suffered on the back of his head are relevant in an affidavit regarding such an incident. That's what Dershowitz was saying and he was right to say it.

The only lies are the ones that you have repeatedly told on this thread. My comments are neither straw man arguments nor lies, as you have lied by alleging. You have offered no reason, nor proof to support those accusations and so you have hypocritically and dishonestly alleged that my comments are lies while telling your own lies.

Yet the prosecution's affidavit failed to even establish any kind of criminal action committed by Zimmerman, and things are looking more and more shaky everyday. He hasn't been convicted and even the State team investigator admitted they do not have evidence which disproves Zimmerman's contention that he was attacked on the way back to his vehicle. If the State investigator tasked by the prosecution themselves isn't even sure based on the evidence, how can you be?

The prosecution's affidavit failed to do nothing and it was authorized by a judge. The prosecution's case does not look shaky, nor has it become more shaky. As I mentioned above, the investigator was likely referring to physical evidence on the scene, which is not necessary to make the murder 2 charge. In my opinion, since GZ does not contest that he shot TM, all that is necessary to make that charge is evidence that TM was helpless. Killing a helpless person is murder 2. This evidence exists with the screams of help in the 9/11 call and the audio experts and so the minimum amount of evidence for guilt is satisfied in my opinion.

Yet the arguments made in the article are as valid as any made on any other forum such as this one.

No they're not; the blog post's argument is crap. The same cannot be said of the arguments on this forum.

That's a dishonest argument. The post makes the crucial observation that no single action mentioned in the affidavit can be automatically considered criminal, even the homicide itself. And the affidavit fails to connect any action of Zimmerman's with criminal intent, and definitely fails to connect his actions with a "depraved mind," which is what constitutes a second degree murder charge. Even the homicide itself isn't automatically criminal. Homicide is the killing of another human being. Sometimes it's justified, such as in the case of self-defense, which is what Zimmerman claimed. The prosecution failed to undermine his self-defense claim in the affidavit. These are all arguments which are brought up by this "blogger," and they are all important defining characteristics of the affidavit. It's not really "petty shit," that's a dishonest assessment, especially considering Dershowitz, a liberal law professor is criticizing the affidavit for the same thing.

No, your comment is hypocritical and a lie. You allege dishonesty while telling a lie.

Your calling the blog post's argument an observation is incorrect; it is a petty if not dishonest argument. The shooting of a helpless person is criminal. As I wrote in my last reply all the blog post can say is that it doesn't connect the dots between a person calling for help is helpless and shooting a helpless person is murder. It lists that the victim was calling for help and the suspect shot him, but it doesn't explicitly connect those two dots. That's a technical point with zero substance which is why the blog post is "petty shit."

Dershowitz is entitled to his opinion, but I wonder if his opinion was so right, how come he's the only lawyer out there saying such a thing. Dershowitz has a history of saying that prosecutor's don't provided exculpatory evidence in their affidavits, so it could very well be nothing more than just a technical complaint, aka "petty shit."

Your argument misinterpreted mine. The evidence is still important to the legal process, is what I meant, regardless of whether some individuals perceive its value as "minimal."

Your comment is again dishonest as you provide no proof that I misrepresented what I said. Once again your comment is hypocritical by alleging dishonesty while engaging in it.

That's a blatant lie. My argument is in favor of a fair justice system and following standards of appropriate justice. If a fair trial and judicial proceedings results in Zimmerman's conviction, then I will still be happy. As long as it's fair. I've said this before, so I'm surprised your argument was to misrepresent my position with a lie.

Again, the only lies are the ones you've told. Once again you allege a lie but show no proof of one. This comment is another example of hypocrisy accusing lies while telling them.

That's the slippery slope logical fallacy and just an outright absurd argument in general. Perjury committed by attorneys can often result in disbarment, I have yet to see a United States attorney be executed for lying. To suggest that my line of arguing is as unreasonable a "stretch" as it would be to claim that the attorney who lied should be executed along with her subordinates is nothing short of pure ridiculousness. My argument clearly never made any such implication.

That's the point that it's the slippery slope logical fallacy. My comment was using the same logic as yours: the slippery slope logical fallacy, which is found in your comment when you suggest that the DA will be disbarred. Your writing that Corey's affidavit is perjury is the same "ridiculousness" you've criticized.


WEB

[W.E.B. Du Bois]

That's still a blatant strawman and a lie, as I never once said "they [family testimony] will trump a police report." I simply pointed out that Zimmerman undoubtedly has a lot of people willing to testify in favor of his character. I never undermined the police report, I never said it wouldn't hold up against the people testifying in favor of Zimmerman's character, I never even implied it. I just pointed out facts, fact 1 being that Zimmerman probably has a lot of people willing to testify positively regarding his character and fact 2 being that he made amends for his scuffle with the officer--in that he took the alcohol education, anger management, etc. and payed the fine or whatever else came with the misdemeanor sentencing. Your argument addressed a dishonest strawman of its own creation, something that I never actually said nor even implied. I predict your argument will counter by attempting to paint the picture that I somehow "implied it," but that would be even more of a stretch than the dishonest strawman already in play.

You tell a lie by misrepresenting my comment as a blatant straw man and a lie. I never said the comment "they will trump a police report" is a quote. To insinuate that I did is the actual straw man fallacy. What you wrote though does mean they will trump a police a report.

You speak very favorably of testimony from GZ's family and friends, minimize GZ's assault, and then further minimize it by claiming that he has "made amends" for it. Thus the meaning of your comment, as I have said, is that testimony from GZ's family and friends will "trump a police report."

Your calling this correct description of your comments dishonest is dishonest and thus hypocrisy as well.

So we have one incident which was actually documented in his criminal record. Were charges not filed when he was alleged to have thrown this woman, twisting her ankle? Because if he overreacted and was fired as a result, I would find it highly unlikely for there not to have been criminal or at least civil charges filed against him by the alleged victim of that particular incident. And the domestic disputes are just a matter of "he said, she said," there's no real evidence to support either story. Pretty much a dead end.

That's a good way to minimize GZ's criminal record, but again the facts of GZ's criminal record are more than just him assaulting an officer. It also includes picking up and throwing a woman at a party and twisting her ankle (for which he was fired) and a restraining order being taken out GZ by his ex-fiance due to alleged domestic violence. As for whether criminal charges were filed against GZ or not for throwing this girl, I pose that question back to you. If your comment here insinuates that the incident does not occur, that would be dishonest as just above you said that you had not implied that the incident was fabricated.

As for saying that the alleged beating of his wife is a dead end, that's a dishonest assertion because as already explained even if it is just he said, she said, it's a fourth person accusing GZ of having committed physical violence on them. That's going to be significant to the jury in determining that GZ has a temper problem and a resort to violence when that temper blows.

False accusation of strawman, my statement of "They can't just say 'Zimmerman has a history of violence, ipso facto, he murdered Martin.' That's not proof beyond reasonable doubt." was not referring to your argument, it was not a strawman dress up of your argument, I was pointing out the self-evident fact that the prosecution is going to need more than what some would call a "history of violence" to actually prove that Zimmerman was not acting in self defense. Making wild hypotheses regarding how he probably killed Martin in a violent fit of rage will not make their case. They're going to need fairly concrete evidence to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt." If there is reasonable doubt and the jury is composed of fair and non-biased individuals who know the law, Zimmerman will walk. And I disagree that your arguments have made a case "again and again" which prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman is guilty of second degree murder. There isn't enough evidence available to the public to prove that Zimmerman is guilty of second degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt, and that's what has to be done if Zimmerman is to be convicted.

Correct identification of straw man. I didn't say your statement was a straw man of my statement, it's a straw man of the DA's future argument. This latest comment employs that same straw man tactic, going on about the DA "making wild hypotheses" when it's obvious that the DA won't be doing that, hence your comment straw mans the DA again.

I have made the case of how GZ committed murder 2 and not in the straw man way that you argue against, but using evidence. Whether it is beyond reasonable doubt or not is not my contention. While it may be written somewhere that jury must establish this, there's no facts in what you've written which show that juries actually dwell on that instruction more than a persuasive case.

The fact means nothing in a trial if the jury isn't persuaded. The jury's opinion of the prosecution's case and the defense's case is what matters. A conviction means the jury will have to believe the prosecution's arguments. If the prosecution brings this woman in to testify, it will become clear in the cross examination that it was a matter of "he said, she said" and if the defense is able to persuade the jury that the woman is either dishonest or not a credible witness, then the fact that she made a claim against Zimmerman is meaningless.

There's no evidence in your post that GZ's ex-fiance is not to be believed. Your focus on the worst case speculation of GZ's ex-fiance having the lowest credibility (drug user, habitual thief, etc) is dishonest. In all likelihood her past will have no crimes or only petty crimes on it, thus she will have some credibility if she testifies against GZ.

Secondly, even in the worst case scenario that she is a drug user or habitual thief, that still won't nullify her testimony.

Third, even if she were a convicted murderer, her testimony would still damage GZ's case as repeatedly tearing down other parties weakens the power of the tearing down tactic, thus weakening GZ's defense (which would be based on tearing others down).

I see your point, but for every story that claims Zimmerman overreacted or behaved angrily or was aggressive, there's at least another story claiming that Zimmerman is not an angry person and that he's an asset to the community. The prosecution is going to need more than a "history of violence" to actually prove that Zimmerman is guilty of anything criminal, especially second degree murder.

Stories of criminality count more than stories of good deeds. That is common sense. If a person has mentored four orphans for several years and has beaten four women, and he goes on trial being charged with wife-beating, the four bad deeds will outweigh the four good deeds in the juries mind. You may disagree with that, but that's anti-common sense and I'll let the audience decide who's right on that one.

Your second sentence is a straw man argument, since the DA is obviously going to do more than just talk about GZ's criminal history.

Yes, but the defense has a lot less to do than the prosecution. The prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman committed second degree murder. His character isn't going to accomplish that. And it doesn't really weaken the defense to discredit witnesses against Zimmerman's character, because the defense isn't tasked with proving anything beyond a reasonable doubt. They simply have to defend Zimmerman's claim of self-defense against the prosecution's arguments.

The defense does not have a lot less to do than the prosecution. The defense has to defend against every charge that the prosecution makes, that's their job. The prosecution does not necessarily have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that GZ committed second degree murder as I explained above. His character is going to accomplish that. It weakens the defense to discredit witnesses, since repeatedly doing that will raise the possibility that GZ's defense is a smear campaign, which obviously lacks validity as a defense. The defense does not have to simply defend GZ's claim of self-defense, if they do (which they won't) then GZ will be painted exactly as the prosecution wants him to be painted, as a man who loses his temper and then attacks people. This will make his conviction more likely, or make his guilty seem more "reasonable".

It's evidence, but it's definitely not a "home run," like Tom Owen implied. I listened to that recording and as much of a professional Tom Owen is and everything, he was comparing a panicked and strained yell to a calm voiced Zimmerman on the phone with the dispatch operator. The defense will likely bring that up and bring their own set of expert witnesses to testify as to how such comparisons are not ideal for making conclusions using the kind of software Owen was using.

Well I've heard that his testimony was used in a different case in a murder trial and the suspect was convicted. So I guess we'll see if it's a home run or not. The fact that a calm voice is measured against a yelling voice is not necessarily relevant. Just judging from my own voice, my voice has certain characteristics which remain constant no matter what my volume. I cannot suddenly sing like Justin Bieber because I'm yelling at the top of my lungs.

Your contention that my comment is a lie is actually the lie. The discussion progressed as follows:

None of my arguments there "ask a question," therefore your contention that "my question was answered" is false. The story your argument mentioned about the black couple who moved into a home, were changing the locks and ended up being charged with criminal activity despite that they owned the home had nothing to do with the Zimmerman case. Your contention that "that same standard [the standard used in that instance of charging people] is being applied to GZ" doesn't make sense. Just because those people were falsely charged without enough evidence doesn't in any way indicate that it's a "standard" of charging people without having enough evidence to do so and that's why Zimmerman was charged or justification for him being charged, despite that the affidavit made no mention of any blatantly criminal act committed by Zimmerman whatsoever. All the acts of Zimmerman's that the affidavit mentioned were legal or justified according to his claim of self-defense. The affidavit didn't even really address his claim of self-defense and even if it had, it failed to include important information regarding injuries sustained by Zimmerman in the physical altercation--information which would have been completely accessible to the prosecution and the investigators for the State. The argument that the standard which was used to charge the black couple applies to Zimmerman is simply ludicrous. So they were wrongly charged, it's unfortunate and I hope they're able to fight the system. But that in no way justifies a similar charge being made without sufficient supporting evidence in the Zimmerman case.

Your comment here is a flat out lie. You say:

"None of my arguments there "ask a question," therefore your contention that "my question was answered" is false."

Yet, one inch above this you quote yourself asking a question:

"That is a red herring. How does that isolated incident have anything to do with George Zimmerman's case?

Your other comments are ridiculous in that you make categorical sweeping remarks that what I've said is false based on nothing more than saying no, it's not.

I think it is possible to make a counter argument that there is a difference between the police making an arrest on what is essentially an empty charge and the DA prosecuting on essentially an empty charge. Your saying that my aforementioned argument is "simply ludicrous" is simply a lie. It might not be definitive proof that the prof is wrong, but to call it "simply ludicrous" is simply ludicrous.

With regards to the prof, I've commented on why I think the heavy stock you place in his comments is over done.

If I ever argued that the prosecution should include the actual photo in their affidavit (I'd like to see a quote of that), then I misspoke. What I meant is that the information surrounding the revealing photo (ie some sort of mention that the medical reports documented Zimmerman's injuries, etc.) should have been included in the affidavit. The photo itself was not necessary, but because the evidence surrounding the photo--the documented injuries Zimmerman suffered--were relevant to the prosecutor's charge that Zimmerman did not act in self-defense, it was either an act of incompetence or blatant perjury to omit such information from the affidavit.

I disagree. I think it's debatable that the prof is right; maybe he is, maybe he isn't. The inconsistency with your argument is that you argue that GZ's injuries should be included, but you don't argue that TM's injuries should be included. Since the DA includes neither, then perhaps it's a standard applied on both parties and thus fair.

As for your perjury claim, that is the slippery slope fallacy. While one prof called it a lie on cable tv, that doesn't mean it's actually a lie, nor that it meets the definition of perjury.

Your argument did not address any of the points made by the article and you didn't even thoroughly read all of it by your argument's own admission. Your argument attempted to discredit the article as "worthless" for opinionated reasons about the tone of the article, that it was "whiny" and "bitchy," which are hardly arguments against the validity of the points made by the author. The article stands, as I share the arguments listed by the author of that article. The arguments listed in the article can either be addressed one by one or they can simply be dismissed, but dismissing the entire article and all the points it made for the previously given reasons is hardly a logically valid tactic and in no way supports the assertion that the article or the validity of the points made in the article are "worthless."

This is a lie. I addressed the main point of the article and I read the relevant sections thoroughly enough. Your claim that I attempted to discredit the article is a lie; I pointed out the pettiness of its argument. Your talking about "whiny" and "bitchy" sidesteps the thrust of my criticism of the blog post and is a straw man fallacy, falsely placing my peripheral comments in the center and my central comments on the periphery.

I do not believe the blog post has any one-by-one arguments to be made. It's essentially only got one point and a list of bitching and moaning. I've already mentioned that one point and debunked it.


WEB