|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
July 8, 2013, 09:38 PM | #126 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,903
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
July 8, 2013, 09:52 PM | #127 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
What we have is testimony delivered by the defendant and witnesses who did not see the initial interaction. We have forensic evidence. Those things can be manipulated by both sides of a criminal proceeding to prove a conclusion. What we do not have, and may never have, is the truth of what happened. As such, we're down to speculation.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
July 8, 2013, 10:04 PM | #128 |
Junior member
Join Date: May 1, 2010
Posts: 5,797
|
Speculation; evidence...
I agree that many aspects of the GZ case are open to opinion or general speculation but to me, evidence does not lie.
The case evidence like GZ's broken nose, cuts, grass on his jacket(back), the ME report of Martin, the PF9 9x19mm, the date/time stamped 911 calls etc are not faked or an "opinion". The truth doesn't take sides or show bias. The jury can decide what to take & what they feel isn't a part of their verdict. If GZ gets any conviction in this case, he'll have a strong chance at appeal. ClydeFrog |
July 8, 2013, 10:05 PM | #129 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Dakota - let me be blunt, I'm using my analytic powers. If you think I have some vendetta, you are so wrong and you lose my respect. I am trained to analyze and not jump to the feel good answer.
Then you say: Quote:
We don't know how it started physically and when the gun was flashed. But reasonable doubt makes us think Zim will walk. Some moral philosophers and legal experts feel that if you start the lethal interaction and you are losing - you have no right to respond lethally. In fact, you do swallow it. Or you don't and go to jail.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
|
July 8, 2013, 10:05 PM | #130 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 21, 2010
Location: Rome, NY
Posts: 941
|
I'm waiting for the decision of the jury. All else is conjecture or, perhaps, wishful thinking.
__________________
Jim Page Cogito, ergo armatum sum |
July 8, 2013, 10:06 PM | #131 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Not a lawyer, but they will chime in. You can only appeal on some kind of misconduct or legal mistake - not that you were convicted.
There has to be reversible error.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
July 8, 2013, 10:08 PM | #132 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,903
|
Quote:
In post #45, Glenn asked us to consider if Zimmerman had flashed the gun at Martin. As I read Florida law, flashing a gun at someone might well constitute felony aggravated assault, which would be a criminal act before any blows were exchanged. |
|
July 8, 2013, 10:12 PM | #133 | |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
It will show that the state did not prove otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt. |
|
July 8, 2013, 10:16 PM | #134 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,460
|
gc70, the link you provided in post #126 is an excellent explanation of the "First Aggressor" concept.
|
July 8, 2013, 10:16 PM | #135 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 25, 2013
Location: Keystone Heights, Florida
Posts: 3,084
|
Glenn, perhaps vendetta was too strong a word. You just seemed oddly focused on your viewpoint and less, shall we say, flexible than I've seen you be in previous interactions.
I didn't mean any offense, I was really trying to root out the reason for this rigidness. I think the problem is you and I are both very firmly rooted in our beliefs, which is fine given that the evidence has been presented in a logical fashion and we're then allowed to form our own opinion. I do apologize for any insinuations I may have made about your reasoning ability, it really was a poor choice of words. You have an almost drastically different interpretation of the events that I do and it is frustrating to wrap my head about that. I am not trained although I do think I analyze things as well as I can and I've gone on record here opposing several "feel good" stances since I've joined so I hope that much does speak for itself. As far as defending yourself once you've been attacked, I just don't see how anything paints Zimmerman as the aggressor. The one who initiated conversation, yes, but in my mind, that does not equal aggressor. This is what I mean. If Zimmerman had taken a swing at Martin and missed, I would agree with your viewpoint. But when he gets tackled and he realizes "I shouldn't have left the truck/I should have said something different" (If words were exchanged), what is a person to do at that point? Frankly I see no evidence supporting nothing criminal or inflammatory regarding Zimmerman's actions. I would however, be open to evidence that I missed. I've changed my mind already on this case due to a lot of new information coming out. |
July 8, 2013, 10:18 PM | #136 |
Member
Join Date: January 7, 2013
Posts: 74
|
The coroners report stated no marks to Martin's body consistent with landed blows.
Only one person had any injuries consistent with blows to their person and that was Zimmerman. Only one person had injuries to their hands consistent with punches being thrown and landed and that was Martin. Eye witness testimony places Martin on top of Zimmerman throwing punches. Notice I did not say landing because the witness said he could not see punches being landed but that is obvious by all the physical and medical evidence. Not one shred of evidence exists that proves Zimmerman began any physical confrontation or assault. There are no marks, cuts, or bruises to Martin's face or body showing any evidence of blows struck by Zimmerman. All marks, cuts, and bruises showing evidence of blows landed are on Zimmerman. Manipulation or not that and the rest of the testimony and evidence is what is left for the jury to go by and for justice to be done it is all they should go by. |
July 8, 2013, 10:24 PM | #137 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,142
|
Quote:
If the metabolites of THC were found in liver or fat cells or in urine, it could have been introduced in the system days or even weeks earlier. It would not normally be indicative of marijuana intoxication. |
|
July 8, 2013, 10:41 PM | #138 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 2, 2013
Posts: 779
|
I agree with those who say "Evidence doesn't lie". But most (all?) jury trials aren't very objective. Again, I'm not following the case except to see it on TV with the sound off while on the treadmill at the gym. Did I read one of you saying the jury was all women? That seems like it would tend to stack in favor of the dead guy. "Oh that poor young kid" "Maybe he smoked a little pot or whatever but he got hooked in with the wrong crowd. No need for the big, mean adult guy to kill him".
I think juries tend to go with their gut a lot more than their head. OJ (his first trial) for example. As many have said, we can't get in the heads of those jurors. But I'd bet that there's going to at least be a very long deliberation. There's going to be a lot of "I know the evidence all points to XXX, but I still don't think it's right that the kid had to die. It's just not right. I wouldn't want my kid killed" etc. I hope, for Mr Zim's sake that that line of emotional juror thinking isn't unanimous. And, as many are probably sick of hearing me say, Zim will be in his own mental and emotional prison for the rest of his life, no matter what happens when the judge reads the verdict. Sgt Lumpy |
July 8, 2013, 10:42 PM | #139 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
As Old Marksman said, the state is trying to prove that a person committed a crime. It is up to the jury to decide if the state has made their case beyond a reasonable doubt. A conviction doesn't mean the defendant did it; plenty of wrongful convictions have been reversed. Likewise, an acquittal doesn't indicate innocence; it simply means the state did not adequately prove their case to those six people on the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The concept of truth is a malleable thing in a courtroom.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
July 8, 2013, 10:43 PM | #140 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,142
|
Quote:
No trial is perfect so an appellate court determines if an error is harmless. There are different standards for determining harmless error depending upon whether the error was one of constitutional law or non-constitutional law (a purely evidentiary ruling, for example). If the claim of error is not preserved (by an objection or motion), an appellate court reviews only for clear error which has an even higher standard. Again, this is not Florida specific. This is the standard used in the federal court system and many state systems. |
|
July 8, 2013, 11:14 PM | #141 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,460
|
Quote:
|
|
July 8, 2013, 11:29 PM | #142 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,903
|
Quote:
I am glad I am not a juror in the Zimmerman trial. |
|
July 9, 2013, 09:17 AM | #143 |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
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. |
July 9, 2013, 11:54 AM | #144 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
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. |
July 9, 2013, 11:59 AM | #145 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
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. |
July 9, 2013, 12:04 PM | #146 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Quote:
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. Quote:
|
||
July 9, 2013, 12:27 PM | #147 | |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
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. |
|
July 9, 2013, 12:33 PM | #148 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
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: Quote:
I can't articulate what a dangerous mindset that is.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
||
July 9, 2013, 01:09 PM | #149 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,460
|
Quote:
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. |
|
July 9, 2013, 01:41 PM | #150 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
|
|