State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Oh, dear - I stand by what I said based on what was presented. I present alternatives to the rush to Zimmerman was in the right. I presented possibilities. If you don't like what I said or that I argue for a position you don't like, that's life.

Mleake - in fact, you make my case - not to belabor or repeat the points.

Zim's testimony comes from the fog of his mini-war and thus I take it with a grain of salt. Similarly, all the testimony about who was crying for help is just a psychological jumble of expectations. The eyewitness research demonstrates that people's perceptions are worth little in many cases.

[ClydeFrog]

Post #145 brings up a good point.
Many of the residents or on-lookers could have gone outside & either broke up the fracas(if it was a fight) or witnessed they events from a better stand-point.

As a private security officer, I've seen many property incidents(condos, resorts, apt bldgs, office parks, etc) where employees or tenants pout & stew then when security or sworn LE officers show up, want to get involved.
These "yardbirds" are a real pain because they don't honestly witness or know all the facts then run outside when they see flashing lights.
People shouldn't take a "don't get involved" mindset & if they do witness a event or come to a victim's aid, they should be honest or make truthful statements.

CF

[csmsss]

Oh, dear - I stand by what I said based on what was presented. I present alternatives to the rush to Zimmerman was in the right. I presented possibilities. If you don't like what I said or that I argue for a position you don't like, that's life.

Mleake - in fact, you make my case - not to belabor or repeat the points.

Zim's testimony comes from the fog of his mini-war and thus I take it with a grain of salt. Similarly, all the testimony about who was crying for help is just a psychological jumble of expectations. The eyewitness research demonstrates that people's perceptions are worth little in many cases.

I've read your posts. You haven't presenting possibilities. You've been presenting an agenda. You're as blindly anti-Zimmerman as some here seem to be pro-Zimmerman. I won't speculate as to your reasons, but in reading your posts, in each and every one you present Martin in the best light possible and Zimmerman in the worst light possible.

[dakota.potts]

Glenn, I was curious if you would have an opinion on the eyewitnesses describing whose voice was on the phone call. I forget the word for it, but there's an effect where your expectations shape what you hear when it's ambiguous. Like when you listen to a Led Zeppelin track backwards and you hear lyrics if they're written out in front of you.

Anyways, I thought that was quite ridiculous.

[Tom Servo]

You're as blindly anti-Zimmerman as some here seem to be pro-Zimmerman.

I haven't seen blindness. What I've seen is skepticism, and we certainly need that.

There's certainly no shortage of confirmation bias going on in the gun culture when it comes to this matter. Everybody wants a 2A hero, and they keep grabbing at straws. Sorry, but this guy might not be 100% right in his actions, he may go to jail, and he may not be the best representative for our cause.

[csmsss]

I haven't seen blindness. What I've seen is skepticism, and we certainly need that.

When skepticism runs in only one direction, I would consider it blindness.

[Tactical Jackalope]

When skepticism runs in only one direction, I would consider it blindness.

I second that. I really was following through unbiased and quietly this whole time, until Di Maio was called to the stand and testified. I think my mind is made up now.

Some people are so hell bent on Zimmerman being "guilty" I feel they don't make any sense. Given today's evidence, they're still in denial.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Aguila Blanca: IMHO, leaving his vehicle and trying to follow a person he considered to be suspicious was unwise only in retrospect, in consideration of the way the incident ultimately played out....His only mistake, IMHO, was in failing to anticipate that the "suspicious person" might not react like a civilized person.

"The way the incident played out" certainly does substantiate that he did make a serious error in judgment, but I would not limit that error to a failure to anticipate anything about whether a "suspicious" person "might not react like a civilized person."

Rather, I think the error resided in his failure in the first and most important important part of risk management: the identification of the risks.

So, what were the risks that he should have considered before venturing forth? How about these:

• The risk that the suspicious person might have been armed and used deadly force;
• that he might thave been ambushed by one or more unseen accomplices;
• that his pursuit might have resulted in a confrontation, which would entail its own risks, one of which might have entailed death or injury to himself, and another of which may have involved escalation resulting in his own use of force, which could have been prevented.

It seems that in the event, one of those risks materialized, and that's why we're having this discussion.

One could go on and on. What about being mistaken for a perp? Who was watching his vehicle?

Some time after the incident occurred, there was an episode on The Best Defense that portrayed similar judgmental errors on the part of a neighborhood watch volunteer. In one scenario, the volunteer was attacked and injured after heading back to the street. He could not access his weapon.

The best strategy? Use a cell phone, from a safe location.

Oh, and don't be obvious about it.

[SgtLumpy]

and he may not be the best representative for our cause.

I don't think I agree. If the story goes that "Martin jumps on Zim, beats the poo out of him, says 'I'm going to kill you' and finally at that point, Zim pulls out his gun and shoots Martin" - Then I think it's exactly the way it should be.

The problematic part of it seems to be when people want to interject things like "Martin was really a good kid" or "Zim was a vigillante". I say If Martin was a good kid and Zim is a vigillante, it was still taken to the point of nothing left for Zim to do but shoot Martin.

I think about the only better "representative for our cause" would be "Gray haired grandma gets beat up by gang of thugs and shoots the one that was just about to stab her".

Tactical errors on Zim's part are a non-issue to me. He's not a cop or a soldier. There's no expectation for him to know or exercise police or military tactics. Even if getting out of his truck was a move less safe than staying in his truck, it's not a display of vigilante-ness, it's something that plenty of people would do as well.

In simplest terms, a guy allowed a thug to beat him up to the point where he felt there was no other option but to shoot him. I think that's what "our cause" is all about.


Sgt Lumpy

[Tom Servo]

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.

I'm slightly more inclined to believe Zimmerman's side of the story, but I'm not going to assume certainty at any point.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by dakota.potts

...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]

Originally Posted by Constantine

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.

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

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]

Originally Posted by OldMarksman

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.