Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice - Page 344

Rare Truth · 18th June 2012, 10:57 AM

Originally Posted by GWCarver

Zimmerman wanted Shellie to buy a bulletproof vest:

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news...D=happeningnow

Was he going to try and shoot her too?

;-p

Nessie · 18th June 2012, 11:43 AM

Originally Posted by crimresearch

That sounds rather extreme that in the UK, all uses of deadly force were prosecuted as crimes.

You have a dozen witnesses and video tape that a career criminal starts stabbing someone, and if the victim succeeds in defending themselves while the would be killer dies, the victims are automatically arrested and thrown in jail until they prevail against the prosecution at a criminal trial?

No middle ground, no hearing, arraignment, writs of habeas corpus, etc?

Your made up scenario is an extreme which would not have resulted in the prosecution of the victim. The reality is far more likely to be this......

Originally Posted by Cylinder

The vast majority of self defense claim are prosecuted and convicted in the US as well - since the vast majority are half baked, post hoc excuses for criminals who are caught red-handed, couldn't handle the strain of interrogation by police or thought they were smarter than a seasoned homicide investigator.

"It was self-defense. I went in to rob the guy and he drew on me."

Many a self defence claim is made by both parties who have had a fight with each other, or to excuse giving someone a beating after they assaulted another.

Furthermore deaths are rare here as we do not arm ourselves like the US does and are less likely to accept a death as reasonable force.

Natural Born Skeptic · 18th June 2012, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by Nessie

Your made up scenario is an extreme which would not have resulted in the prosecution of the victim. The reality is far more likely to be this...

What makes you think our system doesn't accommodate the made-up claim and the more common claim? We have way too much violence in our country, of that there is no doubt, but last I noticed a bunch of people weren't killing other people, claiming self-defense, and riding off merrily into the sunset. If you kill someone you can be damn sure it's going to be investigated and you're not going to get off just because you claimed self-defense.

Nessie · 18th June 2012, 12:56 PM

Originally Posted by Natural Born Skeptic

What makes you think our system doesn't accommodate the made-up claim and the more common claim? We have way too much violence in our country, of that there is no doubt, but last I noticed a bunch of people weren't killing other people, claiming self-defense, and riding off merrily into the sunset. If you kill someone you can be damn sure it's going to be investigated and you're not going to get off just because you claimed self-defense.

True, but there is evidence from studies and examples of claims of self defence that say many such claims are dubious to say the least. I have previously linked to studies and linked to the death of a Scot in Texas. There was a similar case with a Japanese student who was shot whilst out during Halloween dressed as Elvis. Japan and Scotland will never understand how those two posed a deadly threat such that the shooter was not prosecuted in either case.

Cylinder · 18th June 2012, 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by Nessie

True, but there is evidence from studies and examples of claims of self defence that say many such claims are dubious to say the least. I have previously linked to studies and linked to the death of a Scot in Texas. There was a similar case with a Japanese student who was shot whilst out during Halloween dressed as Elvis. Japan and Scotland will never understand how those two posed a deadly threat such that the shooter was not prosecuted in either case.

If we're referring to the same one, in both of those cases the deceased were seen as trying to force entry into a home at night. It's not something you do in the United States.

crimresearch · 18th June 2012, 01:25 PM

Originally Posted by Amazer

I guess I wasn't exactly clear when I made that statement. Unless there is overwhelming evidence that it concerns a case of self-defense, it should be tried in a court of law. Even then, I'd ideally would like see all such cases reviewed by an independent party.

Well, it is unclear to use words like 'automatically', and 'all uses', when you mean 'sometimes under specific circumstances'.

Especially when the latter is already the case in the US, which you claim should be done away with, and replaced with the former.

Nessie · 18th June 2012, 01:27 PM

Originally Posted by Cylinder

If we're referring to the same one, in both of those cases the deceased were seen as trying to force entry into a home at night. It's not something you do in the United States.

"Seen" by a rather forgiving legal system that was very biased towards the rights of the shooters right to self defence over the deceased's right to life.

Forcing entry into someone's home at night is also not acceptable in the UK. Being drunk and banging on a back door is also not acceptable. Dressing as Elvis is fine. The difference is using deadly force first and asking questions later is unacceptable in the UK.

In Martin's case, the two above and my own experience it appears there is a very high level of risk is assumed by the unarmed person, in that not particularly risky behavouir is seen as worthy of a deadly response.

Were there any warning signs at the community, such as 'Warning Armed Citizens on Patrol', 'Warning due to thefts armed response in area' or anything like that?

I do not see how people, particularly unfamiliar with an area are supposed to know the risks and so their actions assume a greater level of risk than they would be reasonably expected to know.

WildCat · 18th June 2012, 05:41 PM

Wow, listening to those tapes today all I can think is that Zimmerman and his wife are 2 of the dumbest people in Florida.

Which makes me think it's even less likely that he made up such a tight story on the spot the night of the shooting.

Cylinder · 18th June 2012, 05:48 PM

Originally Posted by WildCat

Wow, listening to those tapes today all I can think is that Zimmerman and his wife are 2 of the dumbest people in Florida.

Which makes me think it's even less likely that he made up such a tight story on the spot the night of the shooting.

Authoratative voice, eh?

Kaosium · 18th June 2012, 05:59 PM

Originally Posted by crimresearch

So anyone who believes the actual legal facts over your opinions, is lying or pig headed ignorant, because you don't need authories, you could just show them, but it would take over 100 pages to prove them wrong?

Did I get that right?

Because I'd hate to misunderstand you.

Not quite, and I wasn't referring to anyone here. I'm just saying an examination of the APC and the evidence ought to reveal something, and if there's 'legal analysts' going on TV saying that Murder 2 is justified by either, they're lying to themselves at least. Probably thinking something can be mined from his police statements, despite the Sanford police finding they matched the evidence and the other witness statements. I'm not going to spend a hundred pages on it though, it's not worth it.

johnny karate · 18th June 2012, 06:03 PM

Originally Posted by WildCat

Wow, listening to those tapes today all I can think is that Zimmerman and his wife are 2 of the dumbest people in Florida.

Which makes me think it's even less likely that he made up such a tight story on the spot the night of the shooting.

That's because he probably didn't.

To change "I confronted him" to "He confronted me" or "I grabbed his arm and he punched me" to "He punched me for no reason" doesn't take some amazing fabulist, only a liar being true to his nature.

Cylinder · 18th June 2012, 06:21 PM

Zimmerman uses the word hoodie Starts around 12:00

Quote:

ZIMMERMAN: We could have two cars. We could have two rented cars.

SHELLIE: That’s true. The one that we’re gonna drive in.

ZIMMERMAN: Mm hmm.

SHELLIE: So leave mine home.

ZIMMERMAN: Yeah.

SHELLIE: Get the one that we’re gonna drive in, and then get the SUV, I don't know if they black out SUV’s though (Voices blended, inaudible)

ZIMMERMAN: Doesn’t matter.

SHELLIE: Oh, okay. ’Cause you could always like lay down or something.

ZIMMERMAN: Yeah, exactly. Well, I have my hoodie.

SHELLIE: Mm hmm, mm hmm. So.

Giz · 18th June 2012, 06:33 PM

Originally Posted by Nessie

True, but there is evidence from studies and examples of claims of self defence that say many such claims are dubious to say the least. I have previously linked to studies and linked to the death of a Scot in Texas. There was a similar case with a Japanese student who was shot whilst out during Halloween dressed as Elvis. Japan and Scotland will never understand how those two posed a deadly threat such that the shooter was not prosecuted in either case.

One appeared to be a home invader, the other a zombie. How much more casus belli do you need?

Kaosium · 18th June 2012, 06:44 PM

Originally Posted by johnny karate

That's because he probably didn't.

To change "I confronted him" to "He confronted me" or "I grabbed his arm and he punched me" to "He punched me for no reason" doesn't take some amazing fabulist, only a liar being true to his nature.

Those guys get caught by trained interrogators and tripped up by the evidence.

Incidentally, where did he lie?

Unabogie · 18th June 2012, 06:48 PM

Originally Posted by Kaosium

Those guys get caught by trained interrogators and tripped up by the evidence.

Incidentally, where did he lie?

What's his current address?

Rare Truth · 18th June 2012, 06:51 PM

Originally Posted by Kaosium

Those guys get caught by trained interrogators and tripped up by the evidence.

Incidentally, where did he lie?

And that seems to be the case here.

Dan O. · 18th June 2012, 07:12 PM

Originally Posted by Natural Born Skeptic

Please explain what "approach from behind" versus "approach from the front" injuries look like after a fist fight. I'd be very curious to know.

Please explain why you changed the words I used.

Kaosium · 18th June 2012, 07:16 PM

Originally Posted by Unabogie

What's his current address?

Where he's proving the prosecution was wrong with their dingy theory he was gonna run.

Originally Posted by Rare Truth

And that seems to be the case here.

Actually if you'll recall the police decided his story matched the evidence. They went at him three times about it, including with a voice stress analyzer.

OnlyTellsTruths · 18th June 2012, 07:26 PM

Originally Posted by WildCat

Wow, listening to those tapes today all I can think is that Zimmerman and his wife are 2 of the dumbest people in Florida.

Which makes me think it's even less likely that he made up such a tight story on the spot the night of the shooting.

What if M gave up when Z got his gun out, yet Z still shot him.... and everything else is as we know it so far.

In that case Z would just have to leave out the part about M giving up first.

That doesn't exactly take a genius to think up and follow through with.

johnny karate · 18th June 2012, 07:29 PM

Originally Posted by Kaosium

Where he's proving the prosecution was wrong with their dingy theory he was gonna run.

When did the prosecution propose that theory? Cite, please.

Quote:

Actually if you'll recall the police decided his story matched the evidence. They went at him three times about it, including with a voice stress analyzer.

To say that the police believed Zimmerman's story as opposed to being unable to disprove it are wholly separate things. Remind me again, when did the police come out and say the believed Zimmerman?

JoeTheJuggler · 18th June 2012, 07:57 PM

Originally Posted by johnny karate

That's because he probably didn't.

To change "I confronted him" to "He confronted me" or "I grabbed his arm and he punched me" to "He punched me for no reason" doesn't take some amazing fabulist, only a liar being true to his nature.

Yep.

Also, dumb doesn't mean innocent. In fact, what he's essentially being accused of is exercising criminally poor judgement in the shooting. IMO, their conversations illustrate more of the same. The decision to try to hide the money turns out to be more criminally poor judgement. Even the defense lawyers acknowledge that this "mistake" damaged Zimmerman's credibility.

JoeTheJuggler · 18th June 2012, 08:01 PM

Originally Posted by johnny karate

To say that the police believed Zimmerman's story as opposed to being unable to disprove it are wholly separate things. Remind me again, when did the police come out and say the believed Zimmerman?

Well the disgraced (and now retired) police chief said something tantamount to saying he believed Zimmerman. He said there was no reason to doubt his version of the incident. That was certainly a premature conclusion.

JoeTheJuggler · 18th June 2012, 08:04 PM

Originally Posted by Kaosium

Incidentally, where did he lie?

It's the missus who is up on perjury charges, but as the judge said, he can't sit there silently and let his (misled) lawyer and his wife lie on his behalf.

TheL8Elvis · 18th June 2012, 08:19 PM

Originally Posted by Dan O.

Please explain why you changed the words I used.

It will be more relevant once you explain why you think GZ claimed he was attacked from behind.

Rare Truth · 18th June 2012, 08:28 PM

Maybe because that was the story we all heard, as relayed by the Sanford police?

TheL8Elvis · 18th June 2012, 08:30 PM

Originally Posted by johnny karate

When did the prosecution propose that theory? Cite, please.

Point number 11 on the motion to revoke the bond, they talk about authorities being on alert in case he tries to flee the country... I don't know why they would do that if they didn't think he would run ...

Originally Posted by johnny karate

To say that the police believed Zimmerman's story as opposed to being unable to disprove it are wholly separate things. Remind me again, when did the police come out and say the believed Zimmerman?

"The best evidence we have is the testimony of George Zimmerman, and he says the decedent was the primary aggressor in the whole event," Serino told the Sentinel March 16. "Everything I have is adding up to what he says."

That's good enough for me without using the word believed. OTOH, I am not aware of the police coming and saying they disbelieved him anywhere.

Dan O. · 18th June 2012, 08:35 PM

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis

Please explain where you learned of the bolded claim, and why you believe it is the actual claim made by GZ.

Are you saying that you don't buy it either? Then I guess we agree on something.

Quote:

Why does he need evidence to support his claim self defense ? The state will have to prove it wasn't, and the state appears to have less evidence than GZ.

So, your position is that when the police arrive and see the body killed by a bullet from the killer's gun, all the killer has to do is say "it was self defense" and that's it, they have to accept it unless they can find proof that it wasn't. You allow that the killer can wait to see what evidence the prosecution can dig up before he has to come up with an explanation for any damaging evidence. This may in fact be what Florida has created in their statutes. I happen to think that there ought to be some burden to disclose the truth of what happened when you have silenced the only voice that might have been able to contradict you.

Sure, George gave interviews to the police for several hours immediately after the incident, but that means nothing if his lawyer is able to suppress it later.

johnny karate · 18th June 2012, 08:45 PM

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis

Point number 11 on the motion to revoke the bond, they talk about authorities being on alert in case he tries to flee the country... I don't know why they would do that if they didn't think he would run ...

Seems like a warranted precaution. But I'm not sure how that can reasonably get spun into being a "dingy theory" any more than the fact that Zimmerman is handcuffed at his court appearances is evidence of a "dingy theory" that he will attempt to escape during the proceedings.

Quote:

"The best evidence we have is the testimony of George Zimmerman, and he says the decedent was the primary aggressor in the whole event," Serino told the Sentinel March 16. "Everything I have is adding up to what he says."

That's good enough for me without using the word believed.

Strikes me as a pretty ambiguous statement.

Quote:

OTOH, I am not aware of the police coming and saying they disbelieved him anywhere.

Nor am I making that claim. I'm only countering the notion that Zimmerman would have had to successfully fool the police. The point is we don't know if did, and the determination of his guilt or innocence doesn't depend on him successfully fooling them anyway.

OnlyTellsTruths · 18th June 2012, 08:48 PM

I was reading this article about the Zimmermans possibly running afoul of the federal anti-money laundering laws that prohibit "structuring".

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...85H1TA20120618

What I don't exactly believe is all the reporting that the feds use a fixed trigger of 10k.

Of course I believe that that is what the feds "say" the trigger is.

But surely in reality they use a floating point trigger.

johnny karate · 18th June 2012, 08:48 PM

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

Well the disgraced (and now retired) police chief said something tantamount to saying he believed Zimmerman. He said there was no reason to doubt his version of the incident. That was certainly a premature conclusion.

Any chance you could scare up a quote?

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

It's the missus who is up on perjury charges, but as the judge said, he can't sit there silently and let his (misled) lawyer and his wife lie on his behalf.

Zimmerman lied by proxy, and actively engaged in a deception against the court. The deniers of those facts are sad and misguided.

Unabogie · 18th June 2012, 10:21 PM

TPM has some choice quotes from the lovely couple.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmem...ref=fpnewsfeed

So, the new theory is that because they are caught being conniving and dumb, that George couldn't be lying about his actions that night because he's too stupid to lie that well?

I don't know. Listening to these tapes, he sure thinks he's good at it.

LTC8K6 · 18th June 2012, 10:33 PM

Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths

I was reading this article about the Zimmermans possibly running afoul of the federal anti-money laundering laws that prohibit "structuring".

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...85H1TA20120618

What I don't exactly believe is all the reporting that the feds use a fixed trigger of 10k.

Of course I believe that that is what the feds "say" the trigger is.

But surely in reality they use a floating point trigger.

IIRC, the 10K problem is related to Paypal, and not federal laws. Paypal has a $10K limit on transfers until certain conditions are met.

Bob001 · 18th June 2012, 10:54 PM

Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths

....IWhat I don't exactly believe is all the reporting that the feds use a fixed trigger of 10k.
....

The reporting requirement and its application are pretty clear:
http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/...148821,00.html

LTC8K6 · 18th June 2012, 11:34 PM

https://www.paypal.com/webapps/helpc...ID=11196&m=SRE

Yes, Paypal has a $10K single transaction limit.

OnlyTellsTruths · 19th June 2012, 01:18 AM

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

https://www.paypal.com/webapps/helpc...ID=11196&m=SRE

Yes, Paypal has a $10K single transaction limit.

That's for sending from a Paypal to another Paypal. I thought what they were doing was withdrawing from PayPal to a bank account. Which has different limits AFAIK.

OnlyTellsTruths · 19th June 2012, 02:50 AM

Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths

I thought what they were doing was withdrawing from PayPal to a bank account.

Yeah it appears it was PayPal to bank withdraws, not PayPal to PayPal transfers. You will need to find those limits, which I think are different. I could be wrong though.

http://www.freep.com/article/2012061...e-money-around

Quote:

The couple's bank statements also were released Monday. They show numerous transfers between the PayPal account, George Zimmerman's bank account and his wife's account.

Quote:

One such transfer was posted the day before Zimmerman's April 20 bond hearing. Two more are dated April 23, the day he was released from jail.

From same article, pretty funny:

Quote:

In the calls, Zimmerman makes repeated reference to Peter Pan, which seems to be a code name for PayPal.

LTC8K6 · 19th June 2012, 04:12 AM

If they were avoiding the federal law, I don't know why charges have not been pressed.

Seems pretty clear that if this is not a PP limitation, then it's an attempt to skirt the law.

LTC8K6 · 19th June 2012, 04:17 AM

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/6/18/225020/679

More from Jeralyn, a defense attorney, on the bank records and calls.

WildCat · 19th June 2012, 05:09 AM

Originally Posted by Rare Truth

Maybe because that was the story we all heard, as relayed by the Sanford police?

The SPD gave no such story, and you won't be able to provide a link to anything of the sort.

Maybe you have a reading comprehension issue?

Dan O. · 19th June 2012, 05:27 AM

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

http://www. talkleft.com/story/2012/6/18/225020/679

More from Jeralyn, a defense attorney, on the bank records and calls.

I seem to have missed the post where she advertises herself as an attorney. If she's not putting her vocation in the by line, maybe it has nothing to do with what she is posting. As an attorney though, she would probably recognize argumentum ad verecundiam.

What she does have going is she was willing to drop some money for the data releases so she is able to put her spin on it early.

18th June 2012, 11:43 AM	#13722
Nessie Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: At the bottom of a dark Scottish loch. Posts: 4,863	Originally Posted by crimresearch That sounds rather extreme that in the UK, all uses of deadly force were prosecuted as crimes. You have a dozen witnesses and video tape that a career criminal starts stabbing someone, and if the victim succeeds in defending themselves while the would be killer dies, the victims are automatically arrested and thrown in jail until they prevail against the prosecution at a criminal trial? No middle ground, no hearing, arraignment, writs of habeas corpus, etc? Your made up scenario is an extreme which would not have resulted in the prosecution of the victim. The reality is far more likely to be this...... Originally Posted by Cylinder The vast majority of self defense claim are prosecuted and convicted in the US as well - since the vast majority are half baked, post hoc excuses for criminals who are caught red-handed, couldn't handle the strain of interrogation by police or thought they were smarter than a seasoned homicide investigator. "It was self-defense. I went in to rob the guy and he drew on me." Many a self defence claim is made by both parties who have had a fight with each other, or to excuse giving someone a beating after they assaulted another. Furthermore deaths are rare here as we do not arm ourselves like the US does and are less likely to accept a death as reasonable force.
	Last edited by Nessie; 18th June 2012 at 11:45 AM.

18th June 2012, 01:04 PM	#13725
Cylinder Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Arkansas Posts: 3,871	Originally Posted by Nessie True, but there is evidence from studies and examples of claims of self defence that say many such claims are dubious to say the least. I have previously linked to studies and linked to the death of a Scot in Texas. There was a similar case with a Japanese student who was shot whilst out during Halloween dressed as Elvis. Japan and Scotland will never understand how those two posed a deadly threat such that the shooter was not prosecuted in either case. If we're referring to the same one, in both of those cases the deceased were seen as trying to force entry into a home at night. It's not something you do in the United States.
	__________________ If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed ; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves. - Winston Churchill, The Gathering Storm

18th June 2012, 01:25 PM	#13726
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618	Originally Posted by Amazer I guess I wasn't exactly clear when I made that statement. Unless there is overwhelming evidence that it concerns a case of self-defense, it should be tried in a court of law. Even then, I'd ideally would like see all such cases reviewed by an independent party. Well, it is unclear to use words like 'automatically', and 'all uses', when you mean 'sometimes under specific circumstances'. Especially when the latter is already the case in the US, which you claim should be done away with, and replaced with the former.
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618	Last edited by crimresearch; 18th June 2012 at 01:29 PM.

18th June 2012, 05:48 PM	#13729
Cylinder Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Arkansas Posts: 3,871	Originally Posted by WildCat Wow, listening to those tapes today all I can think is that Zimmerman and his wife are 2 of the dumbest people in Florida. Which makes me think it's even less likely that he made up such a tight story on the spot the night of the shooting. Authoratative voice, eh?
	__________________ If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed ; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves. - Winston Churchill, The Gathering Storm

18th June 2012, 05:59 PM	#13730
Kaosium Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 4,330	Originally Posted by crimresearch So anyone who believes the actual legal facts over your opinions, is lying or pig headed ignorant, because you don't need authories, you could just show them, but it would take over 100 pages to prove them wrong? Did I get that right? Because I'd hate to misunderstand you. Not quite, and I wasn't referring to anyone here. I'm just saying an examination of the APC and the evidence ought to reveal something, and if there's 'legal analysts' going on TV saying that Murder 2 is justified by either, they're lying to themselves at least. Probably thinking something can be mined from his police statements, despite the Sanford police finding they matched the evidence and the other witness statements. I'm not going to spend a hundred pages on it though, it's not worth it.
Kaosium Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 4,330	__________________ "Honi soit qui mal y pense."

18th June 2012, 10:57 AM	#13721
Rare Truth Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: The road less travelled Posts: 1,291	Originally Posted by GWCarver Zimmerman wanted Shellie to buy a bulletproof vest: http://www.commercialappeal.com/news...D=happeningnow Was he going to try and shoot her too? ;-p

18th June 2012, 12:37 PM	#13723
Natural Born Skeptic Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 1,151	Originally Posted by Nessie Your made up scenario is an extreme which would not have resulted in the prosecution of the victim. The reality is far more likely to be this... What makes you think our system doesn't accommodate the made-up claim and the more common claim? We have way too much violence in our country, of that there is no doubt, but last I noticed a bunch of people weren't killing other people, claiming self-defense, and riding off merrily into the sunset. If you kill someone you can be damn sure it's going to be investigated and you're not going to get off just because you claimed self-defense.

18th June 2012, 12:56 PM	#13724
Nessie Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: At the bottom of a dark Scottish loch. Posts: 4,863	Originally Posted by Natural Born Skeptic What makes you think our system doesn't accommodate the made-up claim and the more common claim? We have way too much violence in our country, of that there is no doubt, but last I noticed a bunch of people weren't killing other people, claiming self-defense, and riding off merrily into the sunset. If you kill someone you can be damn sure it's going to be investigated and you're not going to get off just because you claimed self-defense. True, but there is evidence from studies and examples of claims of self defence that say many such claims are dubious to say the least. I have previously linked to studies and linked to the death of a Scot in Texas. There was a similar case with a Japanese student who was shot whilst out during Halloween dressed as Elvis. Japan and Scotland will never understand how those two posed a deadly threat such that the shooter was not prosecuted in either case.

18th June 2012, 01:27 PM	#13727
Nessie Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: At the bottom of a dark Scottish loch. Posts: 4,863	Originally Posted by Cylinder If we're referring to the same one, in both of those cases the deceased were seen as trying to force entry into a home at night. It's not something you do in the United States. "Seen" by a rather forgiving legal system that was very biased towards the rights of the shooters right to self defence over the deceased's right to life. Forcing entry into someone's home at night is also not acceptable in the UK. Being drunk and banging on a back door is also not acceptable. Dressing as Elvis is fine. The difference is using deadly force first and asking questions later is unacceptable in the UK. In Martin's case, the two above and my own experience it appears there is a very high level of risk is assumed by the unarmed person, in that not particularly risky behavouir is seen as worthy of a deadly response. Were there any warning signs at the community, such as 'Warning Armed Citizens on Patrol', 'Warning due to thefts armed response in area' or anything like that? I do not see how people, particularly unfamiliar with an area are supposed to know the risks and so their actions assume a greater level of risk than they would be reasonably expected to know.

18th June 2012, 05:41 PM	#13728
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,106	Wow, listening to those tapes today all I can think is that Zimmerman and his wife are 2 of the dumbest people in Florida. Which makes me think it's even less likely that he made up such a tight story on the spot the night of the shooting.

18th June 2012, 06:03 PM	#13731
johnny karate ... and your little dog too. Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 7,830	Originally Posted by WildCat Wow, listening to those tapes today all I can think is that Zimmerman and his wife are 2 of the dumbest people in Florida. Which makes me think it's even less likely that he made up such a tight story on the spot the night of the shooting. That's because he probably didn't. To change "I confronted him" to "He confronted me" or "I grabbed his arm and he punched me" to "He punched me for no reason" doesn't take some amazing fabulist, only a liar being true to his nature.
	__________________ Lost your faith in humanity? Click here to have it restored. Or here.

18th June 2012, 06:21 PM	#13732
Cylinder Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Arkansas Posts: 3,871	Zimmerman uses the word hoodie Starts around 12:00 Quote: ZIMMERMAN: We could have two cars. We could have two rented cars. SHELLIE: That’s true. The one that we’re gonna drive in. ZIMMERMAN: Mm hmm. SHELLIE: So leave mine home. ZIMMERMAN: Yeah. SHELLIE: Get the one that we’re gonna drive in, and then get the SUV, I don't know if they black out SUV’s though (Voices blended, inaudible) ZIMMERMAN: Doesn’t matter. SHELLIE: Oh, okay. ’Cause you could always like lay down or something. ZIMMERMAN: Yeah, exactly. Well, I have my hoodie. SHELLIE: Mm hmm, mm hmm. So.
	__________________ If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed ; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves. - Winston Churchill, The Gathering Storm

18th June 2012, 06:33 PM	#13733
Giz Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: UK/US Posts: 3,442	Originally Posted by Nessie True, but there is evidence from studies and examples of claims of self defence that say many such claims are dubious to say the least. I have previously linked to studies and linked to the death of a Scot in Texas. There was a similar case with a Japanese student who was shot whilst out during Halloween dressed as Elvis. Japan and Scotland will never understand how those two posed a deadly threat such that the shooter was not prosecuted in either case. One appeared to be a home invader, the other a zombie. How much more casus belli do you need?

18th June 2012, 06:44 PM	#13734
Kaosium Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 4,330	Originally Posted by johnny karate That's because he probably didn't. To change "I confronted him" to "He confronted me" or "I grabbed his arm and he punched me" to "He punched me for no reason" doesn't take some amazing fabulist, only a liar being true to his nature. Those guys get caught by trained interrogators and tripped up by the evidence. Incidentally, where did he lie?
Kaosium Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 4,330	__________________ "Honi soit qui mal y pense."

18th June 2012, 06:48 PM	#13735
Unabogie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 5,857	Originally Posted by Kaosium Those guys get caught by trained interrogators and tripped up by the evidence. Incidentally, where did he lie? What's his current address?

18th June 2012, 06:51 PM	#13736
Rare Truth Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: The road less travelled Posts: 1,291	Originally Posted by Kaosium Those guys get caught by trained interrogators and tripped up by the evidence. Incidentally, where did he lie? And that seems to be the case here.

18th June 2012, 07:12 PM	#13737
Dan O. Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 8,766	Originally Posted by Natural Born Skeptic Please explain what "approach from behind" versus "approach from the front" injuries look like after a fist fight. I'd be very curious to know. Please explain why you changed the words I used.
Dan O. Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 8,766	__________________ Permanent solution to national fiscal problems: Collect UNDIEs from dead rich people. (link)

18th June 2012, 07:16 PM	#13738
Kaosium Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 4,330	Originally Posted by Unabogie What's his current address? Where he's proving the prosecution was wrong with their dingy theory he was gonna run. Originally Posted by Rare Truth And that seems to be the case here. Actually if you'll recall the police decided his story matched the evidence. They went at him three times about it, including with a voice stress analyzer.
Kaosium Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 4,330	__________________ "Honi soit qui mal y pense."

18th June 2012, 07:26 PM	#13739
OnlyTellsTruths Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 5,799	Originally Posted by WildCat Wow, listening to those tapes today all I can think is that Zimmerman and his wife are 2 of the dumbest people in Florida. Which makes me think it's even less likely that he made up such a tight story on the spot the night of the shooting. What if M gave up when Z got his gun out, yet Z still shot him.... and everything else is as we know it so far. In that case Z would just have to leave out the part about M giving up first. That doesn't exactly take a genius to think up and follow through with.
OnlyTellsTruths Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 5,799	__________________ ________________________

18th June 2012, 07:29 PM	#13740
johnny karate ... and your little dog too. Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 7,830	Originally Posted by Kaosium Where he's proving the prosecution was wrong with their dingy theory he was gonna run. When did the prosecution propose that theory? Cite, please. Quote: Actually if you'll recall the police decided his story matched the evidence. They went at him three times about it, including with a voice stress analyzer. To say that the police believed Zimmerman's story as opposed to being unable to disprove it are wholly separate things. Remind me again, when did the police come out and say the believed Zimmerman?
	__________________ Lost your faith in humanity? Click here to have it restored. Or here.

18th June 2012, 07:57 PM	#13741
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 26,819	Originally Posted by johnny karate That's because he probably didn't. To change "I confronted him" to "He confronted me" or "I grabbed his arm and he punched me" to "He punched me for no reason" doesn't take some amazing fabulist, only a liar being true to his nature. Yep. Also, dumb doesn't mean innocent. In fact, what he's essentially being accused of is exercising criminally poor judgement in the shooting. IMO, their conversations illustrate more of the same. The decision to try to hide the money turns out to be more criminally poor judgement. Even the defense lawyers acknowledge that this "mistake" damaged Zimmerman's credibility.
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons

18th June 2012, 08:01 PM	#13742
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 26,819	Originally Posted by johnny karate To say that the police believed Zimmerman's story as opposed to being unable to disprove it are wholly separate things. Remind me again, when did the police come out and say the believed Zimmerman? Well the disgraced (and now retired) police chief said something tantamount to saying he believed Zimmerman. He said there was no reason to doubt his version of the incident. That was certainly a premature conclusion.
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons

18th June 2012, 08:04 PM	#13743
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 26,819	Originally Posted by Kaosium Incidentally, where did he lie? It's the missus who is up on perjury charges, but as the judge said, he can't sit there silently and let his (misled) lawyer and his wife lie on his behalf.
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons

18th June 2012, 08:19 PM	#13744
TheL8Elvis Illuminator Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 3,522	Originally Posted by Dan O. Please explain why you changed the words I used. It will be more relevant once you explain why you think GZ claimed he was attacked from behind.
TheL8Elvis Illuminator Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 3,522

18th June 2012, 08:28 PM	#13745
Rare Truth Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: The road less travelled Posts: 1,291	Maybe because that was the story we all heard, as relayed by the Sanford police?

18th June 2012, 08:30 PM	#13746
TheL8Elvis Illuminator Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 3,522	Originally Posted by johnny karate When did the prosecution propose that theory? Cite, please. Point number 11 on the motion to revoke the bond, they talk about authorities being on alert in case he tries to flee the country... I don't know why they would do that if they didn't think he would run ... Originally Posted by johnny karate To say that the police believed Zimmerman's story as opposed to being unable to disprove it are wholly separate things. Remind me again, when did the police come out and say the believed Zimmerman? "The best evidence we have is the testimony of George Zimmerman, and he says the decedent was the primary aggressor in the whole event," Serino told the Sentinel March 16. "Everything I have is adding up to what he says." That's good enough for me without using the word believed. OTOH, I am not aware of the police coming and saying they disbelieved him anywhere.
TheL8Elvis Illuminator Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 3,522

18th June 2012, 08:35 PM	#13747
Dan O. Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 8,766	Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis Please explain where you learned of the bolded claim, and why you believe it is the actual claim made by GZ. Are you saying that you don't buy it either? Then I guess we agree on something. Quote: Why does he need evidence to support his claim self defense ? The state will have to prove it wasn't, and the state appears to have less evidence than GZ. So, your position is that when the police arrive and see the body killed by a bullet from the killer's gun, all the killer has to do is say "it was self defense" and that's it, they have to accept it unless they can find proof that it wasn't. You allow that the killer can wait to see what evidence the prosecution can dig up before he has to come up with an explanation for any damaging evidence. This may in fact be what Florida has created in their statutes. I happen to think that there ought to be some burden to disclose the truth of what happened when you have silenced the only voice that might have been able to contradict you. Sure, George gave interviews to the police for several hours immediately after the incident, but that means nothing if his lawyer is able to suppress it later.
Dan O. Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 8,766	__________________ Permanent solution to national fiscal problems: Collect UNDIEs from dead rich people. (link)

18th June 2012, 08:45 PM	#13748
johnny karate ... and your little dog too. Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 7,830	Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis Point number 11 on the motion to revoke the bond, they talk about authorities being on alert in case he tries to flee the country... I don't know why they would do that if they didn't think he would run ... Seems like a warranted precaution. But I'm not sure how that can reasonably get spun into being a "dingy theory" any more than the fact that Zimmerman is handcuffed at his court appearances is evidence of a "dingy theory" that he will attempt to escape during the proceedings. Quote: "The best evidence we have is the testimony of George Zimmerman, and he says the decedent was the primary aggressor in the whole event," Serino told the Sentinel March 16. "Everything I have is adding up to what he says." That's good enough for me without using the word believed. Strikes me as a pretty ambiguous statement. Quote: OTOH, I am not aware of the police coming and saying they disbelieved him anywhere. Nor am I making that claim. I'm only countering the notion that Zimmerman would have had to successfully fool the police. The point is we don't know if did, and the determination of his guilt or innocence doesn't depend on him successfully fooling them anyway.
	__________________ Lost your faith in humanity? Click here to have it restored. Or here. Last edited by johnny karate; 18th June 2012 at 08:46 PM.

18th June 2012, 08:48 PM	#13749
OnlyTellsTruths Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 5,799	I was reading this article about the Zimmermans possibly running afoul of the federal anti-money laundering laws that prohibit "structuring". http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...85H1TA20120618 What I don't exactly believe is all the reporting that the feds use a fixed trigger of 10k. Of course I believe that that is what the feds "say" the trigger is. But surely in reality they use a floating point trigger.
OnlyTellsTruths Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 5,799	__________________ ________________________

18th June 2012, 08:48 PM	#13750
johnny karate ... and your little dog too. Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 7,830	Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler Well the disgraced (and now retired) police chief said something tantamount to saying he believed Zimmerman. He said there was no reason to doubt his version of the incident. That was certainly a premature conclusion. Any chance you could scare up a quote? Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler It's the missus who is up on perjury charges, but as the judge said, he can't sit there silently and let his (misled) lawyer and his wife lie on his behalf. Zimmerman lied by proxy, and actively engaged in a deception against the court. The deniers of those facts are sad and misguided.
	__________________ Lost your faith in humanity? Click here to have it restored. Or here.

18th June 2012, 10:21 PM	#13751
Unabogie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 5,857	TPM has some choice quotes from the lovely couple. http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmem...ref=fpnewsfeed So, the new theory is that because they are caught being conniving and dumb, that George couldn't be lying about his actions that night because he's too stupid to lie that well? I don't know. Listening to these tapes, he sure thinks he's good at it.

18th June 2012, 10:33 PM	#13752
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 12,678	Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths I was reading this article about the Zimmermans possibly running afoul of the federal anti-money laundering laws that prohibit "structuring". http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...85H1TA20120618 What I don't exactly believe is all the reporting that the feds use a fixed trigger of 10k. Of course I believe that that is what the feds "say" the trigger is. But surely in reality they use a floating point trigger. IIRC, the 10K problem is related to Paypal, and not federal laws. Paypal has a $10K limit on transfers until certain conditions are met.
	__________________ What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?

18th June 2012, 10:54 PM	#13753
Bob001 Muse Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 884	Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths ....IWhat I don't exactly believe is all the reporting that the feds use a fixed trigger of 10k. .... The reporting requirement and its application are pretty clear: http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/...148821,00.html
Bob001 Muse Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 884

18th June 2012, 11:34 PM	#13754
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 12,678	https://www.paypal.com/webapps/helpc...ID=11196&m=SRE Yes, Paypal has a $10K single transaction limit.
	__________________ What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?

19th June 2012, 01:18 AM	#13755
OnlyTellsTruths Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 5,799	Originally Posted by LTC8K6 https://www.paypal.com/webapps/helpc...ID=11196&m=SRE Yes, Paypal has a $10K single transaction limit. That's for sending from a Paypal to another Paypal. I thought what they were doing was withdrawing from PayPal to a bank account. Which has different limits AFAIK.
OnlyTellsTruths Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 5,799	__________________ ________________________