The future George Zimmerman Acquittal Trial Megathread!

[garbon]

If Zimmerman's narrative is true

That's a mighty big if.

[Admiral Yi]

My beef is primarily with his narrative assertion that he precipitated a confrontation that he was told to avoid.

Gotcha.

[OttoVonBismarck]

If Zimmerman's narrative is true

That's a mighty big if.

Even if Zimmerman was an angel it is unlikely his narrative is "absolutely true" just because human memory doesn't work that way.

Legally, the prosecutor has a case to prove, Zimmerman doesn't. In a traditional case, say the prosecutor gives good evidence that the defendant committed the crime. The defendant takes the stand and tries to explain it the way, the defendant's attorney tries to attack the evidence and prosecution witnesses. The jury hears that, and says "yeah, we don't believe the defendant's story and we found the arguments of his counsel unpersuasive." Okay, so now then the question is, did the case the prosecutor built prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty? If the answer is yes, he's guilty.

In the Zimmerman case, I'd argue that on the charge of second degree murder and the charge of manslaughter, the prosecutor never satisfied their base requirement--they never demonstrated guilt beyond reasonable doubt on either charge. So even if you disbelieve Zimmerman's narrative (which hilarious was actually submitted as part of the prosecution's case, Zimmerman never took the stand to tell his side of the story), you're left with an unproven case by the prosecution. You can't say "I don't believe Zimmerman's narrative, so he's guilty." That guilt has to be based on you both not believing the defendant's explanation and determining that the evidence and case demonstrated by the prosecutor established beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty.

[garbon]

I'm not really disagreeing with that. Doesn't mean I need to agree that Zimmerman didn't actually precipitate the confrontation.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I'm not really disagreeing with that. Doesn't mean I need to agree that Zimmerman didn't actually precipitate the confrontation.

My only point is "based on the narrative" Zimmerman didn't precipitate the confrontation. That's not me saying Zimmerman's narrative is what actually happened. Two different things.

[garbon]

I'm not really disagreeing with that. Doesn't mean I need to agree that Zimmerman didn't actually precipitate the confrontation.

My only point is "based on the narrative" Zimmerman didn't precipitate the confrontation. That's not me saying Zimmerman's narrative is what actually happened. Two different things.

What did he think was going to happen when he decided to follow someone in his car and then running after an individual who was fleeing? They'd have a prayer circle?

[The Minsky Moment]

"Precipitate a confrontation" is carefully chosen language.

It is careful.
Careful enough that it basically fits Otto's account.
Zimmerman did call the dispatcher.
The dispatcher did give clear direction: "we don't need you to do that."
That statement was made before the confrontation.

The only thing that doesn't fit is one of Zimmerman's own uncorroborated and self-serving stories, i.e. of running after Martin, losing him, and then being "jumped" while he was peacefully returning to his car.  I say "one of" because Zimmerman gave conflicting accounts. For example, in his initial interview, Zimmerman claimed he didn't run after Martin at all.   He also said he had a bad memory and had ADHD. 

In a criminal trial, it is all about what can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.  On that standard it is hard to quarrel with the result.  But the criminal trial is over and I am not talking about criminal liability.  The question is one of plausibility, and I don't find his story highly plausible (in a more likely than not that it really went down that way sense).

[OttoVonBismarck]

What did he think was going to happen when he decided to follow someone in his car and then running after an individual who was fleeing? They'd have a prayer circle?

I don't know, you're asking me to speculate.

[OttoVonBismarck]

"Precipitate a confrontation" is carefully chosen language.

It is careful.
Careful enough that it basically fits Otto's account.
Zimmerman did call the dispatcher.
The dispatcher did give clear direction: "we don't need you to do that."
That statement was made before the confrontation.

The only thing that doesn't fit is one of Zimmerman's own uncorroborated and self-serving stories, i.e. of running after Martin, losing him, and then being "jumped" while he was peacefully returning to his car.  I say "one of" because Zimmerman gave conflicting accounts. For example, in his initial interview, Zimmerman claimed he didn't run after Martin at all.   He also said he had a bad memory and had ADHD. 

In a criminal trial, it is all about what can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.  On that standard it is hard to quarrel with the result.  But the criminal trial is over and I am not talking about criminal liability.  The question is one of plausibility, and I don't find his story highly plausible (in a more likely than not that it really went down that way sense).

Well, the lead investigator (who wanted to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter in the first few days) who actually did not really believe Zimmerman's story, did concede in open court that the inconsistencies between Zimmerman's versions of the incident were "insignificant."

I agree Zimmerman's story is not plausible at several points. The least plausible part for me is the "fight over the gun" whatever happened I'm fairly confident that didn't happen, and was produced by Zimmerman ad hoc because he thought it would help his self defense claim. But between one implausible story and a whole bunch of no evidence not sure how anyone can claim they know what happened.

I think Zimmerman's story in total isn't likely the truth, but I would concede it is definitely "one reasonably possible truth."

[OttoVonBismarck]

And no, it still wouldn't fit my narrative Joan. In my scenario we have no idea what Martin's movements were so no idea in what way Zimmerman's impacted the happening of the confrontation.

[Admiral Yi]

What did he think was going to happen when he decided to follow someone in his car and then running after an individual who was fleeing? They'd have a prayer circle?

My guess is he thought Martin would run (if he was a cat burglar) or wait for the police to show up (if he was a kid making a Skittles run).

One thing that strikes me from Biscuit's description of Zimmerman's video statement is that Zimmerman's (self-described) behavior is consistent with a neighborhood watch guy just maintaining surveillance until the coppers show up.

[The Minsky Moment]

Well, the lead investigator (who wanted to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter in the first few days) who actually did not really believe Zimmerman's story, did concede in open court that the inconsistencies between Zimmerman's versions of the incident were "insignificant."

It was actually the assistant who used that exact wording - and that was taking the accounts as a whole.  Serino's testimony was even more vague - again as to that general question.

But as to the specific question that I raised and you have questioned - whether Zimmerman attempted to follow Martin after the dispatcher advised him not to - Serino testified that based on the investigation he conducted that was the conclusion that he drew.  And the run/walk discrepancy is also relevant to that question, if not to the ultimate question of guilt as to the crimes charged.

[grumbler]

And to be honest, Joan's description of events may be entirely accurate. The problem is, the only evidence we have is some scant physical evidence and a few ear witnesses that don't clarify much. Other than that, we have Zimmerman's story. Zimmerman's story paints a substantially different picture from what Joan is saying, and there was no real alternative story put forward.

It may be accurate, as any alternate universe may be accurate.  I'm just noting the fact that we have a large number of positive assertions about what happened that have no basis in actual fact.  People just believe what they want to believe, and present their beliefs as facts.  Things like "the fact that race was a relevant factor in the incident."  That isn't a fact at all.  It is an assumption.  But, since it is an unexamined assumption, it is, in some alternate universe (which may be our own universe - we don't know) an actual fact just like facts that are really facts.

We will likely never know the truth.  We certainly won't ever know the truth if we simply through out unexaminined assumptions and call them "facts."

[grumbler]

The dispatcher did give clear direction: "we don't need you to do that."

I love this shit, especially when it comes from somebody normally smart enough to avoid saying such stupid things.

[OttoVonBismarck]

It was actually the assistant who used that exact wording - and that was taking the accounts as a whole.  Serino's testimony was even more vague - again as to that general question.

But as to the specific question that I raised and you have questioned - whether Zimmerman attempted to follow Martin after the dispatcher advised him not to - Serino testified that based on the investigation he conducted that was the conclusion that he drew.  And the run/walk discrepancy is also relevant to that question, if not to the ultimate question of guilt as to the crimes charged.

Do you believe Zimmerman followed Martin after being told "we don't need you to do that?"