Stand Your Ground Part 2.: George Zimmerman Acquitted

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by argentine soccer fan, Jul 17, 2013.

  1. Century's Best

    Century's Best Member+

    Jul 29, 2003
    USA
  2. bigredfutbol

    bigredfutbol Moderator
    Staff Member

    Sep 5, 2000
    Woodbridge, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Fair enough. All those links are just Dershowitz, though.

    And saying that the medical is consistent with Zimmerman's story does not preclude it being consistent with other interpretations.

    EDIT: That's the affidavit. You said they held back evidence, which I assumed meant you knew they knew something in the trial that the defense didn't know. That's not the same thing, but I appreciate you clarifying what you meant.
     
  3. Century's Best

    Century's Best Member+

    Jul 29, 2003
    USA
    #2053 Century's Best, Mar 27, 2014
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2014
    "Dershowitz also reprised earlier his remarks of a few weeks ago, which suggested that the prosecutor’s affidavit was faulty because did not contain exculpatory evidence. “She (Angela Corey) was aware when she submitted an affidavit that it did not contain the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. She (Angela Corey) deliberately withheld evidence that supported Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense."

    They withheld evidence - Angela Corey, special prosecutor, withheld evidence when submitting the affidavit.

    This is why I said earlier there was no case. Corey knew of this exculpatory evidence. If she believed it wouldn't have made the prosecution's case weaker, why did she withhold it?

    And that it's "just Dershowitz" means what, exactly? Is one of the foremost legal experts in the United States, the youngest-ever full professor of law at Harvard Law School, an expert in criminal law, a seasoned and successful trial lawyer, not enough for you? It has to be somebody else as well? Are you saying or implying that because it's "just Dershowitz" that his input isn't valid or that it doesn't carry weight?

    And what "other interpretations" are you talking about? Do you now admit Zimmerman had a legitimate claim in saying he acted in self-defense?
     
  4. Century's Best

    Century's Best Member+

    Jul 29, 2003
    USA
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  5. bigredfutbol

    bigredfutbol Moderator
    Staff Member

    Sep 5, 2000
    Woodbridge, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States


    Like I said--in the affidavit. Not in the trial.

    It was a crappy affidavit, clearly. It should have laid out the case better.



    As noted above--repeatedly--I don't think she believed in the case. I don't think she wanted to bring it to trial.[/quote]



    No, I'm implying that listing three different links to the same interview with the same person is a little deceptive. One citation would have been sufficient.

    Of course Dershowitz is a respected legal expert. But it's clear from the links you provide that he accepted the self-defense claims upfront, and as noted the prosecution did not make the convincing case (which I obviously believe was possible) in that affidavit.



    Not sure what this means. Self-defense WAS his claim. As should be obvious by now that I don't believe his story. It never felt right to me, it didn't pass the "smell test" and once I studied the trial and the case more I'm more sure than ever.
     
  6. Century's Best

    Century's Best Member+

    Jul 29, 2003
    USA
    Kinda hard to lay out the case better if as you said Angela Corey, who had infinitely more skin in the game and more at stake than you or I, and who is an attorney, didn't believe in the case to begin with, as you say below. I agree - I think she did this for purely political purposes, and that she was willing to send George Zimmerman to prison to accomplish this speaks volumes of her character.

    Evidence was deliberately withheld. Crappy affidavit? As Dershowitz said, it was irresponsible and unethical. Thankfully, she failed to get what she wanted.


    I agree, and I believe this was so because she looked at the evidence, thought the prosecution wouldn't win, but did it anyway (and hence withheld exculpatory evidence from the affidavit).

    The three URLs speak about the same person and case, but tackle it a bit differently each. Not that it'd matter now because it's been over for nearly a year, but Dershowitz gave an interview on TV and it's on youtube, where he makes the very same points.

    He did a far better and more ethical job of assessing the facts that Angela Corey did, and that's why he believed George Zimmerman. The fact the exculpatory evidence Corey withheld backed up Zimmerman's claims was the very reason it was left out - if this evidence wasn't seen as a threat to the prosecution's case, she wouldn't have withheld it. As you now admit: there was no case. She had no case. Dershowitz with his knowledge and experience saw this as far back as spring of 2012.


    It's unfortunate that the testimony of Vincent Di Maio, a forensic expert and authority on gunshot wounds, apparently isn't enough for you. Di Maio said that "... evidence showed the muzzle of Zimmerman's gun was touching the teen's clothing, which was 2 to 4 inches away from Martin's chest," and that after looking "... at debris from the gunshot and "powder tattoo marks" surrounding the wound, which give the appearance of a reddish, circular rash on the skin." Di Maio further stated that "such marks... would not be present if the muzzle had been held against Martin's skin.... the muzzle of the gun was against the clothing. But the clothing itself had to be 2 to 4 inches away from the body at the time Mr. Martin was shot. This is consistent with Mr. Zimmerman's account — that Mr. Martin was over him, leaning forward at the time he was shot."

    I don't mean to be sarcastic, but your subjective "smell test" most likely doesn't have what it takes to refute the expert testimony of somebody like Di Maio, who unlike you is a gunshot wounds expert and a board-certified anatomical, clinical and forensic pathologist who examined the evidence - which you did not do.

    There was never a case for second-degree murder, and piece by piece, the prosecution's case imploded. This is why observers predicted an acquittal. This is why George Zimmerman is today - legally and rightfully - a free man.
     
  7. bigredfutbol

    bigredfutbol Moderator
    Staff Member

    Sep 5, 2000
    Woodbridge, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    #2057 bigredfutbol, Mar 27, 2014
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2014
    Corey assigned the case to the prosecutors; I've repeatedly been talking about the prosecution in the trial. NOT Corey herself. Who, by the way, is under a lot of scrutiny right now. Focusing on Corey, once I've repeatedly argued that there was, in fact, a case to be made is really after-the-fact.

    Yes, but it's still just one person's opinion. An opinion which, in all three links, is presented in pretty broad terms and without specificity. Coming from Dershowitz, it sounds pretty impressive--and Corey's freakout in reaction made him look even more reasonable in comparison--but frankly, he was largely blowing smoke on this one.

    Here's a contrary opinion--not definitive, but at least this person uses specific legal arguments rather than broad pronouncements: Why Alan Dershowitz is Completely Wrong about the Zimmerman Case.

    Nonsense; he just looked at some of the publicly available physical evidence.

    See the above link--Dershowitz did not have access to the evidence he was opining about.


    About Di Maio--he's an excellent example of the prosecution blowing it. Firstly, Di Maio has testified as an expert in many high-profile cases. For example, in the trial of Drew Peterson, he testified that the physical evidence regarding Kathleen Savio was consistent with Peterson's defense claim that she had an accident in the bathtub. And in the Phil Spector case, he testified that the physical evidence was consistent with Spector's defense claim that Lana Clarkson had come home with him, found a gun, and committed suicide in his house. In both cases, the defendents were found guilty anyway. So, for what it's worth, that right there are 24 jurors who also didn't agree with his expert opinion.

    Secondly, Di Maio claimed that the evidence was consistent with the story, but that doesn't preclude being consistent with any number of other possible scenarios. This is something that the prosecution should have argued, but didn't.

    And it would not have been hard to do so, because as it turns out Di Maio never actually tested his theory--he simply based it on looking at photos of the sweatshirts Martin was wearing. Which is hardly scientific, and which the prosecution should have been all over. Keep in mind, this is a guy who has previously shot animals in the head to test bullet velocity, yet he couldn't be bothered to buy a couple of sweatshirts and have a live model try them on.

    The physical evidence showed that Zimmerman's gun was touching the outside sweatshirt when it was fired, and that the fabric was about 4 inches from Martin's chest at that moment. Yes, that IS "consistent with" Zimmerman's story, but it in no way proves anything. It certainly doesn't prove Zimmerman's self-defense claim.

    Yet the prosecution were almost chummy with Di Maio, and never challenged him on any of this. First they never challenged Zimmerman's claim that Martin tried to grab his concealed handgun while he was lying on top of it, then they never pointed out that there are many ways in which a baggy sweatshirt might by lying four inches away from your chest.

    I highly doubt that any of the 24 jurors in the Peterson and Spector cases were board-certified anatomical, clinical and forensic pathologists, either. Yet they also chose to dismiss his testimony.
    And, again, we simply disagree. I think there was a case; the prosecution just never believed it, they were incompetent and half-hearted in trying to prove it, and the defense did their job well.
     
    taosjohn repped this.
  8. Moishe

    Moishe Moderator
    Staff Member

    Boca Juniors
    Argentina
    Mar 6, 2005
    Here there and everywhere.
    Club:
    CA Boca Juniors
    Nat'l Team:
    Argentina
    I'd say the 9mm to noisy .22 isn't far off at all from reality. If someone fires off a round through a suppressor in public most people with decent hearing will be able to have a pretty good idea where the shot originated from. Gotta love how so many people are willing to take what Hollywood puts out there at face value.

    The "justification" is pretty silly to be honest. In order for it to be valid would require the range to be a suppressor only range. Can't see that happening for a few reasons...

    The technology has improved so much so that on a rifle in the hands of a trained shooter you can easily acqurire and hit a target at a couple of hundred yards. As for handguns, the technology is also there just not the ability of many if not most handgun shooters to hit a target beyond 30-35 yards max.

    What is really silly about the article that dapip linked is that regardless of Iowa legalizing suppressors, you still have to jump through all the hoops as you would to acquire and fully automatic weapon. It's not like somebody will be able to walk into any Walmart or gun shop for that matter and just purchase one. Just like any application for a ClassIII you will easily be looking at a nine month waiting period before ever taking possession of said suppressor.

    Suppressors aren't cheap either so there is that piece to be taken into consideration. On the very low end you are looking at $350 to upwards of $1500-$2k. For that money I would much rather purchase another firearm.

    Other things that need to be taken into consideration is that suppressors aren't one size fits all. First you have to own a firearm that already has a threaded barrel. If so then you have to find a manufacturer who's specs match that of the firearms barrel. Taking it a step further is that if you do not have to a threaded barrel then you have to find a gunsmith that is actually willing to thread your barrel for you. The latter isn't from a legality standpoint but more so from a liability angle. Adapting a suppressor is slightly more complex than screwing a choke onto your shotgun...oh yeah and you need to make sure the gunsmith is threading for a specific suppressor or else it's nothing more than an expensive crap shoot.

    Going back to the shooting with a suppressor, something that must be taken into account is that the additional weight and length and how it throws off the balance of the weapon.

    Sorry for geeking out on you but you did ask.
     
    El Chuma, bigredfutbol and taosjohn repped this.
  9. taosjohn

    taosjohn Member+

    Dec 23, 2004
    taos,nm
    "Don't apologise, it's a sign of weakness." :p

    No, seriously, that level of geeking is exactly what I was asking for, and I thank you for it. It has been a dozen years or so since I held a gun at all, and more like 50 since the one and only time I tried a suppressor.

    The one I actually tried reduced my accuracy at even a short distance by about 50%, and randomly as far as I could tell-- I wasn't consistently low, I was just spraying all around the target, leading me to conclude that it was putting a wobble on either the projectiles or me. Using it at a range would have been like flipping quarters at a sewer grate.
     
    Moishe repped this.
  10. Auriaprottu

    Auriaprottu Member+

    Atlanta Damn United
    Apr 1, 2002
    The back of the bus
    Club:
    Atlanta
    Nat'l Team:
    --other--
    So, what would be the point (even in a combat situation), if the weapon can still be heard and perhaps located? I mean, I know they serve some purpose, but what it is I'm no longer sure of.

    It's neither history nor race nor politics, bro, and the day has only so many hours. Folks pick their battles, and basically, this isn't an important enough bit of misinformation to investigate.

    I can imagine that most non-veteran non-law enforcement gun owners haven't ever used a suppressor or heard a gun discharged with one installed, and I imagine that most people have heard them described as "silencers" (not the correct "suppressor") in various media. While the specific sound is a Hollywood invention, it's not a difficult jump to conclude that silencers make a gun, y'know, silent or very close to it.
     
  11. dna77054

    dna77054 Member+

    Jun 28, 2003
    houston
    6 million Jews, 1.5 million Armenians, and God knows how many Native Americans and Aborigines would disagree.
     
  12. dapip

    dapip Member+

    Sep 5, 2003
    South Florida
    Club:
    Millonarios Bogota
    Nat'l Team:
    Colombia
    Ah yes. Hitler loved gun control and Native Americans died because not enough guns. How could we forget. :rolleyes:
     
    taosjohn repped this.
  13. bigredfutbol

    bigredfutbol Moderator
    Staff Member

    Sep 5, 2000
    Woodbridge, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    #2063 bigredfutbol, Mar 28, 2014
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2014
    Ridiculous. There's a reason the Nazis relaxed gun control regulations--the need for their Brownshirt militias to have the right to bear arms in order to support their rise to power. Germans, in case you forgot, were the majority in Germany. Why on Earth anybody believes that six million Jews--scattered around numerous different European countries, many of which were totalitarian states and all of which they were a minority within--would have been able to magically affect the outcome of any of that by personal gun ownership (which, if allowed for them, would most likely have been allowed for their anti-Semitic neighbors as well) is beyond me.

    American Indians did, often, have access to guns. Crazy Horse and Company certainly weren't outgunned at Little Big Horn. They won that gunfight--look how much good that did them.

    Not packing heat wasn't what did them in. Gun ownership at some higher rate would not have given them immunity to the diseases which wiped most of them out. It would not have magically given them organized nation-states with substantial manufacturing capacity and so forth.

    Certainly the Armenians deserved the right of national self-determination and self-defense, but no matter how many times you claim that genocide against a minority within an autocratic state would have been stopped had the target population practiced widespread private gun ownership, it doesn't make it any truer. When you read actual accounts by survivors, you'll realize how ridiculous and unrealistic that theory is. There isn't one big grand moment where all the Germans/Turks/Hutus/Bosnian Serbs suddenly rise up en masse and declare "We're coming to kill all the Jews/Armenians/Tutsis/Bosnian Muslims RIGHT NOW!" any more than all the Jews/Armenians/Tutsis/Bosnian Muslims are hanging out en masse behind the barricades when suddenly somebody opens up a trunk full of guns, hands them out, and the leader yells back "Come and get us, you genocidal bastards!" No. That's not how it works.
     
  14. guignol

    guignol Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 28, 2005
    mermoz-les-boss
    Club:
    Olympique Lyonnais
    Nat'l Team:
    France
    god is dead, so you can count him too. if heaven had an open carry law he'd be alive today!
     
    chad and taosjohn repped this.
  15. bigredfutbol

    bigredfutbol Moderator
    Staff Member

    Sep 5, 2000
    Woodbridge, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    NOTE: I don't know what's going on with the formatting of my last reply to Century's Best. There are duplicate quote tags that I don't think I ever put there and even after I had gone back to edit them, they kept showing up. Sorry for the confusion, I couldn't fix whatever was wrong.
     
  16. dapip

    dapip Member+

    Sep 5, 2003
    South Florida
    Club:
    Millonarios Bogota
    Nat'l Team:
    Colombia
    But here in Murika we're prepared!

    [​IMG]

    Come and try to get us you Obamafascists!
     
  17. taosjohn

    taosjohn Member+

    Dec 23, 2004
    taos,nm
    o_OSix million Jews in present day America are being killed because they do not defend themselves with firearms?

    I have a feeling there are animated goalposts 'round here somewhere; they may even have a time machine. Where's muh gun?
     
    Auriaprottu repped this.
  18. taosjohn

    taosjohn Member+

    Dec 23, 2004
    taos,nm
    BTW, I had half a dozen Auschwitz survivors in my extended family, including one of the very few escapees.

    Their opinions would not have matched up with your rather facile claim very well. They weren't particularly gun- loving people.
     
    Auriaprottu and Moishe repped this.
  19. guignol

    guignol Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 28, 2005
    mermoz-les-boss
    Club:
    Olympique Lyonnais
    Nat'l Team:
    France
    the analogy this thread and its predecessors always brought to my mind was with a foucault's pendulum, swaying back and forth, back and forth, in the same timeworn traces, while the earth moved under it just enough to make a pin fall from time to time, until eventually it had come full circle. then new participants arrive, we set up all the pins again, and the pendulum continues, back and forth, and around and around...

    then a post like this comes along and the pendulum seems to leap off its tether, crash through the window and go careening down the street, smashing into cars and buses, frightening little old ladies in crosswalks, and then soaring into the sky like a rocket to bury itself in the heart of the sun. something i thought i'd never see.

    oh, that and bigredfutbol's last couple of posts, which are pretty interesting.
     
    Pønch and Auriaprottu repped this.
  20. bigredfutbol

    bigredfutbol Moderator
    Staff Member

    Sep 5, 2000
    Woodbridge, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    On the historical fallacy that "gun control doomed the Jews" (and a couple of other myths that the NRA and their allies utilize to not only undermine any attempt at gun control but also to feed the paranoia of gun-rights extremists) I'd recommend this book:

    Guns, Democracy, and the Insurrectionist Idea
     
  21. Moishe

    Moishe Moderator
    Staff Member

    Boca Juniors
    Argentina
    Mar 6, 2005
    Here there and everywhere.
    Club:
    CA Boca Juniors
    Nat'l Team:
    Argentina
    The true purpose of a suppressor is actually two fold. The first is to reduce the noise caused by muzzle blast and sonic boom there is a a third noise made during the firing process but a suppressor can do nothing to hide the mechanical sounds from the weapons operation. The second purpose of a suppressor is to reduce the muzzle flash associated with a round being shot. The muzzle flash will always give away a shooters position much faster than the actual sound of the shot itself. In a combat situation that is a pretty big deal as the longer it takes to close in on a shooters position the more of an opportunity the shooter has to kill his opposition.


    Agree on the first sentence but not on the second. With regards to the second sentence, a big part of why so many people refuse to take the gun control folks seriously is that they don't take the time to actually learn what it is they are actually arguing against. I could go on and on about the misinformation anti-gun groups throw out there hoping that the emotional piece of the argument overshadows many of the inaccuracies or outright bullshit put out there to support their position.

    Below is a video of an AR being fired both with and without a suppressor. I would hardly say that it is silent or very close to it with the suppressor on would you?

     
    El Chuma repped this.
  22. Auriaprottu

    Auriaprottu Member+

    Atlanta Damn United
    Apr 1, 2002
    The back of the bus
    Club:
    Atlanta
    Nat'l Team:
    --other--
    Got it.

    So now I've heard "silencer", "suppressor" and "(flash) supressor", which I already knew about. So the concept of the guy shooting someone with a suppressed pistol and not being really heard is a load...

    That's exactly what I meant in my post. It's not worth caring what tactics are used to end around the 2nd as it's being interpreted right now. I own guns, but they're not like a limb or anything. I'm secure enough not to need to tote one around with me, and it wouldn't ruin my day if they were banned entirely. I haven't hunted in years.

    My point was that we've all heard the term "silencer", and not necessarily from Hollywood (not sure why you took that dig). What it really sounds like is going to have to be demonstrated precisely because the terminology is so broad.
     
  23. dapip

    dapip Member+

    Sep 5, 2003
    South Florida
    Club:
    Millonarios Bogota
    Nat'l Team:
    Colombia
  24. bigredfutbol

    bigredfutbol Moderator
    Staff Member

    Sep 5, 2000
    Woodbridge, VA
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Before I waste any precious minutes of my life letting that douchebag speak to me, can you give me a sense of what I would hear if I did so?

    I already know he's a narcissist and self-satisfied failure. Listening to him give semi-articulate justifications for his continued access to oxygen is not enough of a reason for me to listen to him. Gimme the dirt!
     
    guignol repped this.

Share This Page