Zimmermanwitness - wow!

444 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
  • |
The woman on the phone with Martin when he encountered Zimmerman is a trip.

She is on the stand - with an attitude - and is admitting she lied over and over because "they didn't aks me that".

But -there was a nugget that kept me from changing the channel when I turned on the TV.

This woman was on the phone with Martin just before he was killed. She was not interviewed by police until 3 weeks or so later...and Martin's Mother was allowed to be in the interview room. When did family members start sitting in on witness interrogations?

So the witness says she didn't say exactly what Trayvon said over the phone because she wanted to clean it up for his Mother. Now she's saying she heard more "after the phone cut off".

The defense has got to be loving this witness.
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    She had the nerve to cop an attitude with the cross-examiner.


    I wouldn't be surprised if the defense keeps her on the stand longer than Dennis Fong of Simpson trial fame which was 9 days. ( I think )


    But even Marsha Clarke said that the jury will probably not hold those 3-5 little white lies by the teenager against her - but we will see.
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8218086].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

      But even Marsha Clarke said that the jury will probably not hold those 3-5 little white lies by the teenager against her - but we will see.
      Her attitude and the fact that she was caught in a few minor lies is significant. She doesn't understand that gravity of her testimony, and her attitude. She isn't helping.

      Jurors are human beings.. If they don't like her..the longer she is on the stand, the better for the defense. They may not consciously think their dislike for her is influencing them, but it changes the filter they see this case through.

      If the defense is smart, they will call her again just before closing arguments.

      Man, I really don't like to think of myself as biased, but she's very unlikable..and I don't even know her.

      Martin's Mother was allowed to be in the interview room?

      That's just wrong.

      Honestly, I thought this was going to be more of a Slam Dunk for the prosecution. Now, I'm having my doubts.
      Signature
      One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

      Terence Fletcher: "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than Good Job." Whiplash.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8218142].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
        Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

        Her attitude and the fact that she was caught in a few minor lies is significant. She doesn't understand that gravity of her testimony, and her attitude. She isn't helping.

        Jurors are human beings.. If they don't like her..the longer she is on the stand, the better for the defense. They may not consciously think their dislike for her is influencing them, but it changes the filter they see this case through.

        If the defense is smart, they will call her again just before closing arguments.

        Man, I really don't like to think of myself as biased, but she's very unlikable..and I don't even know her.

        Martin's Mother was allowed to be in the interview room?

        That's just wrong.

        Honestly, I thought this was going to be more of a Slam Dunk for the prosecution. Now, I'm having my doubts.

        Hardly anyone liked her attitude.

        Important Florida jury instructions... ( according to Lisa Bloom - daughter of Gloria Allred )


        ( something to the effect of )...


        ...If a witness is found to be untruthful in one part of their testimony the juror(s) can discount the rest of the witnesses' testimony.

        The questions for the jurors are...

        ... were the witnesses' lies material to the case or not?

        And can she be believed regarding her testimony about what Travon Martin allegedly said to her during their conversation that night?

        Only time will tell.

        All The Best!!

        TL
        Signature

        "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8218221].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Kay King
          The defense is going very slowly and I think it's a deliberate way to get her to display that attitude even more.

          She is saying now that she didn't tell exactly what Trayvon said and thinking back over the media coverage at the time - it's interesting.

          MSNBC ran into trouble when they edited a recording to make Zimmerman sound racist. Now she says Trayvon said there was "some cracker" watching him from a car....and then she says "cracker" is not racist.

          We fuss about the education system in the OT - this woman is 19 - a senior in high school - and says she "can't read" cursive. That's shocking.
          Signature
          Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world will change forever for that one dog.

          I wish offended people would react like fainting goats and quietly tip over.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8218345].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
            Listening to a few pundits who are saying the defense is going on way too long on the cross and she is coming across as a more sympathetic and believable witness.
            Signature
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8218445].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Kay King
              Pundits love to pund. These are the same pundits who made a big deal of Zimmerman describing Martin as 'black' when he was asked by dispatcher. They showed old photos of Martin as a kid and portrayed him as "an innocent".

              Now we learn Martin used racist comments (racial profiling?) as part of his conversation on the phone.

              I think some may conclude she's lied too much to be believable. In that case, I think they would discount her as a witness and ignore her testimony.

              I don't think anyone except Sharpton will see her as "sympathetic".
              Signature
              Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world will change forever for that one dog.

              I wish offended people would react like fainting goats and quietly tip over.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8218519].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                Of course you leave out the pundits from the other side. The ones who posted fake photos of a saggy pants Trayvon flipping the bird, or how Trayvon was called a wannabe ganster for wearing a hoodie, or the idea that he was a drug dealer, etc... Yep. You forgot to mention those pundits. Wonder why? I'm sure it isn't because you are politically biased because you always say that you aren't and that settles that.

                Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

                Pundits love to pund. These are the same pundits who made a big deal of Zimmerman describing Martin as 'black' when he was asked by dispatcher. They showed old photos of Martin as a kid and portrayed him as "an innocent".
                Signature
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8224022].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Kay King
                  Sorry, Tim, but that sounds petulant. I don't like pundits on both sides - but I think promoting this from a racial standpoint and insisting on presenting a Hispanic as "white" to fit the story - is inexcusable.

                  A news story should be presented as news - not as "here's how we spin it". That doesn't seem to happen these days.

                  I think Zimmerman should be punished - I don't think he's a great guy. I don't think Martin was a total innocent either. Doesn't matter - someone died.
                  Signature
                  Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world will change forever for that one dog.

                  I wish offended people would react like fainting goats and quietly tip over.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8224111].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                    You should know petulance pretty well among other things. You are biased Kay. Pure and simple. It's very obvious. How about the smearing of Trayvon which you continued without much thought obviously? How about talking about the pundits who were wrong from the other side? Good grief! :/
                    Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

                    Sorry, Tim, but that sounds petulant. I don't like pundits on both sides - but I think promoting this from a racial standpoint and insisting on presenting a Hispanic as "white" to fit the story - is inexcusable.

                    A news story should be presented as news - not as "here's how we spin it". That doesn't seem to happen these days.

                    I think Zimmerman should be punished - I don't think he's a great guy. I don't think Martin was a total innocent either. Doesn't matter - someone died.
                    Signature
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8224121].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
                      Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                      You should know petulance pretty well among other things. You are biased Kay. Pure and simple. It's very obvious. How about the smearing of Trayvon which you continued without much thought obviously? How about talking about the pundits who were wrong from the other side? Good grief! :/
                      No offense, Tim, but you seem a little biased too. So do a few others in this thread (on both sides). At least, it appears that way to me as someone who hasn't paid much attention to the case.
                      Signature

                      Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8224184].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                        I admit I can be biased on some issues Dennis. At least I do that. We are all biased to some extent. On this issue in this thread at least, I don't think I have been biased. I'm trying to point out someone who has been imo.

                        Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill View Post

                        No offense, Tim, but you seem a little biased too. So do a few others in this thread (on both sides). At least, it appears that way to me as someone who hasn't paid much attention to the case.
                        Signature
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8224194].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author Dan Riffle
                        Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill View Post

                        No offense, Tim, but you seem a little biased too. So do a few others in this thread (on both sides). At least, it appears that way to me as someone who hasn't paid much attention to the case.
                        I was just about to chime in that Tim was flirting awfully close to an Ad hominem argument with that last post, much closer than I've ever seen. Pretty out of character for someone I've always considered intelligent, cordial and restrained.
                        Signature

                        If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.

                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8224206].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                          Yes, and it was in response to the same. I think you will notice. My bad, on my part for responding to her ad hominem with one of my own. :/

                          Originally Posted by Dan Riffle View Post

                          I was just about to chime in that Tim was flirting awfully close to an Ad hominem argument with that last post, much closer than I've ever seen. Pretty out of character for someone I've always considered intelligent, cordial and restrained.
                          Signature
                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8224226].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author Dan Riffle
                            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                            Yes, and it was in response to the same. I think you will notice. My bad, on my part for responding to her ad hominem with one of my own. :/
                            Tim, I'm not here to make Kay's case for her, but she stated your response was petulant and further supported herself. You directly attacked Kay. There is a difference.

                            Don't mind me. I was simply offering a check before folks got out of hand. I respect you and don't want to see you get a vacation for comments made on tilt.
                            Signature

                            If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.

                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8224236].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                              By saying she was biased? Is that some huge "attack"? She has accused me of the same. :/
                              Originally Posted by Dan Riffle View Post

                              You directly attacked Kay.
                              Signature
                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8224256].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Dan Riffle
                      Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                      You should know petulance pretty well among other things.
                      That seems like a blatant attack to me, Tim. What are you insinuating when you say, "...among other things." Certainly nothing pleasant. The flavor of the entire sentence is a personal attack.

                      I was just surprised by the level of snark. Unlike other people here, you typically have the ability to hold an opposing viewpoint without making things personal.

                      But, whatever. The floor is yours.
                      Signature

                      If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8224266].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                        Dan. I agree that I responded to her ad hominem "attack" with one of my own and as I said "my bad". I shouldn't have done that. :/ Attack is a very harsh word though. ha Very!
                        Originally Posted by Dan Riffle View Post

                        That seems like a blatant attack to me, Tim. What are you insinuating when you say, "...among other things." Certainly nothing pleasant. The flavor of the entire sentence is a personal attack.

                        I was just surprised by the level of snark. Unlike other people here, you typically have the ability to hold an opposing viewpoint without making things personal.

                        But, whatever. The floor is yours.
                        Signature
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8224282].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
              Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

              Listening to a few pundits who are saying the defense is going on way too long on the cross and she is coming across as a more sympathetic and believable witness.

              That's highly possible since the defense lawyer is a trained professional and the witness is clearly outclassed.

              I tuned in today and within 15 minutes the prosecutions objections to the defense "badgering the witness" was sustained at least 3-4 times by the judge and also mis-characterizing the witnesses' statements a few times also.


              So, there may be something there Tim - but we'll see.


              The defense must destroy her testimony/credibility if Mr. Z. is to be found not guilty.


              The key people involved are the jurors.

              IMHO the key question in the trial is ...

              Is it OK for a grown man to follow a teenager and somehow get into a confrontation with them and then shoot that person dead?

              We'll see what this Florida jury says in the end.
              Signature

              "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8218569].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
                Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post


                The key people involved are the jurors.

                IMHO the key question in the trial is ...

                Is it OK for a grown man to follow a teenager and somehow get into a confrontation with them and then shoot that person dead?

                We'll see what this Florida jury says in the end.
                I understand why you say that.
                But the key question to me is "Who is better at making the jury like them?"

                We want to think that people are reasonable, that the facts really decide a case. But people are just bundles of emotional energy that fight anything that disagrees with their world view. All of us.

                My thought going in was that the guy was probably guilty. Maybe he'll be found guilty, maybe not. But whoever has the smartest lawyer will probably win. This case has no eye witnesses, So "who is going to tell the better story" is more what I think will decide this case.
                Signature
                One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

                Terence Fletcher: "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than Good Job." Whiplash.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8218773].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                  Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                  I understand why you say that.
                  But the key question to me is "Who is better at making the jury like them?"

                  We want to think that people are reasonable, that the facts really decide a case. But people are just bundles of emotional energy that fight anything that disagrees with their world view. All of us.

                  My thought going in was that the guy was probably guilty. Maybe he'll be found guilty, maybe not. But whoever has the smartest lawyer will probably win. This case has no eye witnesses, So "who is going to tell the better story" is more what I think will decide this case.
                  Today, that female witness was a whole lot more cordial and much less combative.

                  The defense attorney even asked her if someone had talked to her about her attitude.

                  ( I never found out how she answered that question )

                  So the like/no-like that witness issue may be mute and the trial will revolve around as you say who's story(s) sound more believable.


                  TL
                  Signature

                  "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8219248].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Kay King
                After Trayvon's brother posted Trayvon's school suspension at the time he died was due to attacking a bus driver....the "innocent teen" argument dissipated. It's time to stop arguing the racial issue or the age issue - and let the facts go where they may. It's sad that anyone had to die for something so stupid.

                I'll let the jury decide and hope people will accept their decision no matter which way they go.
                Signature
                Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world will change forever for that one dog.

                I wish offended people would react like fainting goats and quietly tip over.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8218813].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                  It actually came out that he was suspended because of pot wasn't it? If I'm wrong please post an official link, not some right wing blog intent on smearing a young innocent victim, where the so called "attack" occurred. I'm sure it must be out there some where, otherwise you wouldn't continue a smear. Would you?

                  As his mother said "“They killed my son, now they’re trying to kill his reputation.” It's disgusting really.

                  Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

                  After Trayvon's brother posted Trayvon's school suspension at the time he died was due to attacking a bus driver....the "innocent teen" argument dissipated.
                  Signature
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8224011].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author thunderbird
                [DELETED]
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8222477].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                  Originally Posted by thunderbird View Post

                  I hope that pedophile racist scumbag gets executed, but after what I've seen of Florida justice in past, he'll probably walk free.
                  And your basing that statement on what?
                  Signature

                  Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                  Getting old ain't for sissy's
                  As you are I was, as I am you will be
                  You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8222777].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

      She had the nerve to cop an attitude with the cross-examiner.


      I wouldn't be surprised if the defense keeps her on the stand longer than Dennis Fong of Simpson trial fame which was 9 days. ( I think )


      But even Marsha Clarke said that the jury will probably not hold those 3-5 little white lies by the teenager against her - but we will see.
      But they are actually REQUIRED BY LAW to "hold those $^&* lies against her"! If there is a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, they must acquit. Apparently, the prosecution is DEPENDING on this witness! Either you believe her, and KNOW she lied, or DON'T and consider it worthless. Seriously! She contradicted her testimony and cleansed things, and a reasonable person must either NOT believe what was there, which means she is worthless, and trying to use RACE to hurt the defendant, or believe what was there which means that she is doing this to hurt the defendant to protect any good memories that have developed for trevon,

      If I were the prosecutor, I would have tried to keep her existence out of the press from the beginning and tried to develop the case using some other evidence.

      That said, if they side with this STUPID witness' CURRENT "testimony", it won't be the first time such an injustice has been done.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8219961].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kay King
        The defense attorney even asked her if someone had talked to her about her attitude.

        ( I never found out how she answered that question )
        I wondered why he bothered to ask - the answer was clear as her attitude (though not great) was much improved.

        Someone coached her well - and I expect it wasn't an easy job.
        Signature
        Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world will change forever for that one dog.

        I wish offended people would react like fainting goats and quietly tip over.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8220173].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
        Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

        But they are actually REQUIRED BY LAW to "hold those $^&* lies against her"! If there is a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, they must acquit. Apparently, the prosecution is DEPENDING on this witness! Either you believe her, and KNOW she lied, or DON'T and consider it worthless. Seriously! She contradicted her testimony and cleansed things, and a reasonable person must either NOT believe what was there, which means she is worthless, and trying to use RACE to hurt the defendant, or believe what was there which means that she is doing this to hurt the defendant to protect any good memories that have developed for trevon,

        If I were the prosecutor, I would have tried to keep her existence out of the press from the beginning and tried to develop the case using some other evidence.

        That said, if they side with this STUPID witness' CURRENT "testimony", it won't be the first time such an injustice has been done.

        Steve
        The laws are different in many states regarding "misstatements" and false testimony of a witness and according to attorney Lisa Bloom (Gloria Allred's daughter),...

        ... in Florida, the jury CAN disregard any testimony of a witness if they deem a misstatement by the witness is in fact relevant to the case.

        The jury can also determine whether a misstatement by a witness is relevant to the case or not.

        All The Best!

        TL
        Signature

        "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8221193].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

          The laws are different in many states regarding "misstatements" and false testimony of a witness and according to attorney Lisa Bloom (Gloria Allred's daughter),...

          ... in Florida, the jury CAN disregard any testimony of a witness if they deem a misstatement by the witness is in fact relevant to the case.

          The jury can also determine whether a misstatement by a witness is relevant to the case or not.

          All The Best!

          TL
          The laws I am talking about are federal. They are to disregard them if the judge says to, in any state. And s/he is to do that if it is deemed that procedure has been breached. For whatever reason, that doesn't seem to cover perjury, though an objection could be raised procedurally on perjury and possibly lead to such an admonition. Of course, as lawyers like to say, you can't un-ring a bell, ALSO, a jurer won't be punished for disregarding that admonition.

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8221294].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
            Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

            The laws I am talking about are federal. They are to disregard them if the judge says to, in any state. And s/he is to do that if it is deemed that procedure has been breached. For whatever reason, that doesn't seem to cover perjury, though an objection could be raised procedurally on perjury and possibly lead to such an admonition. Of course, as lawyers like to say, you can't un-ring a bell, ALSO, a jurer won't be punished for disregarding that admonition.

            Steve
            Great, the laws you're talking about are federal.

            And you believe they supersede state laws even in in non-federal trials, is that right??
            Signature

            "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8221669].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author seasoned
              Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

              Great, the laws you're talking about are federal.

              And you believe they supersede state laws even in in non-federal trials, is that right??
              Where you are talking about a CRIMINAL trial, and procedure, YEAH. If things weren't controlled to some degree by the fed, WHY have miranda, trial by jury, pro bono lawyers, or even a trial at all?

              That said, in CIVIL trials, all rules might be thrown out the window! You don't necessarily need a JUDGE(in the legal sense), a courtroom, a jury, a pro bono lawyer, etc....

              Steve
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8221774].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                Where you are talking about a CRIMINAL trial, and procedure, YEAH. If things weren't controlled to some degree by the fed, WHY have miranda, trial by jury, pro bono lawyers, or even a trial at all?

                That said, in CIVIL trials, all rules might be thrown out the window! You don't necessarily need a JUDGE(in the legal sense), a courtroom, a jury, a pro bono lawyer, etc....

                Steve

                You're right about civil trials.

                They're a horse of a different color and the burden of proof is a lot less verses a criminal trial.
                Signature

                "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8221873].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Kay King
                  I just heard a bit of the fallout from this morning's witness - I'm not watching it today so it was talking head stuff.

                  Important to remember the story line was concocted by the media to suit their own ratings purposes and get attention. Now it's a scramble to discount facts and explain away witnesses that don't fit that concocted story line.
                  Signature
                  Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world will change forever for that one dog.

                  I wish offended people would react like fainting goats and quietly tip over.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8221935].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Kay King
              Another perspective of Rachel Jeantel:
              The articles are flying about Jeantel being misunderstood and begin with "whites won't like her". To me -that's as racist as it gets.

              My black friends don't like this woman, either. One said "she'd be outclassed in the sale aisle at WalMart" - and another said "she's uneducated because she didn't show up to learn."

              If you don't want a double standard in society - you have to stop using a double standard to excuse bad behavior. This woman was a poor witness with changing stories - and nothing more...or less...than that.
              Signature
              Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world will change forever for that one dog.

              I wish offended people would react like fainting goats and quietly tip over.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8221824].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

                The articles are flying about Jeantel being misunderstood and begin with "whites won't like her". To me -that's as racist as it gets.

                My black friends don't like this woman, either. One said "she'd be outclassed in the sale aisle at WalMart" - and another said "she's uneducated because she didn't show up to learn."

                If you don't want a double standard in society - you have to stop using a double standard to excuse bad behavior. This woman was a poor witness with changing stories - and nothing more...or less...than that.
                Yeah, give me a break! I thought Simpson was railroaded on many things, and he is BLACK! I have also been against many whites on trial, etc...

                what does RACE have to do with justice?

                And nobody dresses up to go to walmart, and you wouldn't here any real highbrow stuff either! As for education? The idea of school is SUPPOSED to be to get you to a certain baselevel, etc... HOPEFULLY, you don't figure that you have to learn NOTHING else.

                Steve
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8222033].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                  If I remember right didn't Zimmerman first call the cops or 911 and tell them an unknown person was walking around the complex and they told him not to follow him and to stay where he was?
                  I'm wondering if that will come up and how it will effect the outcome.
                  Also will it come out that he was alleged to be in the neighborhood watch and they are suppose to be unarmed?
                  I don't know if he shot Trevon in self-defense or not, but bottom line is if he followed the order from the police (or 911) there wouldn't even be a trial.
                  Signature

                  Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                  Getting old ain't for sissy's
                  As you are I was, as I am you will be
                  You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8222090].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                    I agree Thom. That point seems to be the most important one in this case.

                    By the way, George Zimmerman got caught in a lie also and because of it had to go back to jail. So, does that destroy all his credibility? It's likely he will be testifying from what I understand. I wonder how many discrepancies in his story will show up?

                    Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                    If I remember right didn't Zimmerman first call the cops or 911 and tell them an unknown person was walking around the complex and they told him not to follow him and to stay where he was?
                    I'm wondering if that will come up and how it will effect the outcome.
                    Also will it come out that he was alleged to be in the neighborhood watch and they are suppose to be unarmed?
                    I don't know if he shot Trevon in self-defense or not, but bottom line is if he followed the order from the police (or 911) there wouldn't even be a trial.
                    Signature
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8222162].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                      Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                      I agree Thom. That point seems to be the most important one in this case.

                      By the way, George Zimmerman got caught in a lie also and because of it had to go back to jail. So, does that destroy all his credibility? It's likely he will be testifying from what I understand. I wonder how many discrepancies in his story will show up?

                      I'd love to see him on the stand although I hear it's not likely due to what are numerous perceived holes in his story.

                      But...

                      From everything I've heard about him ( such as standing up during the trial when folks were asked to ID him, BTW, Lisa Bloom said she's never seen such a thing )...


                      ( if properly provoked )


                      ... he may go Jack Nickelson.
                      Signature

                      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8222302].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                    Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                    If I remember right didn't Zimmerman first call the cops or 911 and tell them an unknown person was walking around the complex and they told him not to follow him and to stay where he was?
                    I'm wondering if that will come up and how it will effect the outcome.
                    Also will it come out that he was alleged to be in the neighborhood watch and they are suppose to be unarmed?
                    I don't know if he shot Trevon in self-defense or not, but bottom line is if he followed the order from the police (or 911) there wouldn't even be a trial.
                    That assumes a LOT! Assume he was told, and heard it. HOW do you know he didn't obey? Maybe trayvon escalated the issue.

                    Steve
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8222313].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                      Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                      That assumes a LOT! Assume he was told, and heard it. HOW do you know he didn't obey? Maybe trayvon escalated the issue.

                      Steve
                      How does that assume anything?
                      It's a fact he made the call. It's a fact he was told to not follow Trevor. It's a fact he followed him anyways.
                      The only assumption is on your end assuming those facts don't exist.
                      Signature

                      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                      Getting old ain't for sissy's
                      As you are I was, as I am you will be
                      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8222431].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                        Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                        How does that assume anything?
                        It's a fact he made the call. It's a fact he was told to not follow Trevor. It's a fact he followed him anyways.
                        The only assumption is on your end assuming those facts don't exist.
                        How do you know he followed him for no reason, etc?
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8222751].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                          Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                          How do you know he followed him for no reason, etc?
                          I didn't say one way or another if he had a reason for following him, I simply stated the facts as they where presented at the time of the incident.
                          The facts are he called the police (or 911) and was told not to follow Trevor. At that point he turned any further investigation over to the police for them to act on.
                          Signature

                          Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                          Getting old ain't for sissy's
                          As you are I was, as I am you will be
                          You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8222767].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author thunderbird
                          Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                          How do you know he followed him for no reason, etc?
                          Apart from his obvious and violent display of bad judgment, resulting in the death of an innocent man, I don't think George Zimmerman, a pervert who repeatedly molested a relative, should given any credibility at all:
                          http://www.tampabay.com/news/politic...ng-her/1240577
                          Signature

                          Project HERE.

                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8222780].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                            Originally Posted by thunderbird View Post

                            Apart from his obvious and violent display of bad judgment, resulting in the death of an innocent man, I don't think George Zimmerman, a pervert who repeatedly raped a relative, should given any credibility at all:
                            http://www.tampabay.com/news/politic...ng-her/1240577
                            I agree he showed serious bad judgment.
                            But the rest is based on one article about one person who alleged he fondled her. Nothing in that article said he raped her repeatedly.
                            I'm not condoning what he did to her IF he actually did it.
                            But I also don't condone labeling someone a pervert and rapist based on one news article that has never been proven or disproven. For all you know she could of easily made that up just to get even with him for not letting her do something she wanted to do like sneak out or drink under age.
                            Signature

                            Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                            Getting old ain't for sissy's
                            As you are I was, as I am you will be
                            You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8222888].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author thunderbird
                              Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                              I agree he showed serious bad judgment.
                              But the rest is based on one article about one person who alleged he fondled her. Nothing in that article said he raped her repeatedly.
                              I'm not condoning what he did to her IF he actually did it.
                              But I also don't condone labeling someone a pervert and rapist based on one news article that has never been proven or disproven. For all you know she could of easily made that up just to get even with him for not letting her do something she wanted to do like sneak out or drink under age.
                              It doesn't really matter what we write here. This thread is going to get deleted. You know it. I know it. (homage to Ross Perot)

                              Rape does seem to be the wrong word, my apologies:
                              Woman Says George Zimmerman Molested Her For More Than A Decade
                              "The woman, identified in various reports and in taped interviews with investigators as witness 9, said that from the age of six to 19 Zimmerman repeatedly fondled her, at times penetrating her vagina with his finger."
                              Signature

                              Project HERE.

                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8223040].message }}
                              • Profile picture of the author KimW
                                Originally Posted by thunderbird View Post

                                It doesn't really matter what we write here. This thread is going to get deleted. You know it. I know it. (homage to Ross Perot)

                                Rape does seem to be the wrong word, my apologies:
                                Woman Says George Zimmerman Molested Her For More Than A Decade
                                "The woman, identified in various reports and in taped interviews with investigators as witness 9, said that from the age of six to 19 Zimmerman repeatedly fondled her, at times penetrating her vagina with his finger."
                                It may,it may not.The other thread about this case did not,and it was much more heated than this one is.
                                For the most part I am just being a watching bystander as I already know where most of the regulars stand on this.
                                I may join in at some point,but so far am not inclined as I am not seeing much new yet.
                                Signature

                                Read A Post.
                                Subscribe to a Newsletter
                                KimWinfrey.Com

                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8223074].message }}
                                • Profile picture of the author thunderbird
                                  Originally Posted by KimW View Post

                                  It may,it may not.The other thread about this case did not,and it was much more heated than this one is.
                                  Oh, whoops.
                                  Signature

                                  Project HERE.

                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8223084].message }}
                                  • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                                    Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                                    I just read a post that says exactly my point. Sadly, due to the nature of the site, I should not link there, so I will just show the whole post here:



                                    Steve
                                    So we're to ignore all ballistic evidence and even the fact that Zimmerman says he shot him (in self-defense) and go by biblical law that says you most have two witnesses? Basically that's what that guy is saying. Weather Travor was beating on him or not, one simple fact remains. There would not of been a confrontation if he listened to the police and didn't follow him. The result of his decision not to listen to the police shows serious bad judgment which resulted in a life being lost. He is responsible for his actions, period.
                                    Originally Posted by thunderbird View Post

                                    Rape does seem to be the wrong word, my apologies:
                                    Woman Says George Zimmerman Molested Her For More Than A Decade
                                    "The woman, identified in various reports and in taped interviews with investigators as witness 9, said that from the age of six to 19 Zimmerman repeatedly fondled her, at times penetrating her vagina with his finger."
                                    I still wouldn't judge someone just because someone else says something that hasn't been verified. Give her and her mother a lie detector test and if they both pass, it's a different story.
                                    I'm a little touchy about this kind of thing. Twice in the past I've had females threaten to accuse me of rape if I didn't give into their demands. I had never so much as held hands with either of them. I told them both to do it.
                                    This could be the same. If a lie detector test shows he did molest her then stick him in a block with guys who have daughters and tell them he's a child molester.
                                    Signature

                                    Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                                    Getting old ain't for sissy's
                                    As you are I was, as I am you will be
                                    You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8223151].message }}
                                    • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
                                      Everyone on this thread is looking at roughly the same testimony...the same evidence.

                                      I'm assuming that we all think that our comments are reasonable and unbiased.

                                      But already we are in two camps. Already most of us have made up our minds.

                                      This is why these trials are so seldom decided on the evidence. Emotions, prejudices, preconceptions, "liking" a witness, "not liking" an attorney.....
                                      are how these things are decided.

                                      How a witness dresses, the accent they use, whether they "look guilty" or not....

                                      The show isn't so much in the courtroom, for me...it's in the media....and here.

                                      By the way, I'm including myself in this. Sometimes I catch myself, sometimes no.
                                      Signature
                                      One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

                                      Terence Fletcher: "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than Good Job." Whiplash.
                                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8223219].message }}
                                      • Profile picture of the author Kurt
                                        Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                                        Everyone on this thread is looking at roughly the same testimony...the same evidence.

                                        I'm assuming that we all think that our comments are reasonable and unbiased.

                                        But already we are in two camps. Already most of us have made up our minds.

                                        This is why these trials are so seldom decided on the evidence. Emotions, prejudices, preconceptions, "liking" a witness, "not liking" an attorney.....
                                        are how these things are decided.

                                        How a witness dresses, the accent they use, whether they "look guilty" or not....

                                        The show isn't so much in the courtroom, for me...it's in the media....and here.
                                        I've made up my mind of guilty, based on the point Thom has brought up. In my mind, you can't claim self defense when you persue/follow someone. I believe Zimmerman had admitted that he followed and killed Martin, so Teve's requirement of two witnesses is N/A.

                                        Unless there's a law or some facts I am unaware of, I'm sticking to my opinion of guilt. And from my understanding, even the "stand my ground" law doesn't apply to following someone, and it shouldn't.

                                        I'll take it farther, if Zimmerman did follow Martin, then it was Martin acting in self-defense and "standing his ground".


                                        However, I haven't made up my mind what Zimmerman is "guilty" of. Is it First Degree murder? Manslaughter? Something else? Often, guilty/not guility is the easy part of the trial. Deciding what the person is guilty of is the bigger problem.
                                        Signature
                                        Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
                                        Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
                                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8223235].message }}
                                        • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
                                          Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

                                          I've made up my mind of guilty, based on the point Thom has brought up. In my mind, you can't claim self defense when you persue/follow someone. I believe Zimmerman had admitted that he followed and killed Martin, so Teve's requirement of two witnesses is N/A.

                                          Unless there's a law or some facts I am unaware of, I'm sticking to my opinion of guilt. And from my understanding, even the "stand my ground" law doesn't apply to following someone, and it shouldn't.

                                          I'll take it farther, if Zimmerman did follow Martin, then it was Martin acting in self-defense and "standing his ground".


                                          However, I haven't made up my mind what Zimmerman is "guilty" of. Is it First Degree murder? Manslaughter? Something else? Often, guilty/not guility is the easy part of the trial. Deciding what the person is guilty of is the bigger problem.
                                          Kurt; And why do you think a nearly equal number of people are convinced that he is not guilty? I'm being sincere.

                                          By the way, can the jury find him guilty of something else? I thought he would either be guilty or not guilty of Second Degree Murder. Am I wrong? (I may well be)
                                          Signature
                                          One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

                                          Terence Fletcher: "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than Good Job." Whiplash.
                                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8223285].message }}
                                          • Profile picture of the author Kurt
                                            Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                                            Kurt; And why do you think a nearly equal number of people are convinced that he is not guilty? I'm being sincere.
                                            Because they either don't understand or don't accept the idea of persuing/following someone vs. retreating and/or standing your ground. There may also be some that are "pro vigilante".

                                            To me, this is the entire essence of the case. But even with stand your ground, you can't persue someone. And if you do, you are the aggressor.

                                            "Stand your ground" is a fairly new concept, as far as I know. It was generally accepted that you needed to "retreat" or do everything reasonable to avoid a conflict until "stand your ground". But neither defense allows you to persue a person.


                                            By the way, can the jury find him guilty of something else? I thought he would either be guilty or not guilty of Second Degree Murder. Am I wrong? (I may well be)
                                            I don't know either.
                                            Signature
                                            Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
                                            Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
                                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8223351].message }}
                                            • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
                                              Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

                                              Because they either don't understand or don't accept the idea of persuing/following someone vs. retreating and/or standing your ground. There may also be some that are "pro vigilante".

                                              To me, this is the entire essence of the case. But even with stand your ground, you can't persue someone. And if you do, you are the aggressor.

                                              "Stand your ground" is a fairly new concept, as far as I know. It was generally accepted that you needed to "retreat" or do everything reasonable to avoid a conflict until "stand your ground". But neither defense allows you to persue a person.


                                              I don't know either.
                                              I think it would be much easier to get a conviction if the charge was Manslaughter. If I was on the jury, and it was second degree murder? I would have to be damn sure, and I'm not. My first impression...my opinion...is not enough to destroy a mans life. I must be sure. And I don't know if that's possible in this case.
                                              Signature
                                              One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

                                              Terence Fletcher: "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than Good Job." Whiplash.
                                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8223657].message }}
                                              • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
                                                Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                                                I think it would be much easier to get a conviction if the charge was Manslaughter. If I was on the jury, and it was second degree murder? I would have to be damn sure, and I'm not. My first impression...my opinion...is not enough to destroy a mans life. I must be sure. And I don't know if that's possible in this case.
                                                Interesting thought process, Claude.

                                                Do you really believe that you, as a juror, could destroy a man's life? Isn't it more like the man's actions would be what destroyed his life? :confused:

                                                Terra
                                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8223662].message }}
                                                • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
                                                  Originally Posted by MissTerraK View Post

                                                  Interesting thought process, Claude.

                                                  Do you really believe that you, as a juror, could destroy a man's life? Isn't it more like the man's actions would be what destroyed his life? :confused:

                                                  Terra
                                                  Terra; Your question is asked as if he is absolutely definitely guilty...and the question is "Is he responsible for his own actions?". Am I right?

                                                  Yes, I believe that a guilty verdict will destroy Zimmerman's life.
                                                  And I would have to be absolutely certain that he deserved a Guilty verdict before I gave it. I can't declare someone guilty just because I don't like him, or I think he's a sleazeball, or I think he's guilty of other charges.

                                                  A man's actions would have destroyed his life...if he is guilty of the charge of second degree murder.


                                                  Again, I think a charge of Manslaughter would be much easier to get a conviction on. He's almost admitted to it.
                                                  Signature
                                                  One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

                                                  Terence Fletcher: "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than Good Job." Whiplash.
                                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8223670].message }}
                                                  • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
                                                    Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                                                    Terra; Your question is asked as if he is absolutely definitely guilty...and the question is "Is he responsible for his own actions?". Am I right?

                                                    Yes, I believe that a guilty verdict will destroy Zimmerman's life.
                                                    And I would have to be absolutely certain that he deserved a Guilty verdict before I gave it. I can't declare someone guilty just because I don't like him, or I think he's a sleazeball, or I think he's guilty of other charges.

                                                    A man's actions would have destroyed his life...if he is guilty of the charge of second degree murder.
                                                    Well yes, I suppose that is the nitty gritty of the thing, being responsible for one's own actions.

                                                    Here's the way I look at it. He had a gun, he pulled the trigger, someone died.

                                                    Just the facts that he himself has admitted to. All of the other circumstances, reasons, thoughts, excuses, whatever, aside. He made a choice to pull the trigger and could have just as easily chose not to do so.

                                                    I believe regardless of the jury's decision, the man has destroyed his life with that action. If he is found guilty, his life is destroyed for obvious reasons. If he is found not guilty, his life is still destroyed on many fronts. The press he has already received and the knowing that your actions were responsible for taking another life being the two most prevalent.

                                                    I know that if someone darted in front of me while driving and there was honestly no way to avoid hitting them with my vehicle and that person died, I would have a very difficult time dealing with that in my life. Even though it was a complete accident with nothing I could have done to prevent it, in many aspects, my life would be ruined. I don't know how I could deal with that. It seems that incident would haunt me for the rest of my life both in my waking and sleeping hours.

                                                    Do you see where I'm coming from?

                                                    Terra
                                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8223700].message }}
                                                    • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
                                                      Originally Posted by MissTerraK View Post

                                                      Well yes, I suppose that is the nitty gritty of the thing, being responsible for one's own actions.

                                                      Here's the way I look at it. He had a gun, he pulled the trigger, someone died.

                                                      Just the facts that he himself has admitted to. All of the other circumstances, reasons, thoughts, excuses, whatever, aside. He made a choice to pull the trigger and could have just as easily chose not to do so.

                                                      I know that if someone darted in front of me while driving and there was honestly no way to avoid hitting them with my vehicle and that person died, I would have a very difficult time dealing with that in my life. Even though it was a complete accident with nothing I could have done to prevent it, in many aspects, my life would be ruined. I don't know how I could deal with that. It seems that incident would haunt me for the rest of my life both in my waking and sleeping hours.

                                                      Do you see where I'm coming from?


                                                      Terra
                                                      Terra; Of course I do. Any decent person would haunted by causing the death of an innocent.

                                                      Just based on the what Zimmerman told the police, I think he's guilty of manslaughter. In fact, I wonder why they didn't offer him that plea.

                                                      He may well truly be guilty of second degree murder. But that's a different charge. And again, I would need to be sure before sending a person to prison for life.

                                                      My guess is that Zimmerman confronted Martin, Martin had enough, and started beating Zimmerman. There is evidence to support that Zimmerman was on the bottom (minor head wounds on the back of the head), Zimmerman got scared, and shot Martin.

                                                      If that is true (A BIG "If") That's nearly enough to convict..meaning Zimmerman could be thought of as guilty of second degree murder, based on that scenario.

                                                      Another scenario is that Zimmerman attacked Martin, unprovoked. I think that's unlikely, but possible.

                                                      Another scenario is that there was no intention on Zimmerman's part to harm Martin...an argument ensued, escalated, both exchanged blows, and Martin got shot. Is that second degree murder?

                                                      My thought is that if Zimmerman goes to Prison, he'll be killed.
                                                      To send a man to his death, I would have to be very very sure.

                                                      And I'm not.
                                                      Signature
                                                      One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

                                                      Terence Fletcher: "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than Good Job." Whiplash.
                                                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8225128].message }}
                                                      • Profile picture of the author Kay King
                                                        Tim - we can agree to disagree but I prefer not to make it personal. I'm not sure, either, what "and other things" refers to...and don't really care.

                                                        The 10 day suspension from school for Martin was curious when it was found that length of suspension is given for a greater offense than "being in the wrong place" as it was initially described.

                                                        Trayvon's brother's Twitter account and a later comment by his father indicated there was more to the suspension. It doesn't matter to the case itself. Zimmerman and Martin both had questionable things in their past - they were real people who became victim and criminal. Neither should be whitewashed - and neither should be demonized.

                                                        http://www.yourblackworld.net/2012/0...is-bus-driver/

                                                        http://www.examiner.com/article/tray...day-suspension
                                                        Signature
                                                        Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world will change forever for that one dog.

                                                        I wish offended people would react like fainting goats and quietly tip over.
                                                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8225185].message }}
                                                        • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                                                          From the link you posted Kay:

                                                          "Update: The Florida Sun-Sentinel reported today, March 26th, that Trayvon's ten day suspension was related to marijuana. This, and a cryptic comment by his father that was quoted in the above Kansas City Star article, suggest he was caught smoking marijuana on school property."

                                                          I mean, honestly, if a 16 or 17 year old kid "attacked" a school bus driver do you think the penalty for doing so would be a 10 day suspension?! No, in reality the penalty would likely be "assault". To say "Oh, it was a ten day suspension so it must have been something worse than being caught with pot" and then to suggest it was because of attacking someone is kind of silly.

                                                          Originally Posted by Kay King View Post


                                                          The 10 day suspension from school for Martin was curious when it was found that length of suspension is given for a greater offense than "being in the wrong place" as it was initially described.

                                                          Trayvon's brother's Twitter account and a later comment by his father indicated there was more to the suspension. It doesn't matter to the case itself. Zimmerman and Martin both had questionable things in their past - they were real people who became victim and criminal. Neither should be whitewashed - and neither should be demonized.

                                                          http://www.yourblackworld.net/2012/0...is-bus-driver/

                                                          http://www.examiner.com/article/tray...day-suspension
                                                          Signature
                                                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8228519].message }}
                                                          • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                                                            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                                                            From the link you posted Kay:

                                                            "Update: The Florida Sun-Sentinel reported today, March 26th, that Trayvon's ten day suspension was related to marijuana.

                                                            This, and a cryptic comment by his father that was quoted in the above Kansas City Star article, suggest he was caught smoking marijuana on school property."

                                                            I mean, honestly, if a 16 or 17 year old kid "attacked" a school bus driver do you think the penalty for doing so would be a 10 day suspension?!

                                                            No, in reality the penalty would likely be "assault".

                                                            To say "Oh, it was a ten day suspension so it must have been something worse than being caught with pot" and then to suggest it was because of attacking someone is kind of silly.

                                                            1: The thought that it's OK to do what Zimmerman did is repugnant.

                                                            And IMHO is should be that way with the vast majority of decent minded people.





                                                            2: Throwing up "Trayvon wasn't an innocent" so therefore bla, bla, bla is also repugnant in my eyes.


                                                            So why do some people keep bringing up Travon's "short comings"?

                                                            It's not like he was Billy the Kid.

                                                            So why???

                                                            IMHO, the smearing of Travon is one of the ugliest impulses to come out of this society in quite some time - in a society filled with ugly impulses from ugly people - but I'm not surprised by it one bit.



                                                            Since it seems like the charge related to Zimmerman revolves around whether he set out from the outset to find and kill someone may be hard to prove...

                                                            ... perhaps the state of Florida mis-charged him.


                                                            But he is surely guilty of starting a chain of events that culminated in the death of a person who was minding their own business, just going to the store and they ended up dead.


                                                            - It was a Sunday evening around 6:30 to 7:15, not Monday thru Friday 10am to 12pm. ( break-in hours )

                                                            - It was also raining.

                                                            - Z. was told to not go near Travon but he somehow managed to get near him anyway resulting in Travon's death.

                                                            - Zimmerman should be punished for what he did and his actions should be frowned upon by the vast majority of people in this society - no ans if or buts.

                                                            I've seriously got to wonder about the frame of mind and motivations of the people who...

                                                            ... don't frown upon what Zimmerman did and/or offer up the "Travon's no innocent" crap.


                                                            What's their motivation?


                                                            Many claim they want to see justice done and don't want Z. railroaded.


                                                            Fine, but are the smears on Travon necessary?


                                                            - Mr. Z. was also wrong bigtime in thinking that Travon didn't belong in the neighborhood because Travon's dad lived in the same complex as Mr. Z.

                                                            - Mr. Z. described Travon as "they" to the 911 operator.

                                                            Who are they?

                                                            - Mr. Z was told to stay away from Travon period and if he did, someone's son would still be alive today.

                                                            - Mr. Z. clearly wanted a confrontation with someone and got one and now someone who was only going to the store is now dead.

                                                            - Of course Travon wasn't a complete innocent but he wasn't even close to someone who had been in and out of juvenile hall or prisons all his life and committing a bevy of violent crimes either - no matter what the smear machine puts out there.

                                                            The motivation of people on the left and other decent minded people is...

                                                            ...we don't like the concept of people being stalked by a wannabe cop and then shot

                                                            dead...

                                                            - period.

                                                            What's with the smear campaign lead by the right-wing sites etc. ???

                                                            What do they have to gain by smearing Travon and getting people to justify Zimmerman's heinous actions?

                                                            Is it the gun lobby at work?

                                                            How about the stand your ground lobby?


                                                            How about the racist lobby going about their business trying to gin up racial animus.


                                                            - Whatever Travon said, it still does not justify what Zimmerman did.

                                                            - All of Mr. Z's so-called motivations for doing what he did does not justify his actions.



                                                            I'd like to understand why the character assassination by some people and the same group of people saying...



                                                            ...that it's quite OK for someone to stalk someone else and somehow get into a confrontation with them and then shoot them dead.



                                                            Folks in here can say whatever they will as a rebuttal to this post but I'm not going round and round with them over whether Mr. Z. was justified in his heinous actions or not.

                                                            Mr. Z. was wrong as a 3 dollar bill period and should be condemned by all decent people.

                                                            BTW...

                                                            ...some people should be ashamed of themselves for what they are doing but there are lots of people in this society that clearly have no shame.
                                                            Signature

                                                            "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                                                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8230970].message }}
                                                      • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
                                                        Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                                                        Terra; Of course I do. Any decent person would haunted by causing the death of an innocent.

                                                        Just based on the what Zimmerman told the police, I think he's guilty of manslaughter. In fact, I wonder why they didn't offer him that plea.

                                                        He may well truly be guilty of second degree murder. But that's a different charge. And again, I would need to be sure before sending a person to prison for life.

                                                        My guess is that Zimmerman confronted Martin, Martin had enough, and started beating Zimmerman. There is evidence to support that Zimmerman was on the bottom (minor head wounds on the back of the head), Zimmerman got scared, and shot Martin.

                                                        If that is true (A BIG "If") That's nearly enough to convict..meaning Zimmerman could be thought of as guilty of second degree murder, based on that scenario.

                                                        Another scenario is that Zimmerman attacked Martin, unprovoked. I think that's unlikely, but possible.

                                                        Another scenario is that there was no intention on Zimmerman's part to harm Martin...an argument ensued, escalated, both exchanged blows, and Martin got shot. Is that second degree murder?

                                                        My thought is that if Zimmerman goes to Prison, he'll be killed.
                                                        To send a man to his death, I would have to be very very sure.

                                                        And I'm not.
                                                        Yes, it is, in my opinion. If George meant no harm, he would not have pulled the trigger! How can you aim a gun at another human being and pull the trigger all the while meaning no harm? :confused::confused:

                                                        Okay, let's say both threw punches, but only one had a gun. I don't see any equality or an even match there at all.

                                                        Terra
                                                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8225343].message }}
                                                        • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
                                                          Originally Posted by MissTerraK View Post

                                                          Yes, it is, in my opinion. If Martin meant no harm, he would not have pulled the trigger! How can you aim a gun at another human being and pull the trigger all the while meaning no harm? :confused::confused:

                                                          Okay, let's say both threw punches, but only one had a gun. I don't see any equality or an even match there at all.

                                                          Terra
                                                          I understand.

                                                          "How can you aim a gun at another human being and pull the trigger all the while meaning no harm?"

                                                          You can't. I meant that Zimmerman may not have meant to take out the gun and shoot Martin at the beginning of the altercation, and did so when he was being beaten. That's just one scenario. One of many possible ones.
                                                          Signature
                                                          One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

                                                          Terence Fletcher: "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than Good Job." Whiplash.
                                                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8225369].message }}
                                                          • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
                                                            Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                                                            I understand.

                                                            "How can you aim a gun at another human being and pull the trigger all the while meaning no harm?"

                                                            You can't. I meant that Zimmerman may not have meant to take out the gun and shoot Martin at the beginning of the altercation, and did so when he was being beaten. That's just one scenario. One of many possible ones.
                                                            Do you know for certain that his gun was put away and not already out when the altercation began?

                                                            Even so, whether it was already out or not, he had to think to use it, the safety had to be positioned off at some point, right? Otherwise the pulling of the trigger wouldn't have mattered. Thinking equals meditation in my opinion.

                                                            The only way I would vote for "manslaughter" was if the gun was holstered and it accidentally went off hitting Treyvon with that fatal shot.

                                                            As you have probably noticed, "pulled the trigger" is what I am focusing on, it was that act that decided the way this incident ended.

                                                            Terra
                                                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8225396].message }}
                                                            • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
                                                              Originally Posted by MissTerraK View Post

                                                              Do you know for certain that his gun was put away and not already out when the altercation began?
                                                              Terra
                                                              Terra; No. I have no idea. Just like the rest of us.
                                                              Signature
                                                              One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

                                                              Terence Fletcher: "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than Good Job." Whiplash.
                                                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8225402].message }}
                                                              • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
                                                                Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                                                                Terra; No. I have no idea. Just like the rest of us.
                                                                Okay, thanks.

                                                                I was wondering if I had missed something.

                                                                Terra
                                                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8225445].message }}
                                                                • Profile picture of the author Kay King
                                                                  walking on grass rather than the sidewalk
                                                                  I didn't understand that, either. It wasn't a shortcut as the walk was there - but he was walking in the grass rather than on the walk.

                                                                  In the rain, most people would walk on the concrete sidewalk rather than in wet grass -- but the buildings may have provided some shelter from the rain. Especially true if they have overhung roofs common in the deep south.
                                                                  Signature
                                                                  Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world will change forever for that one dog.

                                                                  I wish offended people would react like fainting goats and quietly tip over.
                                                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8226613].message }}
                                                            • Profile picture of the author socialentry
                                                              Originally Posted by MissTerraK View Post

                                                              Do you know for certain that his gun was put away and not already out when the altercation began?

                                                              Even so, whether it was already out or not, he had to think to use it, the safety had to be positioned off at some point, right? Otherwise the pulling of the trigger wouldn't have mattered. Thinking equals meditation in my opinion.

                                                              The only way I would vote for "manslaughter" was if the gun was holstered and it accidentally went off hitting Treyvon with that fatal shot.

                                                              As you have probably noticed, "pulled the trigger" is what I am focusing on, it was that act that decided the way this incident ended.

                                                              Terra
                                                              the hispanic guy is a really crap gunman if he already had his gun out and somehow managed to get his head bashed in.
                                                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8226733].message }}
                                                              • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
                                                                Originally Posted by socialentry View Post

                                                                the hispanic guy is a really crap gunman if he already had his gun out and somehow managed to get his head bashed in.
                                                                Exaggerate much? His head bashed in? Really?

                                                                He had some minor abrasions on the back of it.

                                                                Terra
                                                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8226756].message }}
                                                                • Profile picture of the author socialentry
                                                                  Originally Posted by MissTerraK View Post

                                                                  Exaggerate much? His head bashed in? Really?

                                                                  He had some minor abrasions on the back of it.

                                                                  Terra
                                                                  Yeah but how in the world do you get in a position where the other guy can ground and pound you if you have a pistol out already? :confused:
                                                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8226779].message }}
                                                                  • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
                                                                    Originally Posted by socialentry View Post

                                                                    Yeah but how in the world do you get in a position where the other guy can ground and pound you if you have a pistol out already? :confused:
                                                                    It really doesn't matter in the end. I guess you missed this part of my post even though you quoted it?

                                                                    Even so, whether it was already out or not, he had to think to use it, the safety had to be positioned off at some point, right? Otherwise the pulling of the trigger wouldn't have mattered. Thinking equals meditation in my opinion.
                                                                    Terra
                                                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8226789].message }}
                                                                    • Profile picture of the author socialentry
                                                                      I'm just asking a question. Whether Z gets convicted doesn't matter one iota to me.

                                                                      "hmmm, I'm going to kill that guy and I'm going to let him close the distance, then I'm going to let him mount me, then I'm going to let him punch me in the face several time then I'm going to shoot him "

                                                                      Z must not have been a really bright person if that was his plan of action.
                                                                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8226827].message }}
                                                                      • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
                                                                        Originally Posted by socialentry View Post

                                                                        I'm just asking a question. Whether Z gets convicted doesn't matter one iota to me.

                                                                        "hmmm, I'm going to kill that guy and I'm going to let him close the distance, then I'm going to let him mount me, then I'm going to let him punch me in the face several time then I'm going to shoot him "

                                                                        Z must not have been a really bright person if that was his plan of action.
                                                                        Anyone who believes that would be foolish. But kudos on your dramatic flair.

                                                                        Terra
                                                                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8226831].message }}
                                                                        • Profile picture of the author socialentry
                                                                          Originally Posted by MissTerraK View Post

                                                                          Anyone who believes that would be foolish. But kudos on your dramatic flair.

                                                                          Terra
                                                                          But if my plan was to kill someone, why not just shoot the guy directly? :confused:

                                                                          I'm not saying anything except that Z was a particularly inept killer, do you disagree?
                                                                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8226837].message }}
                                                                          • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
                                                                            Originally Posted by socialentry View Post

                                                                            But if my plan was to kill someone, why not just shoot the guy directly? :confused:
                                                                            He did shoot the guy directly, he admits that. Obviously he didn't plan to shoot him until later on in the whole incident rather than at the very beginning.

                                                                            Why did Zimmerman continue to follow Martin after the authorities told him not to?

                                                                            Terra
                                                                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8226840].message }}
                                                                            • Profile picture of the author socialentry
                                                                              Originally Posted by MissTerraK View Post

                                                                              He did shoot the guy directly, he admits that. Obviously he didn't plan to shoot him until later on in the whole incident rather than at the very beginning.
                                                                              Suppose you were a middle age fat balding hispanic guy and planning to kill martin...

                                                                              Would you choose to shoot martin, a much younger and presumably far more athletic person as soon as you see him or would you let him close the distance so he has a fair chance?

                                                                              Why did Zimmerman continue to follow Martin after the authorities told him not to?

                                                                              Terra
                                                                              I don't know. It's maybe the second time I read a story on the case as I'm not very interested in daytime TV.
                                                                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8226857].message }}
                                                                              • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
                                                                                Originally Posted by socialentry View Post

                                                                                Suppose you were a middle age fat balding hispanic guy and planning to kill martin...

                                                                                Would you choose to shoot martin, a much younger and presumably far more athletic person as soon as you see him or would you let him close the distance so he has a fair chance?
                                                                                No, I would not "choose" to shoot another living human being at all, ever! I would like to think that I would have warned that I had a gun and if that didn't work, shoot a warning round upwards to ward him off.

                                                                                I did say "I would like to think that I" because truth be told it is difficult to know exactly what you would do if you aren't actually in that situation. There are many dynamics happening within one's body in situations like this that you cannot just imagine what it feels like and how your brain would work. It takes physical experiencing.

                                                                                Terra
                                                                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8227591].message }}
                                                                                • Profile picture of the author Kay King
                                                                                  You never know how you will react - and we can't explain how someone else "should have" reacted. That's the problem with a case like this - we try to justify and we ask questions from a logical perspective. Sometimes the answers don't exist in a way that can be proven.

                                                                                  Time after time in my life I've been calm in a crisis. I've been the person who didn't panic and who did what was needed. Over time I've accepted that about myself....and then it changed.

                                                                                  A couple years ago I had a situation that resulted in hysteria on my part. Something totally foreign to my personality and my nature....but that's what happened. My mind was racing, I couldn't think logically - I couldn't react logically.

                                                                                  Before that experience, I would have been questioning the "thought process" of Zimmerman more than I have in this case. Knowing how it feels for a situation to spin out of control in seconds or a minute - I understand how your mind can not process things fast enough and how you might react without thinking.
                                                                                  Signature
                                                                                  Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world will change forever for that one dog.

                                                                                  I wish offended people would react like fainting goats and quietly tip over.
                                                                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8227710].message }}
                                                                            • Profile picture of the author simonjnh
                                                                              Banned
                                                                              Originally Posted by MissTerraK View Post

                                                                              He did shoot the guy directly, he admits that. Obviously he didn't plan to shoot him until later on in the whole incident rather than at the very beginning.

                                                                              Why did Zimmerman continue to follow Martin after the authorities told him not to?

                                                                              Terra
                                                                              The question is a rather simple one - did Z have reason to believe he was in mortal danger from T. If so, he's innocent. If not, it is manslaughter or worse.
                                                                              So far, we have only ONE eyewitness other than Z.

                                                                              Here is Z's account:
                                                                              - He saw a suspicious individual.
                                                                              - He follow the suspicious character, called 911, and was told to stop following him.
                                                                              - He stopped following the character and returned to his vehicle.
                                                                              - On the way back to his car, T caught up to him and demanded to know what his problem was.
                                                                              (Note that this answers your question - Z DID stop following and returned to his vehicle after being told to stop. Whether he did or not, no one can know, but according to his account since the beginning and in the 911 call, he said that he stopped following T.)
                                                                              - T then closed in on Z, and punched him in the nose which began the 'fight'.
                                                                              - Z fell to the ground in the fight, his head hitting the curb.
                                                                              - T straddled him and proceeded to bash his head into the curb further, and began punching him.
                                                                              - T then noticed Z's gun, Z quickly pulled it out and shot T in the chest.

                                                                              The ONLY other eyewitness (brought on by prosecution mind you) has said that he saw 2 men fighting, saw Z on the ground with T sitting on top, punching and hitting him, he heard Z call for help. The man then returned back into his house and called 911 when he heard the gunshots.

                                                                              We have Z with cuts on the back of his head (not minor abrasions, he needed stitches on his head to close the gashes). Grass stains on the back of his clothing.
                                                                              Autopsy revealed that T DID have blooded knuckles consistent with violent punching described by Z. The gunshot wound showed a close up shot traveling upwards, consistent with what Z and the eyewitness describe as the position they were in.


                                                                              At this point, it seems like Z's account is close to the truth.


                                                                              This is not an issue of race at all. You could reverse the situation and have a latino guy in a predominantly black neighborhood get in a similar situation.

                                                                              I'm sorry MissTerra, but a VAST majority of what you have been saying has no bearance on evidence and is simply a 'story' regarding what 'might' have happened. When you analyze Z's account, the eyewitness report, the autopsy results, and other circumstantial evidence, it seems to be a fairly cut and dry case of self defense.

                                                                              Even if it wasn't so clear cut, there is beyond reasonable doubt on whether this was self defense or not. Either way Z should be acquitted for this crime. If he has any other past issues, he should be tried for those separately.
                                                                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8226955].message }}
                                                                              • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
                                                                                Originally Posted by simonjnh View Post

                                                                                The question is a rather simple one - did Z have reason to believe he was in mortal danger from T. If so, he's innocent. If not, it is manslaughter or worse.
                                                                                So far, we have only ONE eyewitness other than Z.

                                                                                Here is Z's account:
                                                                                - He saw a suspicious individual.
                                                                                - He follow the suspicious character, called 911, and was told to stop following him.
                                                                                - He stopped following the character and returned to his vehicle.
                                                                                - On the way back to his car, T caught up to him and demanded to know what his problem was.
                                                                                (Note that this answers your question - Z DID stop following and returned to his vehicle after being told to stop. Whether he did or not, no one can know, but according to his account since the beginning and in the 911 call, he said that he stopped following T.)
                                                                                - T then closed in on Z, and punched him in the nose which began the 'fight'.
                                                                                - Z fell to the ground in the fight, his head hitting the curb.
                                                                                - T straddled him and proceeded to bash his head into the curb further, and began punching him.
                                                                                - T then noticed Z's gun, Z quickly pulled it out and shot T in the chest.

                                                                                The ONLY other eyewitness (brought on by prosecution mind you) has said that he saw 2 men fighting, saw Z on the ground with T sitting on top, punching and hitting him, he heard Z call for help. The man then returned back into his house and called 911 when he heard the gunshots.

                                                                                We have Z with cuts on the back of his head (not minor abrasions, he needed stitches on his head to close the gashes). Grass stains on the back of his clothing.
                                                                                Autopsy revealed that T DID have blooded knuckles consistent with violent punching described by Z. The gunshot wound showed a close up shot traveling upwards, consistent with what Z and the eyewitness describe as the position they were in.


                                                                                At this point, it seems like Z's account is close to the truth.


                                                                                This is not an issue of race at all. You could reverse the situation and have a latino guy in a predominantly black neighborhood get in a similar situation.

                                                                                I'm sorry MissTerra, but a VAST majority of what you have been saying has no bearance on evidence and is simply a 'story' regarding what 'might' have happened. When you analyze Z's account, the eyewitness report, the autopsy results, and other circumstantial evidence, it seems to be a fairly cut and dry case of self defense.

                                                                                Even if it wasn't so clear cut, there is beyond reasonable doubt on whether this was self defense or not. Either way Z should be acquitted for this crime. If he has any other past issues, he should be tried for those separately.
                                                                                Thank you for the blow by actions. I have not been following this case or watching on the television at all. If what you say is the truth, and there is that little but huge word "if", then it does sound like George was defending himself. That being said, Trayvon had no gun and pulling a gun and shooting him close range in the chest shows intent to kill. George could have very easily shot a warning shot straight up into the air. If he had done that, don't you think Trayvon would have stopped and hightailed it out of there?

                                                                                Let me be clear on another issue you raised. I never ever once said anything about race. Race has nothing to do with this at all! If the races were reversed, my opinions would be identical. And there is another key factor right there. Everything I have said is merely my opinion, and carries no weight in the outcome of this case.

                                                                                As a side note, my dad was involved in a neighborhood watch for years. He had the midnight watch and many evenings I rode with him to have some daddy/daughter time (even though I was an adult. ), so I know how neighborhood watches work.

                                                                                Terra
                                                                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8227555].message }}
                                                                                • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
                                                                                  Originally Posted by MissTerraK View Post

                                                                                  That being said, Trayvon had no gun and pulling a gun and shooting him close range in the chest shows intent to kill. George could have very easily shot a warning shot straight up into the air. If he had done that, don't you think Trayvon would have stopped and hightailed it out of there?
                                                                                  Terra; You say Zimmerman could have shot a warning shot into the air. Of course he could. But he was (supposedly) being beaten badly at the time.

                                                                                  I abhor guns, and would never have one. But.....

                                                                                  If I had one in my pocket, and someone was beating me badly (on top of me and didn't show signs of stopping). They would be shot.

                                                                                  There is real evidence to support that Zimmerman was on the bottom. There is real evidence to support that he was getting beaten at the time.

                                                                                  When someone is beating you while on top of you..(not circling you like in a boxing match)...you won't fire a warning shot, and you would never announce that you have a gun. The other person's safety isn't what you are thinking about.

                                                                                  It's telling to me that more shots weren't fired.

                                                                                  Shooting someone while they are on top of you, beating you...is self defense.
                                                                                  I don't know for a fact that that's what happened. But the physical evidence supports it.

                                                                                  How do we know that Zimmerman stopped following Martin and was on his way back to his car? I haven't heard testimony about that yet (I haven't been glued to the case the last couple of days.)
                                                                                  Signature
                                                                                  One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

                                                                                  Terence Fletcher: "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than Good Job." Whiplash.
                                                                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8227807].message }}
                                                                                  • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
                                                                                    Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                                                                                    Terra; You say Zimmerman could have shot a warning shot into the air. Of course he could. But he was (supposedly) being beaten badly at the time.

                                                                                    I abhor guns, and would never have one. But.....

                                                                                    If I had one in my pocket, and someone was beating me badly (on top of me and didn't show signs of stopping). They would be shot.

                                                                                    There is real evidence to support that Zimmerman was on the bottom. There is real evidence to support that he was getting beaten at the time.

                                                                                    When someone is beating you while on top of you..(not circling you like in a boxing match)...you won't fire a warning shot, and you would never announce that you have a gun. The other person's safety isn't what you are thinking about.

                                                                                    It's telling to me that more shots weren't fired.

                                                                                    Shooting someone while they are on top of you, beating you...is self defense.
                                                                                    I don't know for a fact that that's what happened. But the physical evidence supports it.

                                                                                    How do we know that Zimmerman stopped following Martin and was on his way back to his car? I haven't heard testimony about that yet (I haven't been glued to the case the last couple of days.)
                                                                                    I don't really have an opinion or anything to say to that Claude. Believe it or not, I have never ever been in a knock down drag out, exchanging blows kind of altercation before in my life.

                                                                                    I've thrown a few well deserved slaps and a few swing kicks to the solar plexus before and ended some stupidity right in its tracks, but never have been involved in exchanging blows. I have no experience to draw upon, therefore.

                                                                                    Moving on, "It's telling to me that more shots weren't fired." Yeah, like the first one was fatal and did the trick.

                                                                                    Terra
                                                                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8227833].message }}
                                                                                  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                                                                                    Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                                                                                    Terra; You say Zimmerman could have shot a warning shot into the air. Of course he could. But he was (supposedly) being beaten badly at the time.
                                                                                    NO HE COULDN'T!

                                                                                    1. It is ILLEGAL!
                                                                                    2. It is DANGEROUS!
                                                                                    3. He could have gotten in trouble for hurting someone else!
                                                                                    4. He would NOT have had a clear shot! REMEMBER, he was near trevon, who was battering him!
                                                                                    5. Trevon could have taken it away, and killed him.
                                                                                    6. You have a MINUTE amount of time to react. Using it to try to scare away a person that has hurt you so bad is just DUMB!

                                                                                    I abhor guns, and would never have one. But.....

                                                                                    If I had one in my pocket, and someone was beating me badly (on top of me and didn't show signs of stopping). They would be shot.
                                                                                    EXACTLY!

                                                                                    There is real evidence to support that Zimmerman was on the bottom. There is real evidence to support that he was getting beaten at the time.

                                                                                    When someone is beating you while on top of you..(not circling you like in a boxing match)...you won't fire a warning shot, and you would never announce that you have a gun. The other person's safety isn't what you are thinking about.

                                                                                    It's telling to me that more shots weren't fired.

                                                                                    Shooting someone while they are on top of you, beating you...is self defense.
                                                                                    I don't know for a fact that that's what happened. But the physical evidence supports it.

                                                                                    How do we know that Zimmerman stopped following Martin and was on his way back to his car? I haven't heard testimony about that yet (I haven't been glued to the case the last couple of days.)
                                                                                    EXACTLY!

                                                                                    As for the shots, I never heard multiple ones were fired. There is some STUPID rule that basically DEMANDS that you kill a person with ONE shot! If you hit them, and they don't die, but are severely hurt in even some MINOR way, another shot could land you in jail for murder or A&B. If you hit them, or hurt them in even a MINOR way, like a minor loss of hearing, they may come back and sue the pants off you.

                                                                                    EVEN if you hit them in both legs and both arms, and even many places in the chest, they COULD still come after you. HECK, people have survived, and even kept on going, after shots through the BRAIN! It grows more unlikely, but it HAS happened.

                                                                                    That is ESPECIALLY likely if it is full metal jacket ammo, or a small caliber like a 22.

                                                                                    Steve
                                                                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8227964].message }}
                                                                                    • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
                                                                                      Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                                                                                      NO HE COULDN'T!

                                                                                      1. It is ILLEGAL!
                                                                                      2. It is DANGEROUS!
                                                                                      3. He could have gotten in trouble for hurting someone else!
                                                                                      4. He would NOT have had a clear shot! REMEMBER, he was near trevon, who was battering him!
                                                                                      5. Trevon could have taken it away, and killed him.
                                                                                      6. You have a MINUTE amount of time to react. Using it to try to scare away a person that has hurt you so bad is just DUMB!



                                                                                      EXACTLY!



                                                                                      EXACTLY!

                                                                                      As for the shots, I never heard multiple ones were fired. There is some STUPID rule that basically DEMANDS that you kill a person with ONE shot! If you hit them, and they don't die, but are severely hurt in even some MINOR way, another shot could land you in jail for murder or A&B. If you hit them, or hurt them in even a MINOR way, like a minor loss of hearing, they may come back and sue the pants off you.

                                                                                      EVEN if you hit them in both legs and both arms, and even many places in the chest, they COULD still come after you. HECK, people have survived, and even kept on going, after shots through the BRAIN! It grows more unlikely, but it HAS happened.

                                                                                      That is ESPECIALLY likely if it is full metal jacket ammo, or a small caliber like a 22.

                                                                                      Steve
                                                                                      Dear Steve,

                                                                                      If we ever meet in person and you are packing, please remind me to agree with everything you say and basically suck up to you, because right now, you are scaring the crap out of me.

                                                                                      Terra
                                                                                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8227991].message }}
                                                                                      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                                                                                        Originally Posted by MissTerraK View Post

                                                                                        Dear Steve,

                                                                                        If we ever meet in person and you are packing, please remind me to agree with everything you say and basically suck up to you, because right now, you are scaring the crap out of me.

                                                                                        Terra
                                                                                        I hope you realize I am a nice guy, never shot ANYONE, never was drunk, and never even HIT anyone out of anger. I'm just saying things as they are.

                                                                                        I forget why she did so, but my mother once called the police to ask about the legality of shooting a robber. The police officer said:

                                                                                        1. Make sure he is inside the home.
                                                                                        2. Shoot to kill.

                                                                                        You know the way US law is today! One guy had snakes in his shop. Two robbers broke in, ignoring the signs! One was bitten and near death. The OWNER was charged, People trying to break in fall through a skylight, and the homeowner is sued!

                                                                                        Steve
                                                                                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8228108].message }}
                                                                                      • Profile picture of the author simonjnh
                                                                                        Banned
                                                                                        Originally Posted by MissTerraK View Post

                                                                                        Dear Steve,

                                                                                        If we ever meet in person and you are packing, please remind me to agree with everything you say and basically suck up to you, because right now, you are scaring the crap out of me.

                                                                                        Terra
                                                                                        Terra, to be honest at this point it seems like you have it in for Zimmerman simply because he was the one with the gun. That is quite honestly a very bigoted and wrong line of reasoning.
                                                                                        If a 6'3 200lbs+ man (not a 13 year old kid) is sitting on top of you pummeling you, you don't pull out a gun and try to fire a warning shot. In fact, there's a real danger that your gun would get taken and used against you in such a scenario.
                                                                                        There's very little doubt that if the whole thing continued, Z would have ended up dead or crippled and what he did was not just justified, but the right thing to do. T was a thug, plain and simple. He had been caught stealing, doing drugs and was suspended from school for being caught AGAIN with tools to break in.
                                                                                        You are trying to defend this guy simply on the basis that he was black and Z had the gun. What does Z having a gun have to do with it? In fact, this is a primary example of exactly why people should be free to arm themselves and defend as needed.
                                                                                        Lord forbid but should a 200lbs+ man attack you viciously, Terra. But in such a situation, I would hope you'd bust out a pink revolver and eliminate the creep.
                                                                                        This is the CLEAREST case of self-defense you can have. The cops reviewed it and let the guy go. Sharpton, Jackson, Obama et al got involved and made this a race thing assuming Zimmerman was white and they could get some mileage out of this. All this has done is ruined Z's life, his family's life, and tried to provide cover for T who would've likely victimized other people in the future.
                                                                                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8228217].message }}
                                                                                        • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
                                                                                          Originally Posted by simonjnh View Post

                                                                                          Terra, to be honest at this point it seems like you have it in for Zimmerman simply because he was the one with the gun. That is quite honestly a very bigoted and wrong line of reasoning.
                                                                                          If a 6'3 200lbs+ man (not a 13 year old kid) is sitting on top of you pummeling you, you don't pull out a gun and try to fire a warning shot. In fact, there's a real danger that your gun would get taken and used against you in such a scenario.
                                                                                          There's very little doubt that if the whole thing continued, Z would have ended up dead or crippled and what he did was not just justified, but the right thing to do. T was a thug, plain and simple. He had been caught stealing, doing drugs and was suspended from school for being caught AGAIN with tools to break in.
                                                                                          You are trying to defend this guy simply on the basis that he was black and Z had the gun. What does Z having a gun have to do with it? In fact, this is a primary example of exactly why people should be free to arm themselves and defend as needed.
                                                                                          Lord forbid but should a 200lbs+ man attack you viciously, Terra. But in such a situation, I would hope you'd bust out a pink revolver and eliminate the creep.
                                                                                          This is the CLEAREST case of self-defense you can have. The cops reviewed it and let the guy go. Sharpton, Jackson, Obama et al got involved and made this a race thing assuming Zimmerman was white and they could get some mileage out of this. All this has done is ruined Z's life, his family's life, and tried to provide cover for T who would've likely victimized other people in the future.
                                                                                          Wow! That is the first time I have ever been referred to as a bigot and I'm not quite sure how I feel about it, lol!

                                                                                          Let me state one more time for the record, I am not taking race into consideration at all! If the roles were reversed, my opinion would stay the same.

                                                                                          Yeah, I guess I have a problem with people taking other people's lives, period. I consider human lives to be sacred, so shoot me! Whoops, poor choice of old cliches there. :p

                                                                                          Anyway, I'm sure no jury selection attorney would select me for a shooting case and I'm fine with that.

                                                                                          By the way, I do own quite a few guns, I just don't carry. I don't think I could live with myself if I took another life regardless of the situation. I have witnessed people die more times than I'd like to remember and have been haunted with nightmares afterward for years.

                                                                                          Everything I have said is only my opinion by the way, and will have no bearing on the case, so please everyone, don't get your panties all up in a bunch over what I say. At the end of the day, it all doesn't really matter that much now, does it?

                                                                                          Terra
                                                                                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8228378].message }}
                                                                                          • Profile picture of the author simonjnh
                                                                                            Banned
                                                                                            Originally Posted by MissTerraK View Post

                                                                                            Wow! That is the first time I have ever been referred to as a bigot and I'm not quite sure how I feel about it, lol!

                                                                                            Let me state one more time for the record, I am not taking race into consideration at all! If the roles were reversed, my opinion would stay the same.

                                                                                            Yeah, I guess I have a problem with people taking other people's lives, period. I consider human lives to be sacred, so shoot me! Whoops, poor choice of old cliches there. :p

                                                                                            Anyway, I'm sure no jury selection attorney would select me for a shooting case and I'm fine with that.

                                                                                            By the way, I do own quite a few guns, I just don't carry. I don't think I could live with myself if I took another life regardless of the situation. I have witnessed people die more times than I'd like to remember and have been haunted with nightmares afterward for years.

                                                                                            Everything I have said is only my opinion by the way, and will have no bearing on the case, so please everyone, don't get your panties all up in a bunch over what I say. At the end of the day, it all doesn't really matter that much now, does it?

                                                                                            Terra
                                                                                            Hi Terra, I did not call you a bigot. I specifically stated that 'the line of reasoning that holds the gun owner guilty regardless of evidence is bigoted.'

                                                                                            I think it is indeed flawed reasoning to hold Z responsible in this instance just because he had a gun. There are almost 90million gun owners in US alone. You're insuniating that in case of an altercation those 90million will be guilty regardless of it they were the ones attacked first.

                                                                                            I have a big problem with people dying too. BUT, I have a FAR bigger problem with innocents dying at hands of thugs and looters. T was a thug who attacked someone else. If Z didn't shoot him, Z would be the one dead or crippled. I have a bigger problem with evil people breaking into a families house and raping/murdering children. I'd much rather that everyone be equipped and trained to use a gun and eliminate these low lives when such an incident happens.
                                                                                            In the ideal world no one would need guns. We don't live in the ideal world. Thugs and evil men are facts of life and T was well on his way into turning into a A-class thug. His being killed doesn't sadden me near as much as the witch-hunt against Z does. All this man did was defend himself against a violent delinquent and he is being labeled guilty simply because T was black or because Z had a gun.
                                                                                            That type of a judgement is indeed bigoted. And while you are not a 'bigot', as in your character is not that of a bigot, your reasoning on this point is indeed defined as bigotry.
                                                                                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8228591].message }}
                                                                                            • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
                                                                                              Originally Posted by simonjnh View Post

                                                                                              Hi Terra, I did not call you a bigot. I specifically stated that 'the line of reasoning that holds the gun owner guilty regardless of evidence is bigoted.'

                                                                                              I think it is indeed flawed reasoning to hold Z responsible in this instance just because he had a gun. There are almost 90million gun owners in US alone. You're insuniating that in case of an altercation those 90million will be guilty regardless of it they were the ones attacked first.

                                                                                              I have a big problem with people dying too. BUT, I have a FAR bigger problem with innocents dying at hands of thugs and looters. T was a thug who attacked someone else. If Z didn't shoot him, Z would be the one dead or crippled. I have a bigger problem with evil people breaking into a families house and raping/murdering children. I'd much rather that everyone be equipped and trained to use a gun and eliminate these low lives when such an incident happens.
                                                                                              In the ideal world no one would need guns. We don't live in the ideal world. Thugs and evil men are facts of life and T was well on his way into turning into a A-class thug. His being killed doesn't sadden me near as much as the witch-hunt against Z does. All this man did was defend himself against a violent delinquent and he is being labeled guilty simply because T was black or because Z had a gun.
                                                                                              That type of a judgement is indeed bigoted. And while you are not a 'bigot', as in your character is not that of a bigot, your reasoning on this point is indeed defined as bigotry.
                                                                                              Fair enough.

                                                                                              Do let me add that I do not hold the line of reasoning that anyone who fatally shoots another is guilty of murder regardless of the circumstances. That is just plain irresponsible and ludicrous!

                                                                                              I'm saying that in this case, I think that George could have handled things differently from the beginning, and things may not have escalated to the point they did. And even in handling things the way he did, he was at point blank range, he could have shot a nonfatal shot at an arm as opposed to the chest. Everyone who has a lick of sense knows that a pointblank shot to the chest, more times than not, will result in death. He could have chosen to maim Trayvon to make him stop but the fact that he aimed for the chest, to me anyway, shows intent to kill.

                                                                                              Another thing, I find it quite amusing that you choose to believe everything negative about Trayvon and not the negative reports about George such as the "wanna be cop" syndrome that has been reported along with all of the records of incidences he has been involved in.

                                                                                              I don't know for a fact that any of the negative media regarding either of them is true or not, and I don't really have to decide because I am not serving on the jury. I do find it ironic though that you label Trayvon as a thug over and over again and then say my opinion is bigoted.

                                                                                              Terra
                                                                                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8228634].message }}
                                                                                              • Profile picture of the author simonjnh
                                                                                                Banned
                                                                                                Originally Posted by MissTerraK View Post

                                                                                                Fair enough.

                                                                                                Do let me add that I do not hold the line of reasoning that anyone who fatally shoots another is guilty of murder regardless of the circumstances. That is just plain irresponsible and ludicrous!

                                                                                                I'm saying that in this case, I think that George could have handled things differently from the beginning, and things may not have escalated to the point they did. And even in handling things the way he did, he was at point blank range, he could have shot a nonfatal shot at an arm as opposed to the chest. Everyone who has a lick of sense knows that a pointblank shot to the chest, more times than not, will result in death. He could have chosen to maim Trayvon to make him stop but the fact that he aimed for the chest, to me anyway, shows intent to kill.

                                                                                                Another thing, I find it quite amusing that you choose to believe everything negative about Trayvon and not the negative reports about George such as the "wanna be cop" syndrome that has been reported along with all of the records of incidences he has been involved in.

                                                                                                I don't know for a fact that any of the negative media regarding either of them is true or not, and I don't really have to decide because I am not serving on the jury. I do find it ironic though that you label Trayvon as a thug over and over again and then say my opinion is bigoted.

                                                                                                Terra
                                                                                                My apologies if my tone seemed too aggressive regarding what I said earlier.
                                                                                                Please note I'm very familiar that Z has his issues too - and am not defending him as a person, but rather his right to defend himself.

                                                                                                I really think though that you are not recognizing the situation for what it was. You have a 200+ man sitting on top of you, bashing your head against the curb and punching you in the face. You do NOT aim. You cannot aim. Z did nothing buy pull out the gun and shoot in the general direction in front of him. T was straddling him and 90% of the time a shot made in haste with no aim in that position will hit someone in the chest. Z did NOT aim and shoot hoping to kill T. He shot the only way he could hoping to stop his own death. He succeeded, but T died given the position they were in.

                                                                                                Now regarding his wanna-be cop stuff. He probably did have such inclinations. But I do not see him as having done anything wrong in this instance IF his account is accurate. If your neighborhood is being broken into, you are teh watch captain, the MOST responsible thing to do is to keep an eye on a suspicious person while calling 911. That's exactly what Z did. When told to stop, he did. He literally did not do anything wrong in this case. T could've continued his way but didn't. He backtracked found Z, and attacked his 'cracker ass'. The fact is that T was evil, and in the wrong.
                                                                                                Z might be stupid and a hitler wannabe, but IN THIS INSTANCE, his behavior was correct and not over the top at all.
                                                                                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8228794].message }}
                                                                                                • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
                                                                                                  Originally Posted by simonjnh View Post

                                                                                                  My apologies if my tone seemed too aggressive regarding what I said earlier.
                                                                                                  Please note I'm very familiar that Z has his issues too - and am not defending him as a person, but rather his right to defend himself.

                                                                                                  I really think though that you are not recognizing the situation for what it was. You have a 200+ man sitting on top of you, bashing your head against the curb and punching you in the face. You do NOT aim. You cannot aim. Z did nothing buy pull out the gun and shoot in the general direction in front of him. T was straddling him and 90% of the time a shot made in haste with no aim in that position will hit someone in the chest. Z did NOT aim and shoot hoping to kill T. He shot the only way he could hoping to stop his own death. He succeeded, but T died given the position they were in.

                                                                                                  Now regarding his wanna-be cop stuff. He probably did have such inclinations. But I do not see him as having done anything wrong in this instance IF his account is accurate. If your neighborhood is being broken into, you are teh watch captain, the MOST responsible thing to do is to keep an eye on a suspicious person while calling 911. That's exactly what Z did. When told to stop, he did. He literally did not do anything wrong in this case. T could've continued his way but didn't. He backtracked found Z, and attacked his 'cracker ass'. The fact is that T was evil, and in the wrong.
                                                                                                  Z might be stupid and a hitler wannabe, but IN THIS INSTANCE, his behavior was correct and not over the top at all.
                                                                                                  Wow! Your point by point description of what took place makes it sound like you were right there witnessing the whole thing and able to read both of their minds, then continue on listing what you claim are indisputable facts, but you and I both know that isn't the case, now is it?

                                                                                                  Terra
                                                                                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8228967].message }}
                                                                                                  • Profile picture of the author simonjnh
                                                                                                    Banned
                                                                                                    Originally Posted by MissTerraK View Post

                                                                                                    Wow! Your point by point description of what took place makes it sound like you were right there witnessing the whole thing and listing indisputable facts, but you and I both know that isn't the case, now is it?

                                                                                                    Terra
                                                                                                    No I wasn't there, but we have Z's account, the eyewitness report, the autopsy, the forensic evidence, Rachael's account (which matches Z's), and circumstantial evidence that all adds up to a VERY straightforward narrative and does not contradict anything that Z said.
                                                                                                    For you to disregard all of that and try to assume that something else happened shows that you are bringing in a bias.
                                                                                                    The cops first looked this over and they literally stated in their report "There is no evidence to suggest that Z's actions were anything but self-defense." Z was released immediately, with no charges at all.
                                                                                                    2 weeks later after Obama/Sharpton/Jackson started their usual race baiting, that's when charges were brought against Z by the special prosecutor.

                                                                                                    Really, you are the one ignoring the evidence and facts we have and trying to assume things based on nothing but a preconceived bias against Z and his gun use.
                                                                                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8228991].message }}
                                                                                                    • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
                                                                                                      Originally Posted by simonjnh View Post

                                                                                                      No I wasn't there, but we have Z's account, the eyewitness report, the autopsy, the forensic evidence, Rachael's account (which matches Z's), and circumstantial evidence that all adds up to a VERY straightforward narrative and does not contradict anything that Z said.
                                                                                                      For you to disregard all of that and try to assume that something else happened shows that you are bringing in a bias.
                                                                                                      The cops first looked this over and they literally stated in their report "There is no evidence to suggest that Z's actions were anything but self-defense." Z was released immediately, with no charges at all.
                                                                                                      2 weeks later after Obama/Sharpton/Jackson started their usual race baiting, that's when charges were brought against Z by the special prosecutor.

                                                                                                      Really, you are the one ignoring the evidence and facts we have and trying to assume things based on nothing but a preconceived bias against Z and his gun use.
                                                                                                      Okay, you are putting things on me that just aren't true. I have already said that I am not following this case, so therefore don't have all of what has been presented in the courts as evidence, but I've tired of debating with you.

                                                                                                      As a matter of fact, I'll be the bigger person and say, Okay, I'll be the whipping boy for you to take out your frustrations of people who may have a different opinion than yours, on. Whip away, I'm a big girl and can take it.

                                                                                                      But please take note that the target you place on my back is not to be the customary red and white, it should be two toned pink.

                                                                                                      Terra
                                                                                                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8229004].message }}
                                                                                                      • Profile picture of the author simonjnh
                                                                                                        Banned
                                                                                                        Originally Posted by MissTerraK View Post

                                                                                                        Okay, you are putting things on me that just aren't true. I have already said that I am not following this case, so therefore don't have all of what has been presented in the courts as evidence, but I've tired of debating with you.

                                                                                                        As a matter of fact, I'll be the bigger person and say, Okay, I'll be the whipping boy for you to take out your frustrations of people who may have a different opinion than yours, on. Whip away, I'm a big girl and can take it.

                                                                                                        But please take note that the target you place on my back is not to be the customary red and white, it should be two toned pink.

                                                                                                        Terra
                                                                                                        I'm not sure where this all came from. If you don't have the facts and haven't followed the case then maybe it isn't wise to debate a point and say that Z is at fault? Kinda reminds me of certain someone who without the facts claimed 'the cops acted stupidly'...

                                                                                                        What frustrations did I take out on you? In one breath you claim you aren't following the case, in another you say that I've believed negative smears about T.

                                                                                                        When I presented the factual evidence and the specifics for the case, you claim I'm taking out frustrations on you...

                                                                                                        Maybe you should've just said 'oh I didn't know those were the facts and that's the evidence.'

                                                                                                        I have no interest in arguing without reason with anyone. This is a case that does bother me a lot because the fundamental issue at stake is whether or not I can defend myself and my family against an aggressor. If Z is at fault in this case, then it sets precedent for us losing even more responsibility and rights in name of political correctness.
                                                                                                        THAT is why I care about this case.

                                                                                                        I care about the case in part because of how NBC and MSNBC manipulated the news, made up utter lies, and edited clips to turn this into a race issue. They clearly did this in part hoping to get their politician of choice more sympathy and to further their agenda. If a so-called news organization can get away with lying so blatantly to the point that Z's life was threatened by the mobs, then certainly they can be used for much greater harm down the road.
                                                                                                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8229124].message }}
                                                                                                        • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
                                                                                                          Originally Posted by simonjnh View Post

                                                                                                          I'm not sure where this all came from. If you don't have the facts and haven't followed the case then maybe it isn't wise to debate a point and say that Z is at fault? Kinda reminds me of certain someone who without the facts claimed 'the cops acted stupidly'...

                                                                                                          What frustrations did I take out on you? In one breath you claim you aren't following the case, in another you say that I've believed negative smears about T.

                                                                                                          When I presented the factual evidence and the specifics for the case, you claim I'm taking out frustrations on you...

                                                                                                          Maybe you should've just said 'oh I didn't know those were the facts and that's the evidence.'

                                                                                                          I have no interest in arguing without reason with anyone. This is a case that does bother me a lot because the fundamental issue at stake is whether or not I can defend myself and my family against an aggressor. If Z is at fault in this case, then it sets precedent for us losing even more responsibility and rights in name of political correctness.
                                                                                                          THAT is why I care about this case.

                                                                                                          I care about the case in part because of how NBC and MSNBC manipulated the news, made up utter lies, and edited clips to turn this into a race issue. They clearly did this in part hoping to get their politician of choice more sympathy and to further their agenda. If a so-called news organization can get away with lying so blatantly to the point that Z's life was threatened by the mobs, then certainly they can be used for much greater harm down the road.
                                                                                                          Okay, let's backtrack. I heard of the media reports when this event first happened. As a matter of fact we had quite a large discussion on it right here in the OT way back when. I was made aware of videos, reports, pdf's, etc. from that thread. The thread was eventually closed.

                                                                                                          What I meant about not following this case is that I haven't been watching the proceedings on the television since the trial began, and therefore have heard no testimony given for either side by witnesses or experts.

                                                                                                          For the record, I am also for the right to carry to protect in self defense for yourself and your family and am against the banning of guns. I don't think the Trayvon Martin case fits that spec.

                                                                                                          I have posted before on these issues and here are a couple of things I have said in the past in various threads...

                                                                                                          Banning guns won't stop murderers from murdering, they'll use their bare hands if they are evil and crazed enough, they'll use fire, they'll use pipe bombs or other explosives, or any other weapon they can devise!

                                                                                                          Banning guns will not take the evil out of twisted brains residing in diabolical heads or quench burning hatred that blackens their hearts. It's not the answer!

                                                                                                          But most importantly of all, banning guns won't bring those that lost their lives back! May God bless their souls and comfort their loved ones now and forever, Amen...
                                                                                                          and

                                                                                                          I come from a family that are avid gun collectors. We have guns that have been in the family dating back to the revolutionary war that have been passed down from generations. My father owned that collection and added to it.

                                                                                                          He was an avid sportsman as well. Way back when I was a little girl, he got laid off from GM and our family ate because he used some of those guns to put food on the table. We survived by eating venison, duck, rabbit, pheasant, goose, squirrel, quail, etc.

                                                                                                          Over and beyond that, he taught gun safety for the state and taught marksmanship at shooting ranges. I was taught to shoot and trust me, I am a crack shot! Do I like to shoot living things? Heck no!...
                                                                                                          See, we don't have different beliefs except in this particular case.

                                                                                                          I know that you don't agree with me, but from what I saw, read and heard earlier when this was breaking news, I think that George's actions brought all of his grief upon himself. He could have handled this whole thing differently by the book of neighborhood watches, not following and tracking Trayvon until the authorities arrived and caused a completely different outcome in this incident.

                                                                                                          Okay, I think I about covered everything.

                                                                                                          Terra
                                                                                                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8229177].message }}
                                                                                                • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                                                                                                  For someone accusing others of not knowing the facts you sure are wrong about things. For example: Trayvon weighed just 160 and Z weighed 185. Trayvon was 6' and weighed 160. Do you realize how thin that is? You are making up facts.
                                                                                                  Originally Posted by simonjnh View Post

                                                                                                  You have a 200+ man sitting on top of you, ...
                                                                                                  Signature
                                                                                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8229316].message }}
                                                                                                  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                                                                                                    Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                                                                                                    For someone accusing others of not knowing the facts you sure are wrong about things. For example: Trayvon weighed just 160 and Z weighed 200. Trayvon was 6' and weighed 160. Do you realize how thin that is? You are making up facts.
                                                                                                    Well, who is to say what the precise weight was. In any event, 160 pounds is significant and with youth, possible gang activity, etc.... and trying out various maves, he could make up for any weight disparity. It IS obvious that a fair amount of the 200pounds for zimmerman is fat, and who knows about his health? Zimmerman is at an age where he could be having back problems and the like.

                                                                                                    Steve
                                                                                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8229347].message }}
                                                                                                    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
                                                                                                      For example: Trayvon weighed just 160 and Z weighed 185. Trayvon was 6' and weighed 160. Do you realize how thin that is? You are making up facts.
                                                                                                      And you are leaving out facts - Zimmerman is 5'9". I'd think the height advantage would balance the weight advantage.

                                                                                                      I know exactly how thin it is - it's what my younger son weighed as a teen and young adult. Slender build with little weight in the mid section and no weight in the butt - long legs - strong arms and shoulders.

                                                                                                      Zimmerman has gained 110 lbs since the incident and weighs in now at just under 300 lbs. Yuck!
                                                                                                      Signature
                                                                                                      Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world will change forever for that one dog.

                                                                                                      I wish offended people would react like fainting goats and quietly tip over.
                                                                                                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8229567].message }}
                                                                                                      • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                                                                                                        Maybe he is trying to look less attractive in case he gets convicted and goes to prison.
                                                                                                        Originally Posted by Kay King View Post


                                                                                                        Zimmerman has gained 110 lbs since the incident and weighs in now at just under 300 lbs. Yuck!
                                                                                                        Signature
                                                                                                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8232812].message }}
                                                                                                      • Profile picture of the author kenmichaels
                                                                                                        Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

                                                                                                        And you are leaving out facts - Zimmerman is 5'9". I'd think the height advantage would balance the weight advantage.
                                                                                                        Only someone who never fought anybody ever ... would think that.
                                                                                                        I am talking a real fight ... not some, i am pissed at my brother fight.

                                                                                                        a real one, where you know if you don't ... you might not live.

                                                                                                        I got nothing about the case.
                                                                                                        Signature

                                                                                                        Selling Ain't for Sissies!
                                                                                                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8236132].message }}
                                                                                                        • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
                                                                                                          You know who wins fights? The guy that's used to fighting.

                                                                                                          And usually the guy that lands the first hit. I don't know really who that is in this case, but I speak from experience.

                                                                                                          There is a huge difference between "fighting" as most of us think of it, and really trying to damage someone out of rage. And the person trying to do that, has a great advantage. And height really doesn't matter in any fight.

                                                                                                          And again, almost every post is defending a position the poster has already taken..not really looking for what really happened.
                                                                                                          Signature
                                                                                                          One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

                                                                                                          Terence Fletcher: "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than Good Job." Whiplash.
                                                                                                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8236267].message }}
                                                                                                          • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
                                                                                                            Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                                                                                                            You know who wins fights? The guy that's used to fighting.

                                                                                                            And usually the guy that lands the first hit. I don't know really who that is in this case, but I speak from experience.

                                                                                                            There is a huge difference between "fighting" as most of us think of it, and really trying to damage someone out of rage. And the person trying to do that, has a great advantage. And height really doesn't matter in any fight.

                                                                                                            And again, almost every post is defending a position the poster has already taken..not really looking for what really happened.
                                                                                                            I'd like to know what really happened.

                                                                                                            I hope the jurors do a fine job of sorting out all of the evidence and coming up with the truth, I really do.

                                                                                                            I want nothing more than for justice to be served, for whomever it needs to be served to/for.

                                                                                                            I heard this morning that there was an all female jury. Does anyone know if that is true? If so, I wonder why those in charge of jury selection went that route. :confused:

                                                                                                            Terra
                                                                                                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8236303].message }}
                                                                                                            • Profile picture of the author kenmichaels
                                                                                                              [DELETED]
                                                                                                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8236350].message }}
                                                                                                              • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
                                                                                                                Wow, Ken!

                                                                                                                I am so sorry to hear about that and feel blessed that I even got to know and talk to you, period.

                                                                                                                I completely understand the guilt thing. That's why I said I don't think I could shoot anybody. Heck, I feel guilty for shooting a bird and killing it that once.

                                                                                                                I can still smush bugs though.

                                                                                                                Anyway, if it helps, I think you did right thing and am glad you did.

                                                                                                                Terra
                                                                                                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8236388].message }}
                                                                                                          • Profile picture of the author KimW
                                                                                                            Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                                                                                                            You know who wins fights? The guy that's used to fighting.

                                                                                                            And usually the guy that lands the first hit. I don't know really who that is in this case, but I speak from experience.

                                                                                                            There is a huge difference between "fighting" as most of us think of it, and really trying to damage someone out of rage. And the person trying to do that, has a great advantage. And height really doesn't matter in any fight.

                                                                                                            And again, almost every post is defending a position the poster has already taken..not really looking for what really happened.
                                                                                                            Can agree with some of what you say Claude, but not everything.

                                                                                                            I hate fighting always have,

                                                                                                            But when I was a kid my older brother would instigate fights for me. I would decline to participate until the other person would hit me.
                                                                                                            It would be at that point that I would let loose and literally try to kill the other person. (Keep in mind I was between the age ages of 8-14 during this period.)
                                                                                                            I never lost.
                                                                                                            The fight was over when people would pull me off.

                                                                                                            To this day I consider myself a non violent person,but I am also a survivor.
                                                                                                            It is the survivor that wins a fight. Especially a desperate one.

                                                                                                            You are 100% correct that most people who are posting made their mind up about this case long ago.

                                                                                                            Nothing said in it is going to change anyone's mind.

                                                                                                            In the last thread about this case all I ever said was that I hope he gets a fair trial.
                                                                                                            I still hope he does.
                                                                                                            If he is found guilty, he had a fair trial.
                                                                                                            If he is found not guilty,he had a fair trial.
                                                                                                            That is what this country is about. Or at least used to be.
                                                                                                            Signature

                                                                                                            Read A Post.
                                                                                                            Subscribe to a Newsletter
                                                                                                            KimWinfrey.Com

                                                                                                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8236323].message }}
                                                                                                            • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
                                                                                                              Originally Posted by KimW View Post

                                                                                                              Can agree with some of what you say Claude, but not everything.

                                                                                                              I hate fighting always have,

                                                                                                              But when I was a kid my older brother would instigate fights for me. I would decline to participate until the other person would hit me.
                                                                                                              It would be at that point that I would let loose and literally try to kill the other person. (Keep in mind I was between the age ages of 8-14 during this period.)
                                                                                                              I never lost.
                                                                                                              The fight was over when people would pull me off.
                                                                                                              Kim; We aren't disagreeing. Some people have a deep seated ability to become blindly aggressive and some don't. Most don't. And you don't know which one you are until it happens.

                                                                                                              Um, I hope this sounds the way I mean it. It's far more likely to get this reaction from someone not fully grown. The part of the brain that measures consequences of our actions doesn't mature until about 25 years of age.

                                                                                                              It's one reason 18-20 year olds make better soldiers. It's one reason young people get into more fights. The "What will happen after I do this" ideas haven't gelled yet.

                                                                                                              Anyway, I was more like that myself when I was a kid. Not now. Never again.

                                                                                                              Originally Posted by MissTerraK View Post

                                                                                                              I heard this morning that there was an all female jury. Does anyone know if that is true? If so, I wonder why those in charge of jury selection went that route. :confused:

                                                                                                              Terra
                                                                                                              Don't know. And I don't know if that will be a factor. I hope not, either way.
                                                                                                              Signature
                                                                                                              One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

                                                                                                              Terence Fletcher: "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than Good Job." Whiplash.
                                                                                                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8236426].message }}
                                                                                                              • Profile picture of the author KimW
                                                                                                                Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                                                                                                                Kim; We aren't disagreeing. Some people have a deep seated ability to become blindly aggressive and some don't. Most don't. And you don't know which one you are until it happens.

                                                                                                                Um, I hope this sounds the way I mean it. It's far more likely to get this reaction from someone not fully grown. The part of the brain that measures consequences of our actions doesn't mature until about 25 years of age.

                                                                                                                It's one reason 18-20 year olds make better soldiers. It's one reason young people get into more fights. The "What will happen after I do this" ideas haven't gelled yet.

                                                                                                                Anyway, I was more like that myself when I was a kid. Not now. Never again.



                                                                                                                Don't know. And I don't know if that will be a factor. I hope not, either way.
                                                                                                                Claude,
                                                                                                                that was why I pointed out my age when I would react like this.
                                                                                                                I hope no one thinks I am like that still.

                                                                                                                As far as the brain being matured at 25, I have been an advocate of rasing the age of adulthood for many years. One of the worst things this country did was lower it to 18.


                                                                                                                Terra,
                                                                                                                yes, it is an all female jury.
                                                                                                                Jury selection is not an easy event,especially in a high profile case like this.
                                                                                                                I think what we are looking at in the jury is a big compromise.
                                                                                                                Signature

                                                                                                                Read A Post.
                                                                                                                Subscribe to a Newsletter
                                                                                                                KimWinfrey.Com

                                                                                                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8236467].message }}
                                                                                                  • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                                                                                                    Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                                                                                                    For someone accusing others of not knowing the facts you sure are wrong about things. For example: Trayvon weighed just 160 and Z weighed 185. Trayvon was 6' and weighed 160. Do you realize how thin that is? You are making up facts.
                                                                                                    I'd love to weight that much
                                                                                                    I'm 6'2" and weight 155
                                                                                                    Signature

                                                                                                    Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                                                                                                    Getting old ain't for sissy's
                                                                                                    As you are I was, as I am you will be
                                                                                                    You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                                                                                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8232072].message }}
                                                                                                    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                                                                                                      Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                                                                                                      I'd love to weight that much
                                                                                                      I'm 6'2" and weight 155
                                                                                                      A long as we are comparing.... At trevon age, I was 6'1", and less than 170. Standard weight/height charts indicate that trevon would weigh about 154. So he was ABOVE average weight!

                                                                                                      Steve
                                                                                                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8232421].message }}
                                                                                • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
                                                                                  Originally Posted by MissTerraK View Post

                                                                                  George could have very easily shot a warning shot straight up into the air. If he had done that, don't you think Trayvon would have stopped and hightailed it out of there?
                                                                                  Terra, I'm not taking sides here because I don't know the truth, but that statement leads me to believe you've never been in a serious fight. Nothing is "very easy" in that situation. He may have been losing control of the gun at that point, and firing was all he could do before the gun was in the other person's hand. We don't know.
                                                                                  Signature

                                                                                  Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

                                                                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8227911].message }}
                                                                                  • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
                                                                                    Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill View Post

                                                                                    Terra, I'm not taking sides here because I don't know the truth, but that statement leads me to believe you've never been in a serious fight. Nothing is "very easy" in that situation. He may have been losing control of the gun at that point, and firing was all he could do before the gun was in the other person's hand. We don't know.
                                                                                    You're right, No serious fights...

                                                                                    Originally Posted by MissTerraK View Post

                                                                                    Believe it or not, I have never ever been in a knock down drag out, exchanging blows kind of altercation before in my life.

                                                                                    I've thrown a few well deserved slaps and a few swing kicks to the solar plexus before and ended some stupidity right in its tracks, but never have been involved in exchanging blows. I have no experience to draw upon, therefore.



                                                                                    Terra
                                                                                    From my post above.

                                                                                    Terra
                                                                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8227932].message }}
                                                                                    • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
                                                                                      Originally Posted by MissTerraK View Post

                                                                                      You're right, No serious fights...



                                                                                      From my post above.

                                                                                      Terra
                                                                                      Oh rats. Sorry Terra, I didn't mean to pile on. I didn't realize there was another page when I replied. I thought I was the first to offer that counterpoint. That's what I get for TBC (typing before coffee).
                                                                                      Signature

                                                                                      Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

                                                                                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8228109].message }}
                                                                                      • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
                                                                                        Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill View Post

                                                                                        Oh rats. Sorry Terra, I didn't mean to pile on. I didn't realize there was another page when I replied. I thought I was the first to offer that counterpoint. That's what I get for TBC (typing before coffee).
                                                                                        No problem, Dennis.

                                                                                        I can completely relate to the posting before coffee syndrome, unfortunately, lol!

                                                                                        Terra
                                                                                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8228205].message }}
                                                                    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
                                                                      When the adrenaline is pumping and the situation is out of control, logical thought patterns go out the window. May have been true for both men that night.
                                                                      Signature
                                                                      Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world will change forever for that one dog.

                                                                      I wish offended people would react like fainting goats and quietly tip over.
                                                                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8226844].message }}
                                                                • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                                                                  Originally Posted by MissTerraK View Post

                                                                  Exaggerate much? His head bashed in? Really?

                                                                  He had some minor abrasions on the back of it.

                                                                  Terra
                                                                  You DO realize that perhaps MOST brain injuries happen NOT from something hurting the skull, but from the brain hitting the skull. it is VERY hard to break the skull, especially with your bare hands, but INCREDIBLY easy to hurt the brain, and even kill a person, by doing so.

                                                                  OH, they will talk about "shaken baby syndrome" because babies are easy to shake, and some careless people do that, but the FACT is that it can happen with an adult TOO!

                                                                  Bashing ones head in is kind of all inclusive statement, and common. BTW he had a broken nose TOO!

                                                                  Steve
                                                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8227293].message }}
                                                                  • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
                                                                    Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                                                                    You DO realize that perhaps MOST brain injuries happen NOT from something hurting the skull, but from the brain hitting the skull. it is VERY hard to break the skull, especially with your bare hands, but INCREDIBLY easy to hurt the brain, and even kill a person, by doing so.

                                                                    OH, they will talk about "shaken baby syndrome" because babies are easy to shake, and some careless people do that, but the FACT is that it can happen with an adult TOO!

                                                                    Bashing ones head in is kind of all inclusive statement, and common. BTW he had a broken nose TOO!

                                                                    Steve
                                                                    Steve, I worked in the medical field for years, so I am well aware of the dynamics of head injuries. I have seen "bashed in skulls" so when he said bashed his skull in, that obviously was a gross exaggeration, literally.

                                                                    In my experience, patients that died from head injuries were the ones who had skull fractures or worse from blunt force trauma. Many had closed head injuries and some were even in a coma. More patients had permanent brain damage from the swelling of the brain, some did pass. But the majority of fatalities were indeed from broken skulls. Let me reiterate, based on my personal experiences while working in the medical field.

                                                                    Terra
                                                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8227787].message }}
                                                                    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                                                                      Originally Posted by MissTerraK View Post

                                                                      Steve, I worked in the medical field for years, so I am well aware of the dynamics of head injuries. I have seen "bashed in skulls" so when he said bashed his skull in, that obviously was a gross exaggeration, literally.

                                                                      In my experience, patients that died from head injuries were the ones who had skull fractures or worse from blunt force trauma. Many had closed head injuries and some were even in a coma. More patients had permanent brain damage from the swelling of the brain, some did pass. But the majority of fatalities were indeed from broken skulls. Let me reiterate, based on my personal experiences while working in the medical field.

                                                                      Terra
                                                                      Well, concussions and the like, CAN cause swelling! Outside of infection, allergies, poisoning, what else would?

                                                                      http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/concussion/DS00320

                                                                      People can die from concussions, they can become far worse AND, should anyone survive fro them, science STONGLY believes they will cause debilitations, like dementia, later.

                                                                      Steve
                                                                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8227925].message }}
                                                                      • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
                                                                        Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                                                                        Well, concussions and the like, CAN cause swelling! Outside of infection, allergies, poisoning, what else would?

                                                                        http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/concussion/DS00320

                                                                        People can die from concussions, they can become far worse AND, should anyone survive fro them, science STONGLY believes they will cause debilitations, like dementia, later.

                                                                        Steve
                                                                        You think I didn't know that? :confused:

                                                                        Terra
                                                                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8227940].message }}
                                                                        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                                                                          Originally Posted by MissTerraK View Post

                                                                          You think I didn't know that? :confused:

                                                                          Terra
                                                                          You seemed to be saying it doesn't happen. I would HOPE that if someone came in with OBVIOUS head damage that they would be taken ASAP and would have seen people that would assess everything.

                                                                          I came in a few times because I COULD have had SEVERE head trauma(Taking warfarin, my chances have typically been perhaps 9 times as likely.), and they *******LITERALLY******* wouldn't even give me the time of day. I asked them that as well as for water, a urinal to urinate into, and just to be SEEN! Average response time was probably like 4 HOURS!

                                                                          So who knows, some you may never even see. Heck, some may be sent to the MORGUE! 1 keep flashing on John Ritter. He had what I originally had. They not only didn't have time for him, they gave him drugs for a heart attack! The result? HE DIED! http://www.today.com/id/22989512/ns/.../#.UdBjKzTVB9s

                                                                          It is interesting that they said a code blue was announced. That is DUMB! Normal reaction to a code blue would give him things to make it WORSE, and even a defibrillator could have been dangerous! I don't know WHAT they would do in a case. Maybe even the DOCTORS don't! But implying he has a heart attack is NOT GOOD!

                                                                          BTW I say that even the doctors might know what to do because there is only 1 dissection for every 5000 heart attacks, and only 10% of them get to the hospital alive. So the odds of a doctor being in that position, if they are a cardiologist, is less than 1 in 50000! A lot of medical people were surprised I went through the ordeal and lived.

                                                                          Steve
                                                                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8228032].message }}
                                              • Profile picture of the author Kurt
                                                Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                                                I think it would be much easier to get a conviction if the charge was Manslaughter. If I was on the jury, and it was second degree murder? I would have to be damn sure, and I'm not. My first impression...my opinion...is not enough to destroy a mans life. I must be sure. And I don't know if that's possible in this case.
                                                I'm sure Zimmerman followed Martin and I'm sure Zimmerman killed Martin. I'm also sure if Zimmerman acted responsibly and didn't follow Martin, a teen would be alive today. The simple truth is, Zimmerman had no business following Martin.

                                                And I'm sure Zimmerman should pay for what he did. What I'm not sure of, is if Zimmerman is guilty of second degree murder and what that punishment should be. And this will need to come out in the trial and I don't have any interest in watching this trial.

                                                However, if I was on the jury, I wouldn't need to be sure. I would only need to believe it beyond a reasonable doubt.
                                                Signature
                                                Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
                                                Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
                                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8223701].message }}
                                    • Profile picture of the author thunderbird
                                      Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                                      <snip>
                                      This could be the same. If a lie detector test shows he did molest her then stick him in a block with guys who have daughters and tell them he's a child molester.
                                      They only have a two-year age difference, so "child molester" wouldn't be quite accurate, if true, but would still make him an incestuous pervert. As a non-lawyer I don't know squat but I can't imagine that, legally, it could be anything more than he said, she said, and lie detectors aren't even permitted as evidence in court.
                                      Signature

                                      Project HERE.

                                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8223233].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author LarryC
    This is a complicated case where there is no simple good guy vs bad guy. Both of them probably behaved with poor judgment, though arguably this is a lot more serious when one is carrying a loaded gun.

    Jurors, like the general public, will probably be inclined to come to their conclusions based on their race and socioeconomic status. This is sad but usually true. Middle class white people will tend to identify with a lighter skinned property owner who is acting as a protector (supposedly). Minorities will be more likely to see Trayvon as the victim of racism.

    Who is right? Probably neither. Who is less wrong? We may never know.
    Signature
    Content Writing, Ghostwriting, eBooks, editing, research.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8218816].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    I just read a post that says exactly my point. Sadly, due to the nature of the site, I should not link there, so I will just show the whole post here:

    Even if Geroge Zimmerman is Guilty, He Should Probably Walk

    by Gordan Runyan

    In the murder trial of George Zimmerman, the prosecution is trying to paint him as a racist, gun-happy, vigilante, zealot, who stalked Trayvon Martin and murdered him. I’ll be the first to admit it: I don’t know the truth about what happened that night. Neither have I been given access to all the evidence that will come forward. Maybe the prosecution is correct about all of this. I don’t know.

    But see, that’s just the thing: No one else does either, if the first few prosecution witnesses are to be believed.


    From the pool of living, breathing humanity, only Mr. Zimmerman knows what happened. He’s claiming self-defense. By definition, since he’s the only one alive who really knows, that means there is no one who is in a position to contradict him, or prove him wrong, or to expose his lie.

    Apparently, the jury will hear all about how Zimmerman called 911 on several other occasions involving suspicious persons who were black. Okay. Maybe, on a stretch, that might point to some racism. But what it doesn’t do is prove that the man is lying when he says he shot to defend himself. The fact that he may not like black folks doesn’t mean Trayvon wasn’t bouncing his head off the curb.

    Here’s the issue: Our criminal justice system is not about acting on the objective truth surrounding any particular crime. It simply isn’t, and we ought to disabuse ourselves of that notion. Instead, our criminal justice system is designed to act only upon what may be proved regarding any particular crime.

    In an imperfect world, in which none of the officers of the court are all-knowing, we can’t operate based on the transcendental truth of what really happened. We must confine ourselves to what we can prove. Happily, those two often coincide, but sometimes proof is lacking.

    Now, if we can’t prove guilt, that doesn’t mean the defendant is innocent: In fact, he may really have done the deed. But when we can’t prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, we return a verdict of “Not Guilty.” In our system, I stress, that doesn’t mean we think the guy is pure as the driven snow. It simply means the prosecution was unable to make its case. And we set that bar very high on purpose. It is a defense against tyranny.

    The Biblical law demanded of Israel that no one be convicted of a crime unless his guilt was confirmed in the mouth of two or more witnesses (see Deuteronomy 19:15.) This wound up being a means of protection for individual citizens. One guy couldn’t make up a story and have the accusation stick against his neighbor. If a criminal trial really came down to “he said, she said,” then the thing to do was call it a wash and go home, while reminding each other that God is watching and will judge, perfectly. Does that mean the guilty went free sometimes? Probably so. But the innocent rarely got wrongly convicted, and it is that precise threat that we need to protect against, even in our modern society.

    Let’s grant the prosecution’s entire case in the Zimmerman trial. Let’s say he really is a racist who felt extra tough when he was carrying a gun. Let’s say it really was unreasonable for him to follow Trayvon Martin that night. Let’s say Trayvon had not a malicious bone in his body. Let’s say that at some point, in the rain, after calling cops to the scene, Zimmerman decided to shoot the young man and kill him. That’s what he did. Let’s grant it all.

    It still boils down to this: not much of this, especially not the really important parts of it, can be proven. Already, the prosecution has had to admit that it has no witness who actually saw what happened. Their star witness was a barely coherent young woman who says she was on the phone with Trayvon until right before the confrontation between the two men became violent. She is in no position (from what I’ve heard) to testify about who attacked whom. However, even if the prosecution found an eye-witness, righteousness really demands they find another one to go with him/her.

    But then, someone protests, a murderer would go free, based on his lie of self-defense! Yes, that’s what would happen. He’ll be free, like O.J. Simpson was freed. He’ll be free for a while. And then eventually he will meet up with a Judge who really does know the exact truth of what went down, and can, in fact, see into Zimmerman’s heart. Justice really will be done, even if we can’t quite get it right here and now.

    When you’re the victim of the crime, or someone you love is, you want to see justice done. Like yesterday. When you’re the victim, a case like the one I’m making here sounds like ridiculous twaddle. I know that. That’s why, when the sun is shining and we’re all basically okay, that’s the time to sort this out. We want a system that errs on the side of protecting the innocent man who is falsely accused, rather than on the side of hurt and angered parties who demand swift retribution, and for whom the question of real guilt or innocence may take a back seat to the desire to see someone pay.

    Maybe the Zimmerman prosecution is right. If so, I really hope they’re able to scare up a couple witnesses who can tell us all what happened. Who attacked whom, when it came down to it? But if they’re wrong, it would be the opposite of justice to sacrifice a man to the mob that’s calling for blood.
    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8223033].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    It's ALSO possible that we see that there is NO evidence that trevon was pursued past that point. FACE IT! If trevon were merely pursued, once he past the end of the property, Zimmerman would have a LOT of trouble defending things, etc... Yet that NEVER came up, so they are claiming trevon loitered or some such? Zimmerman said he was on his way back to the car when he was puched out of the blue, and DECKED! Johnathan Good, the only REAL witness, said he saw trevon on the ground sitting on Zimmerman, and beating him.

    MEANWHILE, the effectively deaf and blind witness on the prosecution said, among other things, that zimmerman was a racist because TREVON used racist comments Saying that he was followed by a "creepy ass cracker". She THEN said it was NOT a racial comment, perhaps because she realized it was detrimental.

    INTERESTING how things went from a young 12yo innocent with skittles and ice tea pursued by a racist white to a big 17yo that was a racist and fighting a hispanic MMA style, HUH! This must be the longest fight in history. I mean it had to last 5-6 YEARS! And what of the media that removed a statement and then blatantly said it NEVER existed!?!? They ran with that concept as their WHOLE story!

    They CLAIMED the 911 call was:
    “This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about. He looks black.”

    It was REALLY:
    “This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about,” Zimmerman said.

    The dispatcher asked, “OK, and this guy – is he black, white, or Hispanic?” Zimmerman replied, “He looks black.”

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8223524].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    Maybe the concept of "neighborhood watch" escapes people. The idea is that if someone looks suspicious, and you don't know if they live there, you watch as much as you can until they leave the area, enter a residence in a normal fashion, or somehow otherwise cease seeming suspicious. If you don't see them finish with something, like entering a residence legitimately, maybe note it. Some people may go out of their way to continue. HEY, it is THEIR right! Failure to follow up on such suspicions can lead to vandalism, theft, and perhaps murder!

    If they do something VERY suspicious, like entering a place through a window or back door, or loitering as if to do so, tell someone else and/or call 911. And YEAH, zimmerman did that! He called 911, mentioned trevon was loitering and acting suspicious.

    Even if he were still walking, etc... What is he SUPPOSED to do? Lie down on the street and wait until morning? NO, he has to continue on with his life, or go home. He said he was going to his car, to do just that.

    One person this afternoon said trevon had a right to be there. Actually, he DIDN'T! He was trespassing, and apparently loitering. If he had to get home, he could have simply walked home ON THE SIDEWALK! Some say "BUT IT WAS ***RAINING***!!!". OK, so what is the hoodie for? We've come round robin! If the hoodie served no LEGITIMATE function, it must be ILLEGITIMATE, which makes it suspicious. If he stayed on the sidewalks, and kept walking, he would have seemed less suspicious, and would have not broken any laws.

    If you have a gun, the reason is *****NOT***** to counter a gun! It is to use lethal force against another using lethal force. If zimmerman was getting his head bashed in, and could shoot, he has a right to do so.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8223770].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

      Maybe the concept of "neighborhood watch" escapes people. The idea is that if someone looks suspicious, and you don't know if they live there, you watch as much as you can until they leave the area, enter a residence in a normal fashion, or somehow otherwise cease seeming suspicious. If you don't see them finish with something, like entering a residence legitimately, maybe note it. Some people may go out of their way to continue. HEY, it is THEIR right! Failure to follow up on such suspicions can lead to vandalism, theft, and perhaps murder!

      If they do something VERY suspicious, like entering a place through a window or back door, or loitering as if to do so, tell someone else and/or call 911. And YEAH, zimmerman did that! He called 911, mentioned trevon was loitering and acting suspicious.

      Even if he were still walking, etc... What is he SUPPOSED to do? Lie down on the street and wait until morning? NO, he has to continue on with his life, or go home. He said he was going to his car, to do just that.

      One person this afternoon said trevon had a right to be there. Actually, he DIDN'T! He was trespassing, and apparently loitering. If he had to get home, he could have simply walked home ON THE SIDEWALK! Some say "BUT IT WAS ***RAINING***!!!". OK, so what is the hoodie for? We've come round robin! If the hoodie served no LEGITIMATE function, it must be ILLEGITIMATE, which makes it suspicious. If he stayed on the sidewalks, and kept walking, he would have seemed less suspicious, and would have not broken any laws.

      If you have a gun, the reason is *****NOT***** to counter a gun! It is to use lethal force against another using lethal force. If zimmerman was getting his head bashed in, and could shoot, he has a right to do so.

      Steve
      Neighborhood watch are suppose to report suspicious activity to the police, not get involved with the suspect. They are also not suppose to have firearms. In fact a neighborhood watch focuses on educating residents to observe and report, not follow and confront.
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8223808].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

        Neighborhood watch are suppose to report suspicious activity to the police, not get involved with the suspect. They are also not suppose to have firearms. In fact a neighborhood watch focuses on educating residents to observe and report, not follow and confront.
        I KNOW! I DID say "If they do something VERY suspicious, like entering a place through a window or back door, or loitering as if to do so, tell someone else and/or call 911. And YEAH, zimmerman did that! He called 911, mentioned trevon was loitering and acting suspicious. ".

        But what if THEY confront YOU?

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8224623].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Patrician
      Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

      Maybe the concept of "neighborhood watch" escapes people. The idea is that if someone looks suspicious, and you don't know if they live there, you watch as much as you can until they leave the area, enter a residence in a normal fashion, or somehow otherwise cease seeming suspicious. If you don't see them finish with something, like entering a residence legitimately, maybe note it. Some people may go out of their way to continue. HEY, it is THEIR right! Failure to follow up on such suspicions can lead to vandalism, theft, and perhaps murder!

      If they do something VERY suspicious, like entering a place through a window or back door, or loitering as if to do so, tell someone else and/or call 911. And YEAH, zimmerman did that! He called 911, mentioned trevon was loitering and acting suspicious.

      Even if he were still walking, etc... What is he SUPPOSED to do? Lie down on the street and wait until morning? NO, he has to continue on with his life, or go home. He said he was going to his car, to do just that.

      One person this afternoon said trevon had a right to be there. Actually, he DIDN'T! He was trespassing, and apparently loitering. If he had to get home, he could have simply walked home ON THE SIDEWALK! Some say "BUT IT WAS ***RAINING***!!!". OK, so what is the hoodie for? We've come round robin! If the hoodie served no LEGITIMATE function, it must be ILLEGITIMATE, which makes it suspicious. If he stayed on the sidewalks, and kept walking, he would have seemed less suspicious, and would have not broken any laws.

      If you have a gun, the reason is *****NOT***** to counter a gun! It is to use lethal force against another using lethal force. If zimmerman was getting his head bashed in, and could shoot, he has a right to do so.

      Steve
      Dear Steve.

      With all due respect - what a load of crap.

      A neighborhood watch watches not confronts like Thom said. If he was convinced a crime was being committed then he should call the police and follow the directions.

      I have several hoodies - it's a fad - not that I am faddish but you can't buy a sweatshirt/jacket without a freaking hood. OK I don't wear it over my head, and I know they say a lot of hoods are wearing them (no pun here) - the point is it doesn't make me a crook or give you an excuse to kill me because i wear a hoodie. Nor does loitering, being black or anything else justify murder (except direct self defense).

      but the logic is about like the crips and bloods - if you wear red or blue you are living dangerously in some areas as you may be shot by the opposite side.

      same thing here - there is no excuse for this crime - period. i don't even think you could stretch it far enough to call it 'self defense" (which I definitely would condone).
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8223826].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by Patrician View Post

        A neighborhood watch watches not confronts like Thom said. If he was convinced a crime was being committed then he should call the police and follow the directions.
        I didn't say confront. There are MANY reasons why that would be a BAD idea.

        I have several hoodies - it's a fad - not that I am faddish but you can't buy a sweatshirt/jacket without a freaking hood. OK I don't wear it over my head, and I know they say a lot of hoods are wearing them (no pun here) - the point is it doesn't make me a crook or give you an excuse to kill me because i wear a hoodie.
        OK, well HE apparently was wearing it up. OK, if it is a fad, MAKE IT USEFUL! I mean the faddy sneakers can STILL be used as SHOES! As for calling hoods hoods? WHO KNOWS how it came about? Not that that matters. And the hoodie just kind of makes one excuse for walking close to the houses pretty dumb.


        Nor does loitering, being black or anything else justify murder (except direct self defense).
        NOPE, but it makes him suspicious! Black has NOTHING to do with it. Whites would look suspicious ALSO!

        but the logic is about like the crips and bloods - if you wear red or blue you are living dangerously in some areas as you may be shot by the opposite side.
        YEP! But if you spout the other gangs garb, use their lingo, AND approach, you probably WILL be shot!

        same thing here - there is no excuse for this crime - period. i don't even think you could stretch it far enough to call it 'self defense" (which I definitely would condone).
        If he WAS headed back to his car, as he claims, and WAS hit out of the blue as he claims, and WAS decked, as all the tangible evidence shows, and WAS gettng punched MMA style, as the witness says, and DID have his life threatened as he claims and the DEFENSE witness indicates, in a fashion, then it WAS self defense!

        HEY, if the prosecution claimed that about zimmerman, he would be sent up the river JUST for using an epithet! PC today takes such statements as ******PROOF****** of hate! It takes such hate as PROOF of being malicious! It takes that intent and uses it as PROOF that he killed the other person. So their thinking is....WHO CARES someone is dead, etc.... It wasn't MURDER.....It was a ******HATE CRIME******!

        But NO, his skin is white so they consider him white, so the other guy could NEVER be accused of a hate crime. After all, EVERYONE LOVES WHITES, RIGHT!?!?!?(SARC)

        And YOU are guilty of that thinking. I never once said ANYTHING about it being because he was black.

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8224656].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      And I'm sure Zimmerman should pay for what he did.
      I agree - but I think 2nd degree won't stick here. I thought at the time the case was over charged so I hope the jury has a choice of manslaughter or whatever they have in Florida.
      Signature
      Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world will change forever for that one dog.

      I wish offended people would react like fainting goats and quietly tip over.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8223913].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
      Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

      He was trespassing, and apparently loitering. If he had to get home, he could have simply walked home ON THE SIDEWALK! Some say "BUT IT WAS ***RAINING***!!!". OK, so what is the hoodie for? We've come round robin! If the hoodie served no LEGITIMATE function, it must be ILLEGITIMATE, which makes it suspicious. If he stayed on the sidewalks, and kept walking, he would have seemed less suspicious, and would have not broken any laws.


      Steve


      Steve, please tell me that you did not just say that Treyvon deserved to be shot because he ventured off the sidewalk and walked on the lawn!

      If so, you're just like this old granny that was in the news a few days ago. By the way, she had her gun taken away and is in jail!!

      Granny Threatens Six Year Old With Gun

      Terra
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8225334].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by MissTerraK View Post



        Steve, please tell me that you did not just say that Treyvon deserved to be shot because he ventured off the sidewalk and walked on the lawn!

        If so, you're just like this old granny that was in the news a few days ago. By the way, she had her gun taken away and is in jail!!

        Granny Threatens Six Year Old With Gun

        Terra
        NOPE! I am just saying that it makes him suspicious, and IS exculpatory for zimmerman, given the circumstances.

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8225377].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
          Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

          NOPE! I am just saying that it makes him suspicious, and IS exculpatory for zimmerman, given the circumstances.

          Steve
          Whew! You scared me there for a minute!!

          But I do disagree with you that Treyvon walking on grass rather than the sidewalk is favorable evidence for the defendant, though. Circumstances being that it was raining and he was taking a shortcut to return to the home quicker. That is entirely feasible.

          Terra
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8225406].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author RickCopy
      Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

      Maybe the concept of "neighborhood watch" escapes people. The idea is that if someone looks suspicious, and you don't know if they live there, you watch as much as you can until they leave the area, enter a residence in a normal fashion, or somehow otherwise cease seeming suspicious. If you don't see them finish with something, like entering a residence legitimately, maybe note it. Some people may go out of their way to continue. HEY, it is THEIR right! Failure to follow up on such suspicions can lead to vandalism, theft, and perhaps murder!

      If they do something VERY suspicious, like entering a place through a window or back door, or loitering as if to do so, tell someone else and/or call 911. And YEAH, zimmerman did that! He called 911, mentioned trevon was loitering and acting suspicious.

      Even if he were still walking, etc... What is he SUPPOSED to do? Lie down on the street and wait until morning? NO, he has to continue on with his life, or go home. He said he was going to his car, to do just that.

      One person this afternoon said trevon had a right to be there. Actually, he DIDN'T! He was trespassing, and apparently loitering. If he had to get home, he could have simply walked home ON THE SIDEWALK! Some say "BUT IT WAS ***RAINING***!!!". OK, so what is the hoodie for? We've come round robin! If the hoodie served no LEGITIMATE function, it must be ILLEGITIMATE, which makes it suspicious. If he stayed on the sidewalks, and kept walking, he would have seemed less suspicious, and would have not broken any laws.

      If you have a gun, the reason is *****NOT***** to counter a gun! It is to use lethal force against another using lethal force. If zimmerman was getting his head bashed in, and could shoot, he has a right to do so.

      Steve
      this pretty much sums up what I was going to post.
      If the facts above are actually what happened then Zimmerman isnt guilty of murder...and no, your personal interpretation or feelings about what Stand your Ground means doesn't come into play here.

      there's either enough facts to prove murder or there's not... that being said, judges, attorneys and jurors typically have their own interpretation on how justice should be dispensed....and most of the time it has nothing to do with actual legalities....so basically this will come down to who's more popular in court and the demographics of the jury.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8246520].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kurt
        Originally Posted by RickCopy View Post

        this pretty much sums up what I was going to post.
        If the facts above are actually what happened then Zimmerman isnt guilty of murder...and no, your personal interpretation or feelings about what Stand your Ground means doesn't come into play here.

        there's either enough facts to prove murder or there's not... that being said, judges, attorneys and jurors typically have their own interpretation on how justice should be dispensed....and most of the time it has nothing to do with actual legalities....so basically this will come down to who's more popular in court and the demographics of the jury.
        And no, no one said their "personal interpretation or feelings about what Stand your Ground means" is in play. The legal aspect is, despite the comments of RickCopy and teve.

        Here's the problem many on this thread have. They believe that any instance when your life is in danger you can use self defense as a legal defense for killing someone. But this isn't accurate.

        For example, let's say a guy walks into a 7-11 with a gun to rob the store. Let's call the guy "Steve".

        Steve points his gun at the clerk and demands money. Steve doesn't notice a customer that cracks Steve over the head from behind with a bottle. The customer is beating Steve with the bottle and Steve is ready to black out.

        Fearing for his life, Steve shoots the customer and kills him. Can Steve claim a defense of self defense?

        No, he can't. You can NOT claim self defense when commiting a crime. There are other instances when "self defense" isn't a legal defense.

        Laws also are based on what a reasonable person would do. If it's true Zimmerman went back to his car and was then approached by Martin, what was the reasonable thing to do?

        IMO, it was to drive off. He was in no danger from someone outside of the car when all he had to do was drive.

        If Zimmerman got out of his car, he was NOT standing his ground. He was in persuit of Martin, even if Marting was approaching him also.

        None of the "in self defense" matters to me. It's whether Zimmerman approached Martin or not. If Zimmerman did, then he needs to take 50% of the responsibility for the confrontation.

        If Zimmerman didn't approach Martin in any way and couldn't drive off for some reason, then he was likely acting in self defense and I'd find him not guilty.

        However, if Martin wasn't doing anything wrong, where's Martin's right to self defense and standing his own ground when being followed by some creepy guy?

        Just like there's plenty of people in prison for killing someone in a street fight, Zimmerman needs to show he did everything reasonable to avoid the confrontation, which seems to me it would have been to simply drive away. I'm sure plenty of people in prison for manslaugher were also "defending" themselves in street fights.

        BTW, if it's true that Martin jumped out of some bushes to ambush Zimmerman, Zimmerman was also likely tresspassing. Being on a Neighborhood Watch program doesn't make anyone a duputy or part of a posse with special rights where he is immune to the law. Just because Zimmerman "thought" Martin was acting "suspicous" doesn't give Zimmerman the right to tresspass on my property. Maybe Martin was "watching" Zimmerman?
        Signature
        Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
        Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8246698].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Patrician
    lol - same story different day - the ot sure is informative and argumentative.

    ;o)

    snarky fur shur! proud of it. but personal attacks "ad homiem' yeah that is like relative to blame the victim - shoot the messenger.

    seriously though the argument about whether Travon is innocent or baddy -

    -- totally irrelevant. sure if he was menacing or actually committed crimes, you can do a better job of 'blame the victim' (and even be glad the little mother is gone from the earth if he was bad/violent/dishonest) -- don't rationalize just that little sprinkle of racism that goes with DAT- excuse to fail @ being a 'liberal' lol.

    p.s. - more relevant would be whether zimmerman had exhibited violence and debauchery since he is the one that DID the killing in this case!!! hello???

    EVEN if Travon was Al Capone (convicted) it still would not be the case that you could just murder him because you felt like it. Or because you were afraid. (come to think of it, fear i can almost see how someone who is unbalanced mentally or spiritually sick (or dead) might go to that end) -

    ... so maybe second degree murder or something less than first. (unless history of violence or hate crimes, then maybe the penalty could be to the max @ 2nd degree)

    (and celly with Big Bad Bubbah)

    But anyway as Rodney King Sez: "Can we all JUST get along"?

    not in the warrior off topic basement rodney. no wusses here!

    but yeah you guys all get along well, well mostly, lol and if having to NOT TELL THE TRUTH AS YOU KNOW or FEEL to 'GET ALONG", with others we care enough to try to communicate with, IT wouldn't be being honest. Friendship under false pretenses.

    It would clearly be diametrically opposed to honesty, and "POLITICAL".

    naughty!
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8224334].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    http://news.yahoo.com/trayvon-martin...143356744.html

    Maybe they should just throw out what she says. It IS, at best, hearsay anyway!

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8226655].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Patrician
    Yeah. it really sounds like it was a retaliation killing.

    Z got his ass beat and THEN decided to retaliate, and THEN shot T. so self defense would be T was on top of Z and Z feared for his life and he killed T. justifiable homicide.

    but if T got up and walked away or somehow they were not directly engaged in 'combat' and THEN Z took his revenge. it's not self-defense, not understandable.

    (I am not really following this on the news - just scanned a few stories from time to time - so I am really asking if this is what happened - (most of what I am learning about this is right from here).

    So if anybody knows the story do tell.

    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8226850].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by Patrician View Post

      Yeah. it really sounds like it was a retaliation killing.

      Z got his ass beat and THEN decided to retaliate, and THEN shot T. so self defense would be T was on top of Z and Z feared for his life and he killed T. justifiable homicide.

      but if T got up and walked away or somehow they were not directly engaged in 'combat' and THEN Z took his revenge. it's not self-defense, not understandable.

      (I am not really following this on the news - just scanned a few stories from time to time - so I am really asking if this is what happened - (most of what I am learning about this is right from here).

      So if anybody knows the story do tell.

      Fights between strangers like this don't happen that way. One doesn't just get up and walk away. You're thinking about BOXING or some such. HERE, one had animosity and/or fear, and attacked the other. Such an attack greatly increases the potential for fear so, they would not leave until the person was incapacitated in some way. If it were animosity, it would STILL increase the fear, and they would STILL be incapacitated, and perhaps killed.

      NOW, if it were ZIMMERMAN that was the aggressor, and he had backup or some method of restraint, he could use THAT. But what could trevon use? He CLEARLY acted like he believed his word meant NOTHING! So he couldn't even restrain the guy, as he would get someone to come, set him free, and help hunt trevon down.

      BTW 911 isn't any good in this case because they would be out i time to do your autopsy. You have to call 911 early ad HOPE they come in time. After all, the LAST thing you want to do is win such a fight, get up, start to leave, and end up dead because you let your guard down.

      HECK, it is interesting that nobody called 911 for trevon.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8227323].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Patrician
    hmmm well - this does sound like it could be called self defense to hear this version and if the evidence really supports it - thanks simonjnh.

    so maybe poor Z just 'bit off more than he could chew' by pursuing this when the cops told him not to - and then when faced with the results of his actions, he felt he had no choice but to shoot.

    maybe it is not as clear cut as the other things I have heard fragments of (and maybe misconstrued) -- and not really following the case that closely - and now playing catch up.

    so does Z have a permit to carry a concealed weapon?

    i still think with this version which seems very pat in favor of self-defense, that Z provoked the situation AND had that gun on him - quite conveniently? it seems like he deliberately set out to do this (indirectly - not saying pre-meditated but again, he may have envisioned himself as a 'hero' and wannabe cop who would subdue T and protect his hood from an 'interloper'. The tables turned in a way he didn't expect and then he made a 'fatal decision' to shoot T - then I would still need to know exactly how far away T was -I guess back to the part about whether T had gotten up off of Z or not.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8226981].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author simonjnh
      Banned
      Originally Posted by Patrician View Post

      hmmm well - this does sound like it could be called self defense to hear this version and if the evidence really supports it - thanks simonjnh.

      so maybe poor Z just 'bit off more than he could chew' by pursuing this when the cops told him not to - and then when faced with the results of his actions, he felt he had no choice but to shoot.

      maybe it is not as clear cut as the other things I have heard fragments of (and maybe misconstrued) -- and not really following the case that closely - and now playing catch up.

      so does Z have a permit to carry a concealed weapon?

      i still think with this version which seems very pat in favor of self-defense, that Z provoked the situation AND had that gun on him - quite conveniently? it seems like he deliberately set out to do this (indirectly - not saying pre-meditated but again, he may have envisioned himself as a 'hero' and wannabe cop who would subdue T and protect his hood from an 'interloper'. The tables turned in a way he didn't expect and then he made a 'fatal decision' to shoot T - then I would still need to know exactly how far away T was -I guess back to the part about whether T had gotten up off of Z or not.

      He had a gun on him for a very simple reason. He lived in a neighborhood that had seen a spate of breakins recently. I don't doubt quite a few others had guns too. Z set out on a patrol so he would definitely take the gun with him. I honestly think a lot of people have simply not seen the evidence, nor actually heard Z's account.
      Z clearly stated in his account to the cops and to the 911 caller that he was following T because there had been a lot of breakins and that these guys had been getting away each time. He wanted to keep an eye on T until the copes got there.
      Then, the 911 operator told him to stop following T and return to his car. Z tells the operator (and later to the cops too) that he stopped following T at that time and was walking back to his car when T chased him down.

      Now match this to the star witness 'Racheal' - according to her, T told her that Z was keeping an eye on him. T referred to Z as a 'cracker' in a car.
      He also told her as per her own account that he was going to go up to the guy and figure out his problem.

      So once again this matches - Z says he stopped following and T is the one who came up to him. T told R that he would chase down Z and see what his problem was.

      Yet again, the account seems to all match up. So far all evidence and accounts match up to a single coherent story:
      1. Z followed T suspecting he was one of the people terrorizing the neighborhood (we do not know if T was involved with that).
      2. Z called 911. 911 told him to stop following T. Z stopped.
      3. T spotted Z and told his gf/friend that he would chase Z down.
      4. T chased down Z, asked what his problem was, punched him in the nose (resulting in a smashed septum).
      5. Eyewitness reports having seen T sitting on top of a fallen over Z, punching/hitting him while Z yelled for help.
      6. Z shot T from the straddled position in the chest.

      Forensic evidence, eyewitness account, Z's own account, T's reputation, and the autopsy all add up to series of events fairly coherently. This is exactly why cops released Z right away on grounds of self defense and he was not charged with a crime until the big PR move painting this as a 'poor black child killed in cold blood by a white man'.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8227077].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    Yeah, what do you believe? Do you believe a changing story that seemed to start with a propagandized tape, story, and pictures, makes no sense, has NO evidence, and has NO witness, that shows the "victim" to have a lot of undue racially motivated animosity? Do you believe a story that is in lie with the REAL tape, has been consistent, has a witness and tangible evidence?

    I hope the set him free, and that he wins the case against MSNBC, etc... HECK, what MSNBC did was VERY racist! It was the most racist thing of all! HOW can they try a guy for supposedly killing one person due to race, and not try others that INTENTIONALLY tried to destroy a person's life and perhaps encourage the killing of millions of people? Those edited tapes, shows, etc... may be around for another hundred years!

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8227371].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ronrule
    Let's not forget that it was the media who brought the racial component into this case - not Zimmerman or Martin. The 911 tape was edited by NBC where the dispatcher asked for the description of the suspect (Martin). Zimmerman gave a description, among this was "he's black", and NBC edited out everything but "he's black" making it seem like it was racially motivated. It was THAT that caused the fecal matter to hit the air circulating device.

    Even Al Sharpton got quiet as more details came out, in particular when he realized that Zimmerman's own grandmother was black. This isn't a racially motivated incident, it's just been portrayed as one by the media.

    That said, lets look at the facts:

    1. Zimmerman was the neighborhood watch.
    2. Zimmerman called 911 before anything went down.
    3. Zimmerman had injuries consistent with his story.
    4. The only witness who actually saw anything gave testimony consistent with Zimmerman being the one on the ground, getting beaten.
    5. The police and EMT's who have testified thus far indicate that Zimmerman's demeanor was not that of a man who had just committed an act of murder. He was confused that no one responded to his cries for help, he wasn't aggressive, he was cooperative, etc. All of the police and EMT's seem to be in agreement on this.
    6. The only "witness" - and I say this in quotes because it wasn't witnessed in person, just over the phone, was Martin's girlfriend who has lied, changed her story, claims to have written a letter in cursive but can't read cursive, etc. She isn't credible. At all.

    Did Zimmerman commit murder? Not even close.

    Now ... manslaughter? Maybe. Really that all depends on one thing: who started the fight.

    If Zimmerman got out of his truck and started a physical altercation with Martin, or flashed his gun, then it was Martin who would have been acting in self defense - the fact that Martin happened to be "winning the fight" doesn't make Zimmerman's shooting self defense, it makes it Manslaughter.

    But if Zimmerman simply asked Martin who he was/why he was there/told him to leave/whatever, and Martin copped an attitude and started the fight - which is likely based on the alleged tone of the conversation he had with his girlfriend - then it was Zimmerman who was defending himself, which would absolve him of all charges.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8228049].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    I even heard, though I have trouble confirming, that Zimmerman even was a big brother to a BLACK child in the big brother program!

    But YEAH, outside of NBC, only TREVON(with his "crazy ass cracker" comment) brought race into it.

    The defense witness tried to say they all call whites crackers, etc... And that "crazy ass" was kind of a swear to single Zimmerman out. Still, Blacks aren't crazy about the N word being used in that way. Even huckleberry fin has been banned for using it. And huck fin is HISTORICAL, even if potentially only fiction. There are historical works out there that insult EVERYONE! One group says that "Br'er Rabbit" is a story that was made to be VERY insulting to whites!

    But we shouldn't care about the cracker term, because they so freely use it.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8228151].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author LarryC
    I find it amazing how much people are thinking about this. Well, now I'm on it too, lol. What I am finding a hard time imagining here is how the self defense scenario could have played out. If T was on top of Z pummeling him, would the latter really be in a position to pull out a gun, aim and shoot it? It seems that you would need a certain amount of freedom of movement to do this. This would suggest that the shooting occurred when the two were not directly engaged. I really don't know, just speculating like everyone else.
    Signature
    Content Writing, Ghostwriting, eBooks, editing, research.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8228706].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      Exactly Larry. In fact, it is just about impossible to imagine he was on the bottom when he shot him. Besides the reasons you give, if you shoot someone when they are on top of you, in the chest, there is going to be a lot of blood on your shirt and jacket. There's no evidence of that. I think Patricia may have had it right when she said it may be an act of vengeance. Z was getting beaten and then somehow got on top. Was angry and scared and pulled out his gun and shot T. That isn't really self defense and is more in line with murder two.

      Originally Posted by LarryC View Post

      I find it amazing how much people are thinking about this. Well, now I'm on it too, lol. What I am finding a hard time imagining here is how the self defense scenario could have played out. If T was on top of Z pummeling him, would the latter really be in a position to pull out a gun, aim and shoot it? It seems that you would need a certain amount of freedom of movement to do this. This would suggest that the shooting occurred when the two were not directly engaged. I really don't know, just speculating like everyone else.
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8229286].message }}
  • Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

    The woman on the phone with Martin when he encountered Zimmerman is a trip.

    She is on the stand - with an attitude - and is admitting she lied over and over because "they didn't aks me that".

    But -there was a nugget that kept me from changing the channel when I turned on the TV.

    This woman was on the phone with Martin just before he was killed. She was not interviewed by police until 3 weeks or so later...and Martin's Mother was allowed to be in the interview room. When did family members start sitting in on witness interrogations?

    So the witness says she didn't say exactly what Trayvon said over the phone because she wanted to clean it up for his Mother. Now she's saying she heard more "after the phone cut off".

    The defense has got to be loving this witness.
    I don't speak for all Black Americans but this was simply embarrassing. It was an explosion just had to happen. I have lived in a predominately Black community for years. I grew up in an all White community. I know both worlds. My next door neighbor in a all Black neighborhood was president of the neighborhood watch. She stood on her lawn and walked up and down the street constantly. It was kind of strange but with her help and other neighbors it cut down break ends a great deal. The thieves went to other streets because they knew people had a watch. The kids got killed. That is the most extreme action. If he wasn't breaking and entering there is a real problem here. The police could and most likely should have been called. A warning should have been shouted out at a distance. There is a Neighborhood Watch procedure. They do not have authority to take a man down simply for hanging around. The police should have been called and he stood down at a distance. So this is ugly. Racially ugly. We have a serious problem with race in this country. It never heals. But how Zimmerman felt about the kid and how the kid felt about Zimmerman was laced with the gas of racism and hatred which so ignited him the teens death. Black on Black crime is racially motivated. White on Black crime is racially motivated. 400 years of slavery is not going to be sweep under the rug with legislation. There was an outrage on a recent commercial showing a biracial family. The commercial was pulled. I do believe that Whites will never understand the damage slavery does to a people. What did to the Black American race of people. Slavery was a brutal institution. It was ugly, harsh and generationally damaging. In our rush for the appearance of the soul of Black folks were sacrificed. Who is the blame. Recently Paual Dean was fired over the N word. Nigger is the world. We say N but it was Nigger. I heard Paula Dean say that her great grandfather had 30 slaves on the books and after emancipation he had zero and his business suffered. He paid the big price. She then said that Blacks were our friends. No Paula they were your slaves. They didnt get paid and they would be lynched and hanged if they ran away. Paula is so racist it is so ingrained in her she can't see it. Should be feel bad for those who lost slaves and lost income as a result. I believe she doesn't think she is racist but she is. I always believed she was. She glorifies the old south. Back when they could sit on the front poach and some Blackie would make sweet tea. She even said that. In the same interview she said "I have black friends" hey (she called the worker) she points to a board and says. He is as black as that board behind us. She calls hey, you know your as Black as the board. Come out so they can see". The lady is racist. The lady is a card carrying racist. A racist doesn't have to wear a white sheet. Now...you have as many White haters as Black racist. What is the definition. A racism is a systematic process. I am going to risk saying this...But I didn't believe America could handle having a Black president so soon. Black people don't own big corporations. We have only one Black on the stock exchange. He may have retired already. We had a few Black generals and a Black secretary of state. I thought this would be a disaster. I hear more damaging things about Obama than I have heard about any one president. The question is where do we go from here. When do Blacks stop looking towards White America for what they can do for themselves. When will Blacks network and create more opportunities for themselves. I think Blacks have stopped doing this. When will White start getting it that racism has and still does benefit them. That many Whites are die hard racists. Our country is at a place where we have to get passed color. We have to. Now we are adding immigrants by the millions which will make it even more diverse and more confusing. I dont see how this is going to work well for anyone really. Thanks for having the courage to post your response here. It gives me the courage to reply.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8228855].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      Yep. Many will say: "well, slavery ended 150 years ago". Sure, but Jim Crow laws were around until the 1960s, the bigotry didn't end there and the consequences of slavery and a continued white supremacist country, which is what the US was for 400 years, don't disappear in one or two generations.

      Originally Posted by blackfootprincesswarrior View Post

      I do believe that Whites will never understand the damage slavery does to a people. What did to the Black American race of people. Slavery was a brutal institution. It was ugly, harsh and generationally damaging.
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8229276].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        Yep. Many will say: "well, slavery ended 150 years ago". Sure, but Jim Crow laws were around until the 1960s, the bigotry didn't end there and the consequences of slavery and a continued white supremacist country, which is what the US was for 400 years, don't disappear in one or two generations.
        WOW, so what IS the world like in the 2100s? Have they started building the enterprise yet?

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8229327].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
          Well, I was including the Colonial times before there was an actual USA, not the century after there wasn't a USA anymore.

          Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

          WOW, so what IS the world like in the 2100s? Have they started building the enterprise yet?

          Steve
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8232822].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Patrician
    Regarding a description of the right to carry a gun - reference is here in this thread somewhere.

    1. The question of a permit to carry - not sure still whether Z has one.

    2. Reading the description of how this would be a normal thing while on watch patrol to carry the gun - It smacked of ENTITLEMENT -

    So carrying a gun then ENTITLES one to use it? Because you are on 'watch patrol' it is normal to carry and thereby you are justified in using it? Nope - even real cops have to be put through the mill if they use their guns to be sure it was justified.

    The whole scenario here just seems like Z was 'gunning for' T - out to get him = that was the purpose of Z's actions. While Z wasn't crazy enough to just assassinate T like a sniper, it is frightening the way it all played out to set this up for T to be gunned down.

    Further, I am not at all implying anyone here is racist - but this always plays to the crowd of secret and not-so-secret racists, that somehow by virtue of geneology this person was suspect from the get-go - even as the unarmed and dead victim - the gunman was thereby entitled and justified. Having a gun or a permit to carry does not entitle anyone to off someone - They are painting a picture that is wide open to 'interpretation' by elaborating on the fact that T was not a saint, and gasp he was suspended from school therefore the shooting was justified.

    Omigod he was walking on the grass???? In the rain???? Definitely a reason to get shot.

    Z sounds more and more like a vigilante -
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8231655].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
      Originally Posted by Patrician View Post

      - They are painting a picture that is wide open to 'interpretation' by elaborating on the fact that T was not a saint, and gasp he was suspended from school therefore the shooting was justified.

      Omigod he was walking on the grass???? In the rain???? Definitely a reason to get shot.

      Z sounds more and more like a vigilante -
      The way you describe it, yes... Zimmerman is sounding more and more like a vigilante. Meaning you keep describing him more and more like a vigilante.

      What disturbs me is that we are describing as "Facts", things that are assumptions. This is happening on both sides. I hope the jury is smarter.
      Signature
      One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

      Terence Fletcher: "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than Good Job." Whiplash.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8232106].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by Patrician View Post

      Omigod he was walking on the grass???? In the rain???? Definitely a reason to get shot.

      Z sounds more and more like a vigilante -
      Why stop THERE?!?!? write some wrinkles on his face that are of a #$%^&(or whatever they call it). Then he will REALLY look like a bad guy!

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8232447].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
        Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

        Why stop THERE?!?!? write some wrinkles on his face that are of a #$%^&(or whatever they call it). Then he will REALLY look like a bad guy!

        Steve
        Huh? :confused:

        Wrinkles that are of a what?

        Terra
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8232820].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by MissTerraK View Post

          Huh? :confused:

          Wrinkles that are of a what?

          Terra
          I thought better of the mildly cryptic description, and figured "did it really matter?" I think the message gets through.

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8233224].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
            Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

            I thought better of the mildly cryptic description, and figured "did it really matter?" I think the message gets through.

            Steve
            Haha! If it does, it does to every body but me. But if you think better of it, maybe it is best to just leave it alone and an unknown in my mind. :p

            Terra
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8233239].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author seasoned
              Originally Posted by MissTerraK View Post

              Haha! If it does, it does to every body but me. But if you think better of it, maybe it is best to just leave it alone and an unknown in my mind. :p

              Terra
              The idea was that, if you can simply reveal your bias to make another guilty, why not say they have something that almost anyone would consider so horrible that they must ascribe that guilt to him/her. So I mentioned the first such thing that came to mind. Manson did it, as did many others. A 60s shirt that USED to be popular and was meant to be festive was almost bought by my step mother and some friends of hers. They didn't notice that it was straight, and not reversed, but they were horrified when they saw it and didn't buy the shirts.

              Maybe you understand it all now.

              Steve
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8233415].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
                Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                The idea was that, if you can simply reveal your bias to make another guilty, why not say they have something that almost anyone would consider so horrible that they must ascribe that guilt to him/her. So I mentioned the first such thing that came to mind. Manson did it, as did many others. A 60s shirt that USED to be popular and was meant to be festive was almost bought by my step mother and some friends of hers. They didn't notice that it was straight, and not reversed, but they were horrified when they saw it and didn't buy the shirts.

                Maybe you understand it all now.

                Steve
                The only thing I know is that lots of wrinkles on your face make you look old. :p

                Terra
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8235050].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                  In one of these interviews they are showing today Z is asked "Do you regret getting out of the car" and he said "No". Did he regret anything? "No". Then said it was all "God's plan". :/ What a complete jerk and a-hole.

                  The detective in charge of the investigation and who recommended a manslaughter charge be brought against Zimmerman said in the capias "the encounter between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin was ultimately avoidable by Zimmerman, if Zimmerman had remained in his vehicle and waited the arrival of law enforcement or conversely if he had identified himself to Martin as a concerned citizen and initiated dialog in an effort to dispel each party's concern".

                  So, a life could have been spared by him simply doing a couple things such as staying in the car and also telling Trayvon who he was right away and he doesn't regret anything. Instead he gets out of the truck and even after being told not to follow TM continues walking in the direction he was ( it's in the walk through video ) and then when Trayvon confronts him instead of telling him who he was he reaches into his pocket. That's why he was hit folks. Not because Trayvon in a punk or thug. There's never been any evidence of Trayvon being violent. There has been evidence of Zimmerman being violent though. And very stupid.
                  Signature
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8235965].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                    Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                    In one of these interviews they are showing today Z is asked "Do you regret getting out of the car" and he said "No". Did he regret anything? "No". Then said it was all "God's plan". :/ What a complete jerk and a-hole.

                    The detective in charge of the investigation and who recommended a manslaughter charge be brought against Zimmerman said in the capias "the encounter between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin was ultimately avoidable by Zimmerman, if Zimmerman had remained in his vehicle and waited the arrival of law enforcement or conversely if he had identified himself to Martin as a concerned citizen and initiated dialog in an effort to dispel each party's concern".

                    So, a life could have been spared by him simply doing a couple things such as staying in the car and also telling Trayvon who he was right away and he doesn't regret anything. Instead he gets out of the truck and even after being told not to follow TM continues walking in the direction he was ( it's in the walk through video ) and then when Trayvon confronts him instead of telling him who he was he reaches into his pocket. That's why he was hit folks. Not because Trayvon in a punk or thug. There's never been any evidence of Trayvon being violent. There has been evidence of Zimmerman being violent though. And very stupid.
                    And yet you say h should have called 911, etc... apparently, the reason why he got out of the car was to check the street sign. I guess E-911 *****IF***** it worked right, could have been used. BELIEVE ME, I did some work with it and, at least about 9 years ago, IT HAD PROBLEMS. And it could have been prevented by trevon NOT trespassing, or NOT loitering, or NOT ambushing, or NOT punching, or NOT fighting, etc... Trevon didn't care. MOST such communities HAVE SIGNS, so trevon could ASSUME! Do you think that if he said he was part of neighborhood watch(******DUH*******) and reached into his pocket, that trevon would have acted ANY differently? TREVON assaulted him, jumping out and demanding "what is your problem". He said he didn't have a problem and trevon said "you do now", and decked him. GIVE ME A BREAK!

                    Steve
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8236215].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    What a thread.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8232250].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author hitesh93
    I think this is my first venture into the 'off-topic' world here at WF.
    I don't know if any of you saw the news regarding testimonies today? Basically the cops testified that Z is innocent and it was a clear case of self defense. Apparently Martin attacked him, knocked him down and told him that he would kill Z.
    Neighbor says he saw T beating him and Z yelling for help before the gunshot. Seems like the case is done already?

    Here's one of the 2 reports I looked over if anyone is interested:
    http://tampa.cbslocal.com/2013/07/01...-kill-someone/
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8233274].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author ronrule
    If NBC hadn't edited the 911 tapes to make Zimmerman sound like a racist, this wouldn't have even been on the news. The story would have been some punk threw a punch at the neighborhood watch and got his ass shot. They'd have given Zimmerman a medal and a gold plated Desert Eagle for eliminating the problem.

    Once the media brought race into it, everyone started choosing sides. Frankly I'm shocked by some of the comments I've seen on this thread, from people making the assumption that this was somehow racially motivated. It wasn't. That was the media. The only "race problems" we have in this country are with the people who get hung up on race, and try to spin a street brawl into a "hate crime". Take that crap out of the picture and focus on the facts of the case, not how the fact that the people involved were different races, it has nothing to do with it.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8234895].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    He has a grandparent that is black! He is hispanic. It is rumored that he is a big brother to a black in the big brother program. It is amazing that people assume he is racist! WHAT? If you are black the assume you aren't racist, and if you are not black they assume you ARE? NEITHER is true!

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8234990].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author SandraLarkin
    Banned
    Things people do not know about Zimmerman:

    Rescued a black homeless man from being beaten by a white man, and made sure the kid was prosecuted(It was a police officers son).


    Mentored black children.


    Has a black grand parent.


    Etc.


    The media just continues to lie about this to the public for some reason.


    He NEVER continued to follow Martin after he was told not to. Another media lie. Zimmerman should be fully exonerated. All evidence is fully, 100% against Martin from what I have saw. I have been following this case closely.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8236312].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
      Originally Posted by SandraLarkin View Post

      Things people do not know about Zimmerman:

      Rescued a black homeless man from being beaten by a white man, and made sure the kid was prosecuted(It was a police officers son).


      Mentored black children.


      Has a black grand parent.


      Etc.


      The media just continues to lie about this to the public for some reason.


      He NEVER continued to follow Martin after he was told not to. Another media lie. Zimmerman should be fully exonerated. All evidence is fully, 100% against Martin from what I have saw. I have been following this case closely.
      What I don't understand is why you are bringing up race? By doing so, you are just as bad as the media that you are railing against seeing as how the media made it a race case to begin with.

      Race has nothing to do with the case and our opinions should not be based upon it, in my opinion.

      Terra
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8236328].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author KimW
        Originally Posted by MissTerraK View Post

        What I don't understand is why you are bringing up race? By doing so, you are just as bad as the media that you are railing against seeing as how the media made it a race case to begin with.

        Race has nothing to do with the case and our opinions should not be based upon it, in my opinion.

        Terra
        Terra,
        this thread is full of people that continually keep harping on race,even going as far as to making it a black white issue when neither of those involved are even white.

        She is responding to previous posts,not bringing in new issues.
        Signature

        Read A Post.
        Subscribe to a Newsletter
        KimWinfrey.Com

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8236360].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
          Originally Posted by KimW View Post

          Terra,
          this thread is full of people that continually keep harping on race,even going as far as to making it a black white issue when neither of those involved are even white.

          She is responding to previous posts,not bringing in new issues.
          Hmmm, I must have missed all of this mentioned previously in this thread, then.

          Things people do not know about Zimmerman:

          Rescued a black homeless man from being beaten by a white man, and made sure the kid was prosecuted(It was a police officers son).


          Mentored black children.


          Has a black grand parent.
          I did read the black grandparent thing, but I don't remember the others.

          Terra
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8236501].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author KimW
            [DELETED]
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8236604].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
              Originally Posted by KimW View Post

              Terra,
              Honestly,no offense meant,but if you do not see it previously,then I do not see how you see it in this post.
              http://www.warriorforum.com/off-topi...ml#post8236312
              Well, now you have gone and lost me Kim.

              I didn't say I do not see it, I said I must have missed them, meaning, I didn't read the other posts that made mention of the facts that she listed.

              Are we talking about the same thing? :confused:


              Terra
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8236869].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author KimW
                Originally Posted by MissTerraK View Post

                Well, now you have gone and lost me Kim.

                I didn't say I do not see it, I said I must have missed them, meaning, I didn't read the other posts that made mention of the facts that she listed.

                Are we talking about the same thing? :confused:


                Terra
                No Terra, Sorry,I assumed you were saying you had read the other posts and had not seen the references.
                I actually did not like how I may have comea cross in the post you quoted and deleted it,but I see I was too late.
                Signature

                Read A Post.
                Subscribe to a Newsletter
                KimWinfrey.Com

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8236917].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
                  Originally Posted by KimW View Post

                  No Terra, Sorry,I assumed you were saying you had read the other posts and had not seen the references.
                  I actually did not like how I may have comea cross in the post you quoted and deleted it,but I see I was too late.
                  Whoops!

                  Ha! I always seem to beat you on the draw.

                  Terra
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8236923].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author SandraLarkin
          Banned
          Originally Posted by KimW View Post

          Terra,
          this thread is full of people that continually keep harping on race,even going as far as to making it a black white issue when neither of those involved are even white.

          She is responding to previous posts,not bringing in new issues.
          Yes, and that is the most absurd part.


          Zimmerman is not even white, however this is CLEARLY created by the media, a black v white case fully CREATED by them.


          The simple fact the media is trying to influence a case reporting sensationalist themes that incite hate and anger without reporting any facts whatsoever makes you wonder -- why?
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8236673].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author SandraLarkin
        Banned
        Originally Posted by MissTerraK View Post

        What I don't understand is why you are bringing up race? By doing so, you are just as bad as the media that you are railing against seeing as how the media made it a race case to begin with.

        Race has nothing to do with the case and our opinions should not be based upon it, in my opinion.

        Terra

        I am bringing up race because this is clearly a "race" case. To deny that it is is to deny reality.


        Most people believe this is a race case and believe Zimmerman is some racist KKK member who shot an innocent child.

        That is simply not the case. Once people can get through him not being racist they can being to see the facts, and not what they have already made up in their minds as guilty or innocent.


        However, the media has made this out to be a trigger happy racist white bigot who killed an innocent child.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8236654].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
          Originally Posted by SandraLarkin View Post

          I am bringing up race because this is clearly a "race" case. To deny that it is is to deny reality.


          Most people believe this is a race case and believe Zimmerman is some racist KKK member who shot an innocent child.

          That is simply not the case. Once people can get through him not being racist they can being to see the facts, and not what they have already made up in their minds as guilty or innocent.


          However, the media has made this out to be a trigger happy racist white bigot who killed an innocent child.
          That is certainly true!

          I am in agreement with you, by the way, that race should not be a factor and the media spun it that way.

          The reasons?

          Can you say agendas, and back pockets?

          Terra
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8236724].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by SandraLarkin View Post

          I am bringing up race because this is clearly a "race" case. To deny that it is is to deny reality.


          Most people believe this is a race case and believe Zimmerman is some racist KKK member who shot an innocent child.

          That is simply not the case. Once people can get through him not being racist they can being to see the facts, and not what they have already made up in their minds as guilty or innocent.


          However, the media has made this out to be a trigger happy racist white bigot who killed an innocent child.
          PLEASE! State just ******ONE****** legitimate fact that says this was because zimmerman was racist. Just ONE! of course, if ANYONE could be made to seem white, and another can't be. Or one IS a non hispanic white, some RACIST people will always try to pull race into it!

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8236764].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author SandraLarkin
            Banned
            Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

            PLEASE! State just ******ONE****** legitimate fact that says this was because zimmerman was racist. Just ONE! of course, if ANYONE could be made to seem white, and another can't be. Or one IS a non hispanic white, some RACIST people will always try to pull race into it!

            Steve
            Umm I'm not saying that all?


            I'm saying that is what the media has made this case. Absolutely zero facts in the case have anything to do with Zimmerman being racist.


            The media would have you all believe other wise.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8236816].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
          I don't recall anyone saying anything about Zimmerman being a KKK member racist type. No body! The main claim is that he was racial profiling Trayvon and to this day I don't see any proof that he wasn't. The truth is he thought this kid was a "suspect" simply because he was walking home in a hoodie apparently and many people think the fact that he was a black kid added to him thinking this. If you don't think cops racially profile people you are badly mistaken and Zimmerman was a big wannabe cop.

          By the way, he can be guilty of racial profiling and still have black relatives and have helped certain black people in his past.

          Originally Posted by SandraLarkin View Post

          Most people believe this is a race case and believe Zimmerman is some racist KKK member who shot an innocent child.

          That is simply not the case. Once people can get through him not being racist they can being to see the facts, and not what they have already made up in their minds as guilty or innocent.


          However, the media has made this out to be a trigger happy racist white bigot who killed an innocent child.
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8237330].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author KimW
            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

            I don't recall anyone saying anything about Zimmerman being a KKK member racist type. No body! The main claim is that he was racial profiling Trayvon and to this day I don't see any proof that he wasn't. The truth is he thought this kid was a "suspect" simply because he was walking home in a hoodie apparently and many people think the fact that he was a black kid added to him thinking this. If you don't think cops racially profile people you are badly mistaken and Zimmerman was a big wannabe cop.

            By the way, he can be guilty of racial profiling and still have black relatives and have helped certain black people in his past.
            Tim,
            Of course they do. Why? Because it is fact that specific groups have certain characteristics.

            Those characteristics do not have to be bad, or good for that matter,it just
            means they are related to a group.

            And it is certainly not restricted to one group. They racially profile black,whites,asian, hispanics, you name it.
            Signature

            Read A Post.
            Subscribe to a Newsletter
            KimWinfrey.Com

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8237414].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
              Kim, I don't think the idea of racial profiling and equality go hand in hand. Whites are very rarely racially profiled. Sure, other races are such as hispanics and muslims, but whites not so much. Plus, I don't think it is a good idea to use statistics of many to take away the freedoms of individuals.

              Originally Posted by KimW View Post

              Tim,
              Of course they do. Why? Because it is fact that specific groups have certain characteristics.

              Those characteristics do not have to be bad, or good for that matter,it just
              means they are related to a group.

              And it is certainly not restricted to one group. They racially profile black,whites,asian, hispanics, you name it.
              Signature
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8237462].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author KimW
                Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                Kim, I don't think the idea of racial profiling and equality go hand in hand. Whites are very rarely racially profiled. Sure, other races are such as hispanics and muslims, but whites not so much. Plus, I don't think it is a good idea to use statistics of many to take away the freedoms of individuals.
                I believe whites are as much as any group.
                You don't.
                We just agree to disagree.

                And I certainly did not say profiling and equality go hand in hand, I was simply agreeing with you that racial profiling exists.
                Signature

                Read A Post.
                Subscribe to a Newsletter
                KimWinfrey.Com

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8237489].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    Tim,

    If I were doing that, EVEN where I have my house, you can bet I would be stopped ALSO! I was once harassed by a police officer FOR NO REASON! HE said it was because I was there so early in the morning! I only got ONE warning!!!!!!!! He said that the next time I am stopped by a police officer, I should stay in my car because I COULD HAVE BEEN SHOT!!!!! I am NOT kidding!

    He even asked me questions like where I came from. I told him, though I was not THAT sure about the street as I knew how to get there. He called me a liar and said that street was one I would pass if I kept going. I checked later, and found we were BOTH right! I don't know WHAT his problem was but, as I said, he let me go, and I just wanted to go to bed!

    Was it RACIAL? Well, I am a middle class white and was driving a nice middle class car. HE was white. I probably looked like I could have lived there.

    I have had such a thing FOUR TIMES! TWO were "for a reason". The other two? WHO KNOWS!?!?!?

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8237382].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      So, because of your one example, that negates any possibilities that racial profiling actually exits? Not sure what your point is.
      Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

      Tim,

      If I were doing that, EVEN where I have my house, you can bet I would be stopped ALSO! I was once harassed by a police officer FOR NO REASON! HE said it was because I was there so early in the morning! I only got ONE warning!!!!!!!! He said that the next time I am stopped by a police officer, I should stay in my car because I COULD HAVE BEEN SHOT!!!!! I am NOT kidding!

      He even asked me questions like where I came from. I told him, though I was not THAT sure about the street as I knew how to get there. He called me a liar and said that street was one I would pass if I kept going. I checked later, and found we were BOTH right! I don't know WHAT his problem was but, as I said, he let me go, and I just wanted to go to bed!

      Was it RACIAL? Well, I am a middle class white and was driving a nice middle class car. HE was white. I probably looked like I could have lived there.

      I have had such a thing FOUR TIMES! TWO were "for a reason". The other two? WHO KNOWS!?!?!?

      Steve
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8237466].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        So, because of your one example, that negates any possibilities that racial profiling actually exits? Not sure what your point is.
        NO, it *****OBLITERATES***** your point that conditions don't matter, and that whites are so privileged!

        BTW that is one point that fits PERFECTLY, etc... He EVEN almost SHOT ME! My father had the SAME type of thing. I have had WORSE with blacks, asians, hispanics. And NO, I didn't even say a word. BTW I have asian relatives. For what it is worth, I HAVE had friends in every group.

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8237526].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Robert Michael
    Wow.. how the hell did I miss this thread?!!!

    I have been following this trial since day 1 (same as I did with the Anthony/Arias trials -- which, might I add, that my prediction rating so far is 100%)

    EVERY SINGLE WITNESS for the prosecution has been in favor of Z.

    I honestly don't even know why this is at trial.

    The simple facts that:

    1, Zimmerman NOT ONCE changed or altered his story of how it went down.

    2, Every witness called so far has only helped Z.

    3, STAND YOUR GROUND..........

    4, "Creepy ass cracker" -- need I say more?

    5, LEGALLY LICENSED TO CARRY.........

    I mean wtf.. the list goes on & on..

    Everything Z has said from the beginning collaborates his version of events.

    Find him not guilty & be done with it. Also, prepare for the race riots when it happens.

    After all, o'Bummer/Sharpton/Jackson.. they all had to stick their nose in it and make it about race.

    What ever happened to innocent until PROVEN guilty???

    "If I had a son......."

    THEN, when "creepy ass cracker" came out in court, all of a sudden they started claiming it had nothing to do with race at all.

    That's hilarious.

    Now that the record shows that Trayvon was indeed racist, all of a sudden race wasn't an issue.. ha..........

    Also hilarious, was Rachel's response to the question "You don't think "cracker" is a racist remark?"

    "uh... nope....."

    lulz........................

    FREE G.Z.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8237497].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Robert Michael
    PS.....

    Nancy Grace is one of THE biggest flip-floppers I've ever seen.

    Turn your boob-tube to HLN right now and see what I mean... wow....

    1 day she is all for the defense. The next, she is all for the prosecution..

    This media has tainted the shit out of this trial.

    There is NO WAY that he is going to receive a fair trial.

    While I might not agree with how the defense opened (the knock knock joke) I completely agree with the meaning behind that joke.

    "Knock Knock"

    "Who's there?"

    "George Zimmerman"

    "George Zimmerman who?"

    "Good - you're on the jury"

    ...................................

    Even worse -- no matter HOW the verdict comes back, Z is DEAD!!

    If he is found not guilty, he will be murdered by the Black Panthers in the streets.

    If he is found guilty, he will be murdered by the Black Panthers in jail.

    He is screwed.. Royally.....
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8237548].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Patrician
    Originally Posted by Whos That Guru View Post

    PS.....

    Even worse -- no matter HOW the verdict comes back, Z is DEAD!!

    If he is found not guilty, he will be murdered by the Black Panthers in the streets.

    If he is found guilty, he will be murdered by the Black Panthers in jail.

    He is screwed.. Royally.....
    yeah - that doesn't sound racist at all.

    so i guess then it is ok for me to say that Trevon wouldn't even be dead if he wasn't black.

    nobody would have even noticed him.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8237689].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by Patrician View Post

      yeah - that doesn't sound racist at all.

      so i guess then it is ok for me to say that Trevon wouldn't even be dead if he wasn't black.

      nobody would have even noticed him.
      Well, he is dead ONLY because of his attitude! As for the bit about the black panthers? THEY SAID THEY WOULD KILL HIM if he was declared innocent. Don't forget what happened with Rodney King!!!!!!!!!!! HEY, one of the fires they lit was like 6 blocks from my HOME!!!!! In the area I lived, the police passed an ENFORCED CURFEW because of the violence! So I remember that VERY well, and saw it FIRST HAND! Interesting how SO many forget about things like THIS guy: Attack on Reginald Denny - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

      I NEVER have! GRANTED, it has ONLY been about TWENTY ONE years, but I remember it like it was yesterday.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8237759].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
        Oh yeah. He was wearing a hoodie. Bad attitude. He was walking on the grass at night! How dare he? He asked a stranger why he was following him. The gall. He was drinking Arizona tea and eating skittles. Where was his manners for not sharing with good old Zimmer? Yep, it's all Trayvon's fault. :/ By the way, I like wearing a hoodie when it's cold and raining outside. Are you going to shoot me if you see me around?

        Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

        Well, he is dead ONLY because of his attitude!
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8237800].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
          Ok, I see that reason has left this thread.

          On to greener pastures.

          And now...the band plays on.....


          Added; I'm going where people are intelligent and thoughtful. Comments on Youtube videos.
          Signature
          One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

          Terence Fletcher: "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than Good Job." Whiplash.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8237875].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author KimW
            Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

            Ok, I see that reason has left this thread.

            On to greener pastures.

            And now...the band plays on.....


            Added; I'm going where people are intelligent and thoughtful. Comments on Youtube videos.
            Which is what happened in the original thread ,which is why I have for the most part stayed out of this one.


            Of course,the highlighted part of your post almost made me spew at the monitor!
            Signature

            Read A Post.
            Subscribe to a Newsletter
            KimWinfrey.Com

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8238844].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

          Oh yeah. He was wearing a hoodie. Bad attitude. He was walking on the grass at night! How dare he? He asked a stranger why he was following him. The gall. He was drinking Arizona tea and eating skittles. Where was his manners for not sharing with good old Zimmer? Yep, it's all Trayvon's fault. :/ By the way, I like wearing a hoodie when it's cold and raining outside. Are you going to shoot me if you see me around?
          He wasn't walking on the grass! He was loitering there, looking through windows. He didn't ask why the guy was following him. He SAID "what is your problem!"! It SOUNDS like a question, but a question waits for a response. He followed it up with "You HAVE a problem NOW!, <SUCKER PUNCH>"

          Eating skittles!?!?!?!? Are you SURE? If he was, then there is ANOTHER LIE from the "prosecution"! So WHAT IS IT? Articles: Trayvon Martin's Final Hour

          As for you and your hoodie? If you loiter on my property, and/or look in my windows, I may call 911! If the area turns hostile, and you make a noise, I might go out WITH A GUN to check. Someone ALREADY stole my FREON! If another does it, he might get a SHOCK! If you try to break in, you might hit the floor before you come in 3 feet. So your answer is ****MAYBE****!

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8237881].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
            Good lord. If you break into my house I would shoot you. What's the maybe for? That wasn't my question of course.

            As usual you get facts wrong. I haven't heard one person say he was looking through windows. Or loitering. By the way, you are simply saying what Z said. I don't believe every word he says. I think he's lying on some things. I'm glad you think his words are gold and therefor are all facts now.

            Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

            He wasn't walking on the grass! He was loitering there, looking through windows. He didn't ask why the guy was following him. He SAID "what is your problem!"! It SOUNDS like a question, but a question waits for a response. He followed it up with "You HAVE a problem NOW!, <SUCKER PUNCH>"

            Eating skittles!?!?!?!? Are you SURE? If he was, then there is ANOTHER LIE from the "prosecution"! So WHAT IS IT? Articles: Trayvon Martin's Final Hour

            As for you and your hoodie? If you loiter on my property, and/or look in my windows, I may call 911! If the area turns hostile, and you make a noise, I might go out WITH A GUN to check. Someone ALREADY stole my FREON! If another does it, he might get a SHOCK! If you try to break in, you might hit the floor before you come in 3 feet. So your answer is ****MAYBE****!

            Steve
            Signature
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8237935].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author hitesh93
              Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

              Good lord. If you break into my house I would shoot you. What's the maybe for? That wasn't my question of course.

              As usual you get facts wrong. I haven't heard one person say he was looking through windows. Or loitering. By the way, you are simply saying what Z said. I don't believe every word he says. I think he's lying on some things. I'm glad you think his words are gold and therefor are all facts now.
              Tim I see your point - but I think that's where the disagreement comes from. You're saying that Zimmerman is lying at some points. And it is possible that he might be.
              However, that is ethically and legally a wrong argument. Zimmerman's account is the only one we have right now other than one eyewitness. Legally speaking, the burden is on prosecution to prove the Zimmerman is lying. So far, there is no reason or evidence to suggest that he is. In such a case, even if he was lying, he is legally innocent since we have no evidence to show that he is. To insist that he is lying despite all the evidence that validates his statement is not the correct view to take on this.

              With that aside, so far the evidence provided DOES seem to vindicate his account - from the eyewitness account and forensics to the circumstantial evidence and the cops' testimony.

              Is he lying? Is he not? I don't know. But looking at the evidence, there is no reason to believe that he is. Given Martin's comments to his friend, his immediate behavior before the event and what we know of him, I can see him starting the confrontation. The 911 call proves that Zimmerman was no longer following him and was returning to his vehicle. Should Zimmerman have followed him and gotten out of his truck in the first place? Maybe, maybe not. But even if he did, it is not a legally, nor morally wrong action.
              But should Martin have attacked Zimmerman as per the only 3 testimonies we have? Definitely not. That is legally and morally punishable.
              Overall, based on the evidence available, it DOES seem like a case of self defense and seems to me that Martin was much more at fault here.

              Note that I'm only making these statements based on my look at the testimonies and evidence, not because I have a pre-conceived bias towards one or another of the people involved in this.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8238313].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                Well, I think his own interviews show inconsistencies that bring into question his honesty. For example:

                * saying Trayvon jumped out of the bushes in one interview. The bushes are too small to jump out of.

                * Z said he shot Trayvon and then Trayvon sat up and said something like "You got me". This brings a couple questions to mind. How do you sit up when you are the one on top? And would someone who was shot in the chest say something like that? Others have brought up what GZ has claimed TM said here and when he first saw him as something out of a movie. They don't sound plausible at all. They sound made up to embellish a story.

                * Also, Z said he was being smothered with Trayvon's hands. Z had a bloody nose and there was no blood at all on Trayvons hands.

                * Speaking of blood, if Z shot TM while he TM was on top of him, why wasn't his shirt and jacket covered with blood?

                * After GZ shot TM he says he pushed him off of him and then got on the back of TM holding down his arms. Someone came outside and said according to GZ "Do you want me to call 9-11?" and GZ said "No, help me". This seems ridiculous. He shot him at point blank range and the doctors estimated TM died within 20 seconds. This is the most unbelievable part of his story in my opinion. He needed to get on top of a guy who was just shot in the chest and died within 20 seconds? Much more plausable is that GZ was already on top. By the way, somewhere in the 20 seconds Trayvon sat up and said something according to GZ. lol

                * A medical examiner said GZ's injuries were insignificant. She also said he may have only been hit once in the face. GZ claimed he was hit a couple dozen times. And the so called "slamming" of the head could have been one impact only and she thought the word slamming was not appropriate for the injuries sustained.

                * GZ said he didn't realize he had hit TM. He thought he may have missed. I don't buy this at all.

                There are other inconsistencies also. I think he is lying and since the trial is still going on I don't think I am "ethically" or "legally" wrong yet. Even if GZ is aquited, I don't see how I am ethically wrong to think he lying. :/

                By the way, it has been established already the GZ kept on following TM even after he was told not to. GZ admitted this in the video interview. Of course he didn't say he was following TM. He just said he kept going in the same direction to see what street it was. This seems hard to believe also. There are only three streets in that area and GZ was very familiar with that area.

                Detective Serino told GZ “That was a kid with a future, a kid with folks that care. Not a goon. In his mind’s eye, he perceived you as a threat. He has every right to defend himself.”

                “You wanted to catch him. You wanted to catch the bad guy, the f—–g punk who can’t get away,” Serino said.

                Zimmerman replied, “I wasn’t following him; I was just going in the same direction he was.”

                Serino responded, “That’s following.”

                Originally Posted by hitesh93 View Post

                Tim I see your point - but I think that's where the disagreement comes from. You're saying that Zimmerman is lying at some points. And it is possible that he might be.
                However, that is ethically and legally a wrong argument. Zimmerman's account is the only one we have right now other than one eyewitness. Legally speaking, the burden is on prosecution to prove the Zimmerman is lying. So far, there is no reason or evidence to suggest that he is. In such a case, even if he was lying, he is legally innocent since we have no evidence to show that he is. To insist that he is lying despite all the evidence that validates his statement is not the correct view to take on this.
                Signature
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8239527].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                  Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                  Well, I think his own interviews show inconsistencies that bring into question his honesty. For example:

                  * saying Trayvon jumped out of the bushes in one interview. The bushes are too small to jump out of.
                  How do you know what he called a bush, or what size the bushes were in the precise area?

                  * Z said he shot Trayvon and then Trayvon sat up and said something like "You got me". This brings a couple questions to mind. How do you sit up when you are the one on top.
                  Who is to say what happened in a fight. Obviously, SOMETHING changed for it to get to that point.

                  * Also, Z said he was being smothered with Trayvon's hands. Z had a bloody nose and there was no blood at all on Trayvons hands.
                  Generally, ESPECIALLY in a fight, NOSES don't bleed. Blood vessels and/or other things in the nostril area do. It could have been a while before blood appeared, especially if he were down on the ground.

                  * Speaking of blood, if Z shot TM while he TM was on top of him, why wasn't his shirt and jacket covered with blood?
                  Again, it is possible it could be explained.

                  * After GZ shot TM he says he pushed him off of him and then got on the back of TM holding down his arms. Someone came outside and said according to GZ "Do you want me to call 9-11?" and GZ said "No, help me". This seems ridiculous. He shot him at point blank range and the doctors estimated TM died within 20 seconds. This is the most unbelievable part of his story in my opinion. He needed to get on top of a guy who was just shot in the chest and died within 20 seconds? Much more plausable is that GZ was already on top. By the way, somewhere in the 20 seconds Trayvon sat up and said something according to GZ. lol
                  It IS possible to shoot someone and have them live quite a while, or even survive. Outside of knowing when a DEFINITELY fatal blow, like a knife to a vital part of the heart, slitting the aorta, or the carotid artery, how could they say 20 seconds?

                  * A medical examiner said GZ's injuries were insignificant. She also said he may have only been hit once in the face. GZ claimed he was hit a couple dozen times. And the so called "slamming" of the head could have been one impact only and she thought the word slamming was not appropriate for the injuries sustained.
                  Is this the same person that diagnosed from a few PHOTOS? If a doctor prescribes that way, they could LOSE THEIR LICENSE!

                  There are other inconsistencies also. I think he is lying and since the trial is still going on I don't think I am "ethically" or "legally" wrong yet.
                  Ethically you certainly ARE wrong! His LIFE is on the line, and there is NO PROOF!

                  By the way, it has been established already the GZ kept on following TM even after he was told not to. GZ admitted this in the video interview. Of course he didn't say he was following TM. He just said he kept going in the same direction to see what street it was.
                  What did you expect him to do? Say "OH FORGET IT?". REMEMBER my story about that cop and how I wasn't sure about the street because I knew how to get there? SOUND FAMILIAR?

                  This seems hard to believe also. There are only three streets in that area and GZ was very familiar of that area.
                  I've BEEN there! ALSO, I was in a development once, turned the wrong street, and the homes LOOKED THE SAME! I even went to the other street to check. IDENTICAL!

                  Detective Serino told GZ “That was a kid with a future, a kid with folks that care. Not a goon. In his mind’s eye, he perceived you as a threat. He has every right to defend himself.”
                  SO WHAT!?!?!?!? You just said that he said TREVON IS GUILTY! NO, he DOESN'T have a right to fight, or EVEN BE IN THAT AREA! Is that a racist statement? NOPE! It would be racist if I said he COULD be because I CAN'T EITHER! If he wanted to defend himself, he should have defended himself, ****NOT**** acted with undue aggression. And WHO was that "detective" to even make such a claim? OH, OK, he was a family friend that was maybe 17 and often was around treyvon? If so, WHY was he on the police force? If NOT, then HOW COULD HE KNOW? It is WELL KNOWN that many teenagers aren't necessarily as they come off. Then again, many adults aren't either.

                  So you are going to take some stupid off hand comment by a guy, give it weight because they call him a "detective" and use it to send a guy up the river and make people even MORE upset ONLY because he happened to be black?!?!?!? MAN!!!!!

                  If you want to listen to a comment, how about the comment his FRIEND said HE made about the "Crazy ass cracker"? That SCREAMS that trevon was ANGRY and RACIST!

                  Steve
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8239671].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                    Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                    How do you know what he called a bush, or what size the bushes were in the precise area?
                    Well, I saw the video of that area of course. There simply aren't bushes to jump out of.

                    I'm not going to go back and forth with you on each issue. My points make sense in my opinion and yours don't.
                    Signature
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8239700].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                      GZ said he didn't realize he had hit TM. He thought he may have missed. I don't buy this at all.
                      Having had the experience of getting shot and the experience of shooting at someone, I can understand that.
                      Personally I'm such a terrible shot, that I won't own a gun anymore.
                      But I still won't say weather Z is guilty or not. That is up to the jury and if we except the judicial system, then we have to except their verdict.
                      Signature

                      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                      Getting old ain't for sissy's
                      As you are I was, as I am you will be
                      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8239870].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author hitesh93
                  Unfortunately Tim I think your bias is showing because I earnestly think you are significantly stretching at this point to try and make a case. Some of the statements are either ignorant (hopefully) or intentionally biased (I hope not the case with you).

                  Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                  Well, I think his own interviews show inconsistencies that bring into question his honesty. For example:

                  * saying Trayvon jumped out of the bushes in one interview. The bushes are too small to jump out of.
                  No they are not. If T was crouching slightly and jumped through the bushes, anyone would describe it as 'jumping out of the bushes'. They don't need to 7 feet high and cover him completely for the expression to be true.

                  Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                  * Z said he shot Trayvon and then Trayvon sat up and said something like "You got me". This brings a couple questions to mind. How do you sit up when you are the one on top? And would someone who was shot in the chest say something like that? Others have brought up what GZ has claimed TM said here and when he first saw him as something out of a movie. They don't sound plausible at all. They sound made up to embellish a story.
                  Again, you are either showing ignorance or bias. T was punding on Z as per eyewitness account. He would be leadning forward slightly to perform the 'ground pound'. On being shot he jerked back and straightened out - something ANYONE would describe as 'he sat up'.
                  And yes, people who get shot say all sorts of things. Your ideas on 'why would a guy say that' means nothing. T got shot and said 'you got me' - that's perfectly consistent with what usually happens in cases of rage induced violence and gang violence. The cops testified on this matter already.
                  And finally, Zimmerman could've just not added that in if he was making up a story. In fact, the minute details like this show that he is recounting from memory.

                  Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                  * Also, Z said he was being smothered with Trayvon's hands. Z had a bloody nose and there was no blood at all on Trayvons hands.
                  Autospy showed T had bruised knuckles and blood on hands consistent with punching someone with the intention to cause great harm. Ignorance or bias again.

                  Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                  * Speaking of blood, if Z shot TM while he TM was on top of him, why wasn't his shirt and jacket covered with blood?
                  Because blood doesn't spurt out like a fountain like some C-grade Bollywood movie when someone is shot. It slowly seeps out of the wound. Had T fallen over onto Z and laid there for a bit, there would be a chance of that happening, but in most cases of shooting people don't even realize how severe the wound is for a bit. And this even depends on the clothing if there was an outer jacket that was blocking the wound, or the body slumps over in certain ways, almost no blood seeps out immediately. This is precisely why Z was surprised to learn that T was dead as shown in police records.
                  Ignorance of actual gunshot wound I hope?

                  Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                  * After GZ shot TM he says he pushed him off of him and then got on the back of TM holding down his arms. Someone came outside and said according to GZ "Do you want me to call 9-11?" and GZ said "No, help me". This seems ridiculous. He shot him at point blank range and the doctors estimated TM died within 20 seconds. This is the most unbelievable part of his story in my opinion. He needed to get on top of a guy who was just shot in the chest and died within 20 seconds? Much more plausable is that GZ was already on top. By the way, somewhere in the 20 seconds Trayvon sat up and said something according to GZ. lol
                  At this point I can't really claim ignorance on your part. Seems like outright bias now.
                  T was on top leaning forward punching Z. Eyewitness account proves this.
                  Z shot T, who jerked back and 'sat up', said 'you got me' and slumps to the ground. The other person asks 'do you want me to call 9-11', Z blurts out 'help me'.
                  Doctors estimate T died within 20 seconds. Z didn't know that and as testified by the cops, was surprised to know that T died and was mortified about it.

                  Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                  * A medical examiner said GZ's injuries were insignificant. She also said he may have only been hit once in the face. GZ claimed he was hit a couple dozen times. And the so called "slamming" of the head could have been one impact only and she thought the word slamming was not appropriate for the injuries sustained.
                  Bias bias bias. The actual medical report says that Z had gashes on his head consistent with repeated trauma. It couldve been just 2-3 hits into the cement but don't try to minimize this. If someone was sitting on top of you and smashed your head into the cement 2-3 times you wouldn't claim that it was just a minor thing.
                  Z was given stitches on the head to close the wounds, and he had a broken nose to go with it.

                  Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                  * GZ said he didn't realize he had hit TM. He thought he may have missed. I don't buy this at all.
                  Of course you don't. Z is already guilty in your books and the bias is clear to see. Z said when he FIRST shot, T jerked back and said you got me. Z was not sure if he'd hit T. When T fell over, of course Z knew he had shot him. You're twisting the verbage on a very straightforward event.

                  Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                  There are other inconsistencies also. I think he is lying and since the trial is still going on I don't think I am "ethically" or "legally" wrong yet. Even if GZ is aquited, I don't see how I am ethically wrong to think he lying. :/
                  Err yes you are ethicaly and legally wrong to discount the ONLY available account, the ONLY eyewitness account and the consistent evidence. Legally, Z is innocent unless there is significant evidence to counter his stance that T was the aggressor and he acted in self defense. So far there is none, and you are bent upon discounting the only 2 actual accounts we have of the event.

                  Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                  By the way, it has been established already the GZ kept on following TM even after he was told not to. GZ admitted this in the video interview. Of course he didn't say he was following TM. He just said he kept going in the same direction to see what street it was. This seems hard to believe also. There are only three streets in that area and GZ was very familiar with that area.
                  He said the 911 operator told him to stop following. Z agreed to not follow. He was asked where he was specifically and he went to the closest intersection to look at the street name. You make it sound like he followed T another 50 feet. He simply took a few extra steps towards the intersection while T had doubled back to attack the 'cracker ass' he'd spotted earlier.


                  Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                  Detective Serino told GZ "That was a kid with a future, a kid with folks that care. Not a goon. In his mind's eye, he perceived you as a threat. He has every right to defend himself."

                  "You wanted to catch him. You wanted to catch the bad guy, the f---g punk who can't get away," Serino said.

                  Zimmerman replied, "I wasn't following him; I was just going in the same direction he was."

                  Serino responded, "That's following."
                  Yep, and that was the line of questioning taken up to see if GZ was guilty. After trhe questioning was over, cops let Z go and reported that there was no evidence to report that he was in the wrong.

                  I originally posted thinking people were just unaware of the facts. Now I see this is pure bias and certainly based on race in many instances. I'm done with the thread and this short venture into the offline forum. Back to work!
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8240065].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                    Actually I see a lot of ignorance and bias in your responses. Your first response about the bushes is laughable. Anyone who has seen the video or photos of that area would know that he couldn't have jumped out from the bushes. Ridiculous. Not only are the bushes about two feet high, they are about 15 feet from the sidewalk where GZ said TM confronted him. So much for your knowledge of the facts. I can point out other points where you are flat out wrong but just like with Steve it is a waste of time to go through them one by one. Your mind is made up it is clear although you deny this.

                    It isn't just me making these claims by the way. Independent people are pointing out the inconsistencies. You also seem to be taking everything GZ has said as facts. I think the word that fits is gullible. Whatever. Have a good day.

                    By the way, do I think GZ is guilty of 2nd degree murder? Not sure yet. I haven't heard all the evidence. ( have you? ). I do think it is possible though. ( apparently you don't ). I think the prosecutors may have over reached in going after 2nd degree instead of manslaughter which the lead detective recommended. I think from the evidence I have seen so far, that would have been a very provable case.

                    Originally Posted by hitesh93 View Post

                    Unfortunately Tim I think your bias is showing because I earnestly think you are significantly stretching at this point to try and make a case. Some of the statements are either ignorant (hopefully) or intentionally biased (I hope not the case with you).



                    No they are not. If T was crouching slightly and jumped through the bushes, anyone would describe it as 'jumping out of the bushes'. They don't need to 7 feet high and cover him completely for the expression to be true.



                    Again, you are either showing ignorance or bias. T was punding on Z as per eyewitness account. He would be leadning forward slightly to perform the 'ground pound'. On being shot he jerked back and straightened out - something ANYONE would describe as 'he sat up'.
                    And yes, people who get shot say all sorts of things. Your ideas on 'why would a guy say that' means nothing. T got shot and said 'you got me' - that's perfectly consistent with what usually happens in cases of rage induced violence and gang violence. The cops testified on this matter already.
                    And finally, Zimmerman could've just not added that in if he was making up a story. In fact, the minute details like this show that he is recounting from memory.



                    Autospy showed T had bruised knuckles and blood on hands consistent with punching someone with the intention to cause great harm. Ignorance or bias again.



                    Because blood doesn't spurt out like a fountain like some C-grade Bollywood movie when someone is shot. It slowly seeps out of the wound. Had T fallen over onto Z and laid there for a bit, there would be a chance of that happening, but in most cases of shooting people don't even realize how severe the wound is for a bit. And this even depends on the clothing if there was an outer jacket that was blocking the wound, or the body slumps over in certain ways, almost no blood seeps out immediately. This is precisely why Z was surprised to learn that T was dead as shown in police records.
                    Ignorance of actual gunshot wound I hope?



                    At this point I can't really claim ignorance on your part. Seems like outright bias now.
                    T was on top leaning forward punching Z. Eyewitness account proves this.
                    Z shot T, who jerked back and 'sat up', said 'you got me' and slumps to the ground. The other person asks 'do you want me to call 9-11', Z blurts out 'help me'.
                    Doctors estimate T died within 20 seconds. Z didn't know that and as testified by the cops, was surprised to know that T died and was mortified about it.



                    Bias bias bias. The actual medical report says that Z had gashes on his head consistent with repeated trauma. It couldve been just 2-3 hits into the cement but don't try to minimize this. If someone was sitting on top of you and smashed your head into the cement 2-3 times you wouldn't claim that it was just a minor thing.
                    Z was given stitches on the head to close the wounds, and he had a broken nose to go with it.



                    Of course you don't. Z is already guilty in your books and the bias is clear to see. Z said when he FIRST shot, T jerked back and said you got me. Z was not sure if he'd hit T. When T fell over, of course Z knew he had shot him. You're twisting the verbage on a very straightforward event.



                    Err yes you are ethicaly and legally wrong to discount the ONLY available account, the ONLY eyewitness account and the consistent evidence. Legally, Z is innocent unless there is significant evidence to counter his stance that T was the aggressor and he acted in self defense. So far there is none, and you are bent upon discounting the only 2 actual accounts we have of the event.



                    He said the 911 operator told him to stop following. Z agreed to not follow. He was asked where he was specifically and he went to the closest intersection to look at the street name. You make it sound like he followed T another 50 feet. He simply took a few extra steps towards the intersection while T had doubled back to attack the 'cracker ass' he'd spotted earlier.




                    Yep, and that was the line of questioning taken up to see if GZ was guilty. After trhe questioning was over, cops let Z go and reported that there was no evidence to report that he was in the wrong.

                    I originally posted thinking people were just unaware of the facts. Now I see this is pure bias and certainly based on race in many instances. I'm done with the thread and this short venture into the offline forum. Back to work!
                    Signature
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8240245].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Brian John
                      Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                      Anyone who has seen the video or photos of that area would know that he couldn't have jumped out from the bushes. Ridiculous. Not only are the bushes about two feet high, they are about 15 feet from the sidewalk where GZ said TM confronted him.g GZ has said as facts. I think the word that fits is gullible. Whatever. Have a good day.
                      i watched nancy grace last night too lol, and i def agree the bushes thing is questionable tim. i couldn't see anything in those pics that looked like bushes someone could hide behind unless he was referring to the ones near the building, those are really the only bushes around i think. nearly everything else i've heard however seems fairly logical.

                      at times i find myself leaning slightly differently ways on this case. the whole thing stinks though. the ultimate shame is that some kid lost his life. regarding his other activities, maybe he wasn't off to the greatest start, but many of us have done questionable things in our youth...maybe not to the degree he was involved, but nevertheless. some saw a punk in the early stage of a career criminal, perhaps he was just a youth going through a phase trying to fit in? i don't know. all i know is that this is all terribly unfortunate. rip t
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8240265].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                        I don't watch her Brian. She's one of those people that listening to her is like watching someone scratching a chalkboard with fingernails.

                        Much of Z's story does sound logical I agree, but there are definitely inconsistencies which are widely being discussed. Several. To deny this is truly ignorant.

                        By the way, I will admit that I was probably reaching on the blood being on GZ. I can see how he wouldn't be covered with blood. The part about sitting up and saying something is possible also.
                        Originally Posted by Brian John View Post

                        i watched nancy grace last night too lol, and i def agree the bushes thing is questionable tim. i couldn't see anything in those pics that looked like bushes someone could hide behind unless he was referring to the ones near the building, those are really the only bushes around i think. nearly everything else i've heard however seems fairly logical.
                        Signature
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8240303].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
                    Originally Posted by hitesh93 View Post

                    I'm done with the thread and this short venture into the offline forum. Back to work!

                    Pssssst! This is the Off Topic forum, not the offline forum.

                    Just thought you should know. It is sometimes difficult to figure out where you're going if you don't recognize where you've been. :p

                    Terra
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8240822].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author seasoned
              Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

              Good lord. If you break into my house I would shoot you. What's the maybe for? That wasn't my question of course.

              As usual you get facts wrong. I haven't heard one person say he was looking through windows. Or loitering. By the way, you are simply saying what Z said. I don't believe every word he says. I think he's lying on some things. I'm glad you think his words are gold and therefor are all facts now.
              But if you throw out the testimony of ALL real witnesses, and have no contrary evidence, you must LET HIM GO! So WHY do you persist? You just want to kill another non-full-black to "even the score"?

              Steve
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8238696].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Robert Michael
      Originally Posted by Patrician View Post

      yeah - that doesn't sound racist at all.

      so i guess then it is ok for me to say that Trevon wouldn't even be dead if he wasn't black.

      nobody would have even noticed him.
      huh? That makes no sense unless you meant to quote someone else's post.

      The Black Panthers are the ones who threatened to kill him.

      I'm not just putting words in their mouth.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8239559].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Patrician
        Originally Posted by Whos That Guru View Post

        huh? That makes no sense unless you meant to quote someone else's post.

        The Black Panthers are the ones who threatened to kill him.

        I'm not just putting words in their mouth.
        Sorry - realized after the fact that they actually said that - (not your words)
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8239931].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    Things on here are virtually PARADISE and the epitome of polite, compared to some on youtube.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8238955].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Patrician
    Well, I am back to the fence as far as the actual case - it could be either way and could go either way - since I wasn't personally there to witness it - I will never know what actually happened.

    Steve - yeah I forgot about Reginald Denny - those were malicious perverts who got that way in part due to their environment - including racism in both directions.

    So again like most racism an entire race is painted with the same brush due to the lowest common denominator - a racist militant prison group and a bunch of street thugs, who are actually the minority.

    FEAR of the unknown is responsible in part for racism as well as for this tragedy. I am sorry for what happened to them both and that both of them used bad judgement...
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8239125].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Robert Michael
    not sure why they keep bringing up the fact that there is none of Z's DNA under Trayvon's fingernails...

    He said Trayvon punched him & smashed his head into the ground, not scratched him.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8240677].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Robert Michael
    heh heh..

    HI TERRA!

    Happy 4th of July everyone!!!!! :p

    Im off to shoot off some more fireworks.. lots & lots of artillery shells to go thru, plus it seems that since I started, we have a neighborhood competition going. hahahahahah
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8241272].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
      Originally Posted by Whos That Guru View Post

      heh heh..

      HI TERRA!

      Happy 4th of July everyone!!!!! :p

      Im off to shoot off some more fireworks.. lots & lots of artillery shells to go thru, plus it seems that since I started, we have a neighborhood competition going. hahahahahah
      Hi Rob!

      Are you sure you weren't in my neighborhood last night? lol!

      Happy 4th to ya! Just think, you get to do it all over again tonight.

      Terra
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8242556].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    Mr. Z. also forgot that he took a class that revolved around understanding "stand your ground" laws and the teacher said he was one of the better students.

    Mr. Z. went on Hannity and said he knew nothing about the stand your ground laws so I guess he forgot he took that class.
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8246804].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    So hurt... Now it is illegal to get out of your car, EVEN if only to find out where you are. AND, according to the context and implication, you are a criminal if you get out of your car. WOW!

    Zimmerman was at least a neighbor, and, like hurt's store example, a stranger trespassing doesn't mean he is safe from others. To follow that reasoning, a person could go break into a home, kill a person, and go out the back without ANYONE being able to stop them.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8246817].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      The arguments to move to acquittal are very interesting. Some of the best parts of the trial so far I think. The argument in favor by the defense was very well done and the rebuttal is also. So far in this case the defense seems to have had the better lawyers but this guy doing the rebuttal is holding his own at the very least. Paraphrasing: "There's two people who were involved in this incident, one is dead and the other is a liar"!
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8247418].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        The arguments to move to acquittal are very interesting. Some of the best parts of the trial so far I think. The argument in favor by the defense was very well done and the rebuttal is also. So far in this case the defense seems to have had the better lawyers but this guy doing the rebuttal is holding his own at the very least.

        Paraphrasing:


        "There's two people who were involved in this incident, one is dead and the other is a liar"!

        See 209 above.
        Signature

        "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8247572].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Kay King
          The artricle below was published some time ago and I think it's relevant.

          Much has been made of why Zimmerman would want to watch or follow Martin - and this article might explain a little about it.

          Zimmerman

          This was described as a "safe, gated community" but seems residents there didn't agree with that assessment.
          Signature
          Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world will change forever for that one dog.

          I wish offended people would react like fainting goats and quietly tip over.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8248319].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
          Yep, and there are more examples.

          Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

          See 209 above.
          By the way, that last witness the state had today, the medical examiner, was something else also. 8/ He didn't seem prepared or experienced, ( although he was) and was argumentative.
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8248423].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kurt
      Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

      So hurt... Now it is illegal to get out of your car, EVEN if only to find out where you are. AND, according to the context and implication, you are a criminal if you get out of your car. WOW!

      Zimmerman was at least a neighbor, and, like hurt's store example, a stranger trespassing doesn't mean he is safe from others. To follow that reasoning, a person could go break into a home, kill a person, and go out the back without ANYONE being able to stop them.

      Steve
      Nice strawman fallacy. I never said it was illegal to get out of your car. But if you have to make things up to feel better, go for it.

      And, are you saying that it was unreasonable for Zimmerman to drive 100 ft away if he was approached by someone he thought was "suspicous"?

      Your bias is showing that you won't even consider Zimmerman should have driven off. Had he driven off, Martin wouldn't be dead and Zimmerman wouldn't be on trial facing possible prison time. Doesn't seem like such a bad outcome to me.
      Signature
      Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
      Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8248831].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

        Nice strawman fallacy. I never said it was illegal to get out of your car. But if you have to make things up to feel better, go for it.
        FUNNY. D

        And, are you saying that it was unreasonable for Zimmerman to drive 100 ft away if he was approached by someone he thought was "suspicous"?
        WHERE? 100ft is NOTHING! 1 city block is like 500+ feet.

        Your bias is showing that you won't even consider Zimmerman should have driven off. Had he driven off, Martin wouldn't be dead and Zimmerman wouldn't be on trial facing possible prison time. Doesn't seem like such a bad outcome to me.
        [/quote]

        OF COURSE NOT! Had he driven off, a neighbor could have been killed. If he didn't want to do ANYTHING, not even report, why look out? Why call 911? Why be on the neighboorhood watch? Why have courts? Why have prisons Why even have police? VERY few criminals are likely caught within 100feet. HECK, it would be virtually IMPOSSIBLE for the police to do that SO, if the majority WERE caught within 100 feet, we wouldn't need the police.

        I was gone 3 HOURS one day and over 12 places were robbed! IMAGINE if they were killers? What if that was treyvon Oh SURE, maybe rrevon would be alive. Maybe 12 or more families would be DEAD!

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8249078].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Kay King
          That's why the link above was interesting to me.

          It's a somewhat bigger picture of the dynamics in that condo community at the time. Multiple burglaries, break-ins, etc would be a good reason to want to know who was walking through the grass at night. Also a good reason for Martin to be concerned if he thought he was being watched.

          To me, both of them showed a lack of judgment.

          Either of them could have called out to the other asking who they were or why they were running away or following. Instead, both assumed the worst of the other.

          Zimmerman talks to the cops on the phone and Martin is talking to Jaental on the phone. If they had talked to each other, there wouldn't have been an incident.
          Signature
          Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world will change forever for that one dog.

          I wish offended people would react like fainting goats and quietly tip over.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8249562].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
            Originally Posted by Kay King View Post


            To me, both of them showed a lack of judgment.

            Either of them could have called out to the other asking who they were or why they were running away or following. Instead, both assumed the worst of the other.

            Zimmerman talks to the cops on the phone and Martin is talking to Jaental on the phone. If they had talked to each other, there wouldn't have been an incident.

            That may be the most intelligent post I've read here so far, including my own. I'm ashamed to say that that thought never crossed my mind.

            Something very telling to me; When the police told Zimmerman that the act had been video taped, he was relieved, in the extreme. It wasn't true, but it was a smart test on the police's part.

            And he did well in the police interview. Not the answers of a guilty man.
            But he caused the death of someone. I still wonder if he can be found guilty of voluntary manslaughter. It would be an easier conviction, I would think.




            Or I could just rant incoherently. I do want to fit in.
            Signature
            One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

            Terence Fletcher: "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than Good Job." Whiplash.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8249637].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
              Claude, I was wondering the same thing and found the answer yesterday when the state was rebutting the motion to acquit. The answer is yes, they can decide on the lesser charge of negligent manslaughter and I think the state has a strong case for it, whereas the 2nd degree seems to be a much harder case.

              Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

              But he caused the death of someone. I still wonder if he can be found guilty of voluntary manslaughter. It would be an easier conviction, I would think.



              Signature
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8250254].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Kurt
          Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

          FUNNY. D



          WHERE? 100ft is NOTHING! 1 city block is like 500+ feet.
          Yeah, and people are sooooo much faster on foot than a car is and there was noooooo way Zimmerman could have pulled off again if needed.

          I didn't mean to over-estimate you, I thought you could figure out for yourself that 100ft is just an example. Change it to whatever you want if it makes you feel better. The 100 ft is really irrelevant to the point at hand.

          However, 100ft would have been far enough to cause some seperation while still being able to keep an eye on Martin, correct?

          However, the 100ft acts as a great red herring for you to go off on a tangent and not deal with the real issue I brought up. Keep going, if you write just a little more I'm sure you can cover just about every major logical fallacy.

          It just kills you to admit the best thing would have been for Zimmerman to drive off to a safe distance.


          OF COURSE NOT! Had he driven off, a neighbor could have been killed. If he didn't want to do ANYTHING, not even report, why look out? Why call 911? Why be on the neighboorhood watch? Why have courts? Why have prisons Why even have police? VERY few criminals are likely caught within 100feet. HECK, it would be virtually IMPOSSIBLE for the police to do that SO, if the majority WERE caught within 100 feet, we wouldn't need the police.
          Oh, the old slippery slope fallacy with a bunch of non-sequitur comments added for bad taste.

          Why have reason? Why not follow police orders? Why not have a bit of logic in your comments?



          I was gone 3 HOURS one day and over 12 places were robbed!
          And here's another classic fallacy, a hasty generalization attempting to use one small example to prove the "whole".

          IMAGINE if they were killers? What if that was treyvon Oh SURE, maybe rrevon would be alive. Maybe 12 or more families would be DEAD!

          Steve
          If we're going to pretend and play make believe, what if Martin was an undercover spy trying to find a nuclear bomb before it was detonated by the evil twins of sadistic alien terrorists from Uranus? Why not, you're pulling your other comments out of Uranus.
          Signature
          Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
          Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8249815].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    Claude,

    In this day and age, it MIGHT have been videotaped. It is possible that someone videotaped it and hasn't come forward, doesn't realize it, or forgot.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8249709].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
      Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

      Claude,

      In this day and age, it MIGHT have been videotaped. It is possible that someone videotaped it and hasn't come forward, doesn't realize it, or forgot.

      Steve
      Yes, but what I meant was that Zimmerman thought it was video taped...and that the police had the tape. His reaction would have been the same whether the tape existed or not.
      Signature
      One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

      Terence Fletcher: "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than Good Job." Whiplash.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8249735].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    Claude,

    I know. I was just saying....

    Kurt,
    WOW even dumb WORD PLAY! And thought potty jokes were dead. OH WELL....

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8249943].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    OH, this person can say all she wants about bias and all. SHE is biased for the prosecution and STILL is making the case AGAINST it! I would NOT want jeantel to be MY star witness, in such a case!!!!!

    The smearing of Rachel Jeantel - Salon.com

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8250843].message }}
  • Rachael Jeantel: Reluctant, scared, tired, pained to hear the person she was talking with being shot; horrified at having to testify (the attitude); trying to shield herself from seeing Trayvon in a casket knowing she was the last friendly person on earth to talk to him before he died; hearing his voice over and over and over again every day of her life since Trayvon's death; scared to go to sleep because she is sure to see Trayvon in her dreams, overeating to quell the pain, hyper, despondent, having to get up each day and work at putting one foot before the other just to get through another day which will go on for the rest of her life. Imagine that and she is only 19 now. How many years will she live? How excruciating is the power of this incident in this young woman's life. This and probably so much more!

    What of current and future friendships? How fearful is she when talking to anyone on the phone and the sounds of raised voices are heard? What flashbacks will she forever experience? What of marriage and c