Zimmerman Jury seated. Trial starts Monday. [Archive]

PA PATRIOT

06-20-13, 19:03

Woman tend to over think things especially a emotional issue such as a death of a person. I'm thinking the prosecution is going to have TM's mother and father up on the stand crying a river on how they have viciously lost their son to a gun toting racist. The moms on the jury are going to relate and this is going to hurt GZ in the long run.

Also the gun in the home jurors are a wild card since we do not know what relationship they have with their firearms. Are they the actual owners of the guns or are the guns just in the house because a spouse owns them. Do they shoot or have CCW's, are the guns only used for hunting etc.

There are many things I feel are relative to the case that the judge did not allow such as prior L/E contacts, school records on discipline, the phone and text messages and Face book posts TM made in the days leading to the shooting. These things could impact on the state of mind TM had at the time he was shot.

Also I still don't understand why MZ's lawyers didn't first go for the Stand your Ground hearing to see if the charges could be dismissed if the actions of MZ are determined to be S/D. They obviously have a judge who is sticking it to MZ by not allowing many things which would be beneficial to MZ's case and once this judge ruled on the stand your ground hearing then she could not do the trail and maybe MZ's lawyers would have a better going with a new judge.

In the end I think the all woman jury will be piss scared of possible riots and vote to convict.

Time will tell but Florida better load up with provisions just in case.

Mjolnir

06-20-13, 19:51

There are plenty of people that could care less about a person being killed but you better not harm a hair on an animal.

Hard to believe Z doesn't have a single male peer in FL though.

This whole ordeal shaped up like a reverse OJ trial from day one.

He made his bed though. Hopefully the evidence will actually decide the outcome and not become a co-written piece of fiction.

Since this is murder don't they only need one juror that has doubt?

And not a single Black person...

Cuts both ways, bro. Both ways.

-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."

Renegade

06-20-13, 19:55

And not a single Black person...

6 jurors = 16.6% per juror

Blacks are < 10% in that county. So it is within statistical norms.

Males are 50%, so statistically he should have had 2-4 males on the jury.

HackerF15E

06-20-13, 20:00

6 jurors = 16.6% per juror

Blacks are < 10% in that county. So it is within statistical norms.

Males are 50%, so statistically he should have had 2-4 males on the jury.

Remember that the jurors are picked from the 40-person pool created following the voir dire, which is a result of prosecution and defense choices. That pool does not necessarily reflect the racial and gender breakdown of the area.

Mjolnir

06-20-13, 20:12

Remember that the jurors are picked from the 40-person pool created following the voir dire, which is a result of prosecution and defense choices. That pool does not necessarily reflect the racial and gender breakdown of the area.

T
H
A
N
K

Y
O
U

-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."

tb-av

06-20-13, 21:09

And not a single Black person...

Cuts both ways, bro. Both ways.

-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."

Oh, I know... that's not going over well at all if he gets off. Also why only 6 jurors? I thought a murder trial would have 12.

PA PATRIOT

06-20-13, 21:16

Oh, I know... that's not going over well at all if he gets off. Also why only 6 jurors? I thought a murder trial would have 12.

Its only murder two so no chance of the death penalty so six jurors only in FL.

Palmguy

06-20-13, 21:25

Oh, I know... that's not going over well at all if he gets off. Also why only 6 jurors? I thought a murder trial would have 12.

Only capital murder (in Florida, at least). GZ is charged with 2nd degree murder.

SHIVAN

06-20-13, 22:11

SteyrAUG

06-20-13, 22:49

In the end I think the all woman jury will be piss scared of possible riots and vote to convict.

Time will tell but Florida better load up with provisions just in case.

I'm ready to go "game on."

FromMyColdDeadHand

06-21-13, 00:28

Don't talk to the cops after a shooting till you talk with a lawyer....

Iraqgunz

06-21-13, 00:58

We all know this was a politically motivated prosecution. I am no lawyer but I believe that the defense has several things in it's favor.

1. The Florida statute for stand your ground is clear. Unless they can prove that Zimmerman acted illegally or wasn't legally allowed to be there they are going to have a hard time convicting.

2. I don't think that they filed a motion for dismissal unless I missed it. That was wrong in my opinion as it may have been a way to poke holes in the prosecutions case.

3. Jury instructions will be a big factor I believe. Depending on how that goes it could be good or bad.

4. I think the prosecution screwed the pooch with 2nd degree murder. Manslaughter (maybe), but I don't think it will pass the smell test.

5. Ultimately GZ will be the only real witness to take the stand. If he can tell the story well, then he has a good chance of swaying the jury.

Moose-Knuckle

06-21-13, 01:46

I'm ready to go "game on."

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a144/AKS-74/riots_zps5e863f18.jpg (http://s10.photobucket.com/user/AKS-74/media/riots_zps5e863f18.jpg.html)

Caeser25

06-21-13, 06:23

they have to convict as per the affiadavit 2D murder. Good luck proving that

Good luck trying to get the sex that typically thinks with their heart and not the brain to understand the difference.

Eurodriver

06-21-13, 07:35

I'm sorry, but I think those ladies are going to empathize with someone wanting to watch out for their neighborhood, getting beat up for his troubles and then having to kill his attacker.

At least one of them will, I think....

I'd love to believe this - and some women would for sure buy that. I know my mom would (and she's not political AT ALL. In fact, she's the "Democrats help me because I'm poor" poster child) but the truth is many women equate people like GZ as a "gun toting vigilante" and all the prosecution has to do is "What if it was your son...just buying some candy?"

Since the @no_limit_nigga life of Trayvon isn't allowed in testimony I think GZ is screwed.

Good luck trying to get the sex that typically thinks with their heart and not the brain to understand the difference.

Then there is this.

randolph

06-21-13, 08:10

Traveshamockery

06-21-13, 08:12

The defense better to all in with the irrational emotional appeals to get Z acquitted. The terror of being attacked by an unknown stranger in his neighborhood, his family and friends flashing before his eyes, his abject fear that he was moments from bring killed.

Eurodriver

06-21-13, 08:58

I watch too much Law & Order so I have to ask :p

if po' little Trayvons parents (or anyone else) gets on the stand and start talking about what a little angel he was, cannot the defence bring into evidence that he was actually a little turd on rebuttel ?

I believe you are correct, this video answers your question 100%.

Basically, the judge has ruled his marijuana use and school records inadmissible however if the prosecution mentions his character these items can be admitted.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/2484462513001/caution-over-how-prosecution-and-defense-portray-trayvon/

montanadave

06-21-13, 09:20

I believe you are correct, this video answers your question 100%.

Basically, the judge has ruled his marijuana use and school records inadmissible however if the prosecution mentions his character these items can be admitted.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/2484462513001/caution-over-how-prosecution-and-defense-portray-trayvon/

I have little doubt that this trial will mushroom into such a circus that the Kardashians will end up testifying. By comparison, the O.J. trial is going to look like a model of judicial and prosecutorial discretion.

I think I'll just wait for the Lifetime movie.

tb-av

06-21-13, 09:23

I saw the defense lawyer on the news some time ago and he basically said , if they bring any of that up he is more than prepared with the "rest of the story" as Paul Harvey would say. In fact I imagine he hopes they do go down that road.

I hope whatever happens that there is so much evidence that only one reasonable decision can be made.

Eurodriver

06-21-13, 09:26

http://www.baynews9.com/content/news/baynews9/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2013/6/21/george_zimmerman_tri_0.html

Just another nail in GZ's coffin:

Judge Nelson said the state is allowed to say that Zimmerman "profiled" Martin, but the state agreed to stay away from saying the black teenager was "racially profiled."

Prosecutors can also say that Zimmerman initiated the neighborhood watch at the Retreat at Twin Lakes subdivision, and that he was appointed captain.

The judge also allowed the following terms the defense sought to ban:

"Vigilante"
"Wannabe cop"
He "got out of the car after police (or dispatcher) told him not to"
He "confronted" Trayvon Martin.

So now we have a prosecution telling a jury of 6 women that "a wannabe cop profiled a 17 year old buying candy, confronted him after police told him to stay in his car, and then shot him in the chest"

...and you guys think he will walk? Yeah right. GZ is getting 25 years. I can't imagine what is going through his mind right now.

markm

06-21-13, 09:27

Eurodriver

06-21-13, 09:39

What, EXACTLY, is Zimbo charged with? They ain't getting a MURDER conviction if that's what they're after. Not even with several dizzy broads on the jury.

It wasn't murder... I thing Zimmerman screwed up and might be guilty of something... but not murder. :confused:

He is charged with 2nd Degree Murder.

(2) The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(3) When a human being is killed during the perpetration of, or during the attempt to perpetrate, any:
(a) Trafficking offense prohibited by s. 893.135(1),
(b) Arson,
(c) Sexual battery,
(d) Robbery,
(e) Burglary,
(f) Kidnapping,
(g) Escape,
(h) Aggravated child abuse,
(i) Aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult,
(j) Aircraft piracy,
(k) Unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb,
(l) Carjacking,
(m) Home-invasion robbery,
(n) Aggravated stalking,
(o) Murder of another human being,
(p) Aggravated fleeing or eluding with serious bodily injury or death,
(q) Resisting an officer with violence to his or her person, or
(r) Felony that is an act of terrorism or is in furtherance of an act of terrorism,

by a person other than the person engaged in the perpetration of or in the attempt to perpetrate such felony, the person perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate such felony commits murder in the second degree, which constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

I think the state would have had much more success charging GZ with voluntary manslaughter. Instead of posting the direct Florida Statute:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_manslaughter

Imperfect self-defense

In some jurisdictions, malice can also be negated by imperfect self-defense. Self-defense is considered imperfect when the killer acted from his belief in the necessity for self-defense, but that belief was not reasonable under the circumstances. If the belief in self-defense were reasonable, then the killing would be considered justified and not unlawful. Where the belief is unreasonable, the homicide is considered to be voluntary manslaughter.

I believe the prosecution could have proven the bolded portion beyond a reasonable doubt to any jury.

markm

06-21-13, 09:48

I think the state would have had much more success charging GZ with voluntary manslaughter.

I agree. I think Alan Dirchowitz made the same point early on in this witch hunt.

tb-av

06-21-13, 09:55

What is ..... (n) Aggravated stalking, ?

Seem like that is the only remote possibility from that list. He clearly doesn't apply to any others.

...and wouldn't even basic stalking require some repetitive actions over a longer time period?

I don't see how this can even be a trial under that list.

PA PATRIOT

06-21-13, 10:07

The defense will have multiple grounds for appeal if MZ gets convicted on any charge, every defense lawyer interviewed on the news stations are screaming about the judges rulings on all the defense monitions.

The defense could have had a different judge for the trail if they just moved for a Stand your Ground hearing with the appointed trail judge. Under the Florida trail rules after the trial judge issued a ruling on the stand your ground hearing she would have to recluse herself from the trial.

A bit mistake on the defenses part I think.

williejc

06-21-13, 11:52

If the jury acquits, prepare for riots and big ones. 100% certainty.

THCDDM4

06-21-13, 12:02

I believe GZ is innocent of murder given the limited facts I am aware of.

That being said- there isn't much of a chance GZ isn't going to burn for this. Even with his defense having some good tools to work with.

The media/POTUS/public already had him pegged as guilty prior to him posting bail.

This one will be interesting to watch.

Riots for sure if he is found not guilty. No way around it really.

Iraqgunz

06-21-13, 12:21

The police didn't tell him anything. A dispatcher told him. Also, I believe that he was already out of the vehicle and on foot.

http://www.baynews9.com/content/news/baynews9/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2013/6/21/george_zimmerman_tri_0.html

Just another nail in GZ's coffin:

So now we have a prosecution telling a jury of 6 women that "a wannabe cop profiled a 17 year old buying candy, confronted him after police told him to stay in his car, and then shot him in the chest"

...and you guys think he will walk? Yeah right. GZ is getting 25 years. I can't imagine what is going through his mind right now.

Eurodriver

06-21-13, 12:40

The police didn't tell him anything. A dispatcher told him. Also, I believe that he was already out of the vehicle and on foot.

Tell that to the judge. I'm just quoting what she is allowing into evidence/trial.

Direct from what she is allowing:

He "got out of the car after police (or dispatcher) told him not to"

HackerF15E

06-21-13, 13:08

Tell that to the judge. I'm just quoting what she is allowing into evidence/trial.

Direct from what she is allowing:

He "got out of the car after police (or dispatcher) told him not to"

Don't mix up what the judge is allowing to be said with the jury's requirement to meet certain burdens of proof to find guilt.

They are very separate thresholds.

The defense attorney was trying to get those phrases barred from use on the grounds that they were defamatory and prejudicial to Zimmerman.

The judge's ruling is simply that use of those phrases isn't unfairly prejudicial.

It is NOT a ruling that is what happened, nor a validation that any part of those statements are true and correct.

If the prosecuton wants to argue that Zimmerman disobeyed an order, or whatever other silly arguments based on that, they can. The defense is quite welcome to counter that argument with whatever evidence or witnesses they so choose. Ultimately it is up to the jury to evaluate those arguments' merits amongst all the other arguments compared to the required burden of proof.

I agree with what IG says: when a dispatcher says, "we don't need you to do that", it is neither a direction, nor does it come from someone that a citizen is compelled to obey. It is a red herring that the prosecution (and Ben Crump) have been throwing around to distract from the actual issue at hand.

The real question will be if lower offenses, like voluntary or involuntary manslaughter are allowed in the jury instructions.

Iraqgunz

06-21-13, 13:43

I agree. If the she says in the instructions that you may find the defendant guilty of the lesser charge of voluntary or involuntary manslaughter that could make a significant impact on my they decide.

Don't mix up what the judge is allowing to be said with the jury's requirement to meet certain burdens of proof to find guilt.

They are very separate thresholds.

The defense attorney was trying to get those phrases barred from use on the grounds that they were defamatory and prejudicial to Zimmerman.

The judge's ruling is simply that use of those phrases isn't unfairly prejudicial.

It is NOT a ruling that is what happened, nor a validation that any part of those statements are true and correct.

If the prosecuton wants to argue that Zimmerman disobeyed an order, or whatever other silly arguments based on that, they can. The defense is quite welcome to counter that argument with whatever evidence or witnesses they so choose. Ultimately it is up to the jury to evaluate those arguments' merits amongst all the other arguments compared to the required burden of proof.

I agree with what IG says: when a dispatcher says, "we don't need you to do that", it is neither a direction, nor does it come from someone that a citizen is compelled to obey. It is a red herring that the prosecution (and Ben Crump) have been throwing around to distract from the actual issue at hand.

The real question will be if lower offenses, like voluntary or involuntary manslaughter are allowed in the jury instructions.

SteyrAUG

06-21-13, 14:07

If the jury acquits, prepare for riots and big ones. 100% certainty.

Sounds to me like lots more "Stand your Ground" opportunities.

markm

06-21-13, 14:09

Sounds to me like lots more "Stand your Ground" opportunities.

It'll be worse than the White riots after OJ got off!! :eek:

Mjolnir

06-21-13, 14:41

Oh, I know... that's not going over well at all if he gets off. Also why only 6 jurors? I thought a murder trial would have 12.

What many don't realize is that BOTH "sides" are being manipulated for mass effect.

There are existing racial issues in that community - including the police department.

Looks like the timing is "perfect"...

-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."

FromMyColdDeadHand

06-21-13, 15:02

An un armed kid got shot and someone has to pay is an argument that will be tough for six twits to ignore. Plus, if they acquit, they have to go back and live in that neighborhood.

Carried by six or judged by six starts to look a lot more like a draw when you put all the headwind GZ is going to face.

I bet he wishes he had taken his mother's name.....

SteyrAUG

06-21-13, 15:32

Mjolnir

06-21-13, 15:34

I bet he wishes he had taken his mother's name.....

Nah, I bet he wishes he would have sat his ass in his vehicle.

I surely would not have gotten out and pursued him.

How many would have felt threatened if you were walking in your parents' neighborhood and you were being followed by a suspicious character?

Had he run up on me he could have been the one lying in the grass.

Perspectives.

-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."

SteyrAUG

06-21-13, 16:18

Nah, I bet he wishes he would have sat his ass in his vehicle.

I surely would not have gotten out and pursued him.

How many would have felt threatened if you were walking in your parents' neighborhood and you were being followed by a suspicious character?

Had he run up on me he could have been the one lying in the grass.

Perspectives.

-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."

I can take that one. Been there LOTS of times, especially when I returned home from school and the local "security dudes" didn't recognize me.

I also dressed pretty sketchy and liked to wear all black in the evening so I looked like a good "B&E" candidate.

In every single instance, probably as many as two dozen, I understood that this was a neighborhood security watch that my parents paid for and that they were "looking out" for my parents neighborhood.

So when they asked who I was I told them. When they asked for an address, I told them. I found it takes about 90 seconds to get a neighborhood watch guy satisfied and I was on my way to where ever I was going.

Of course I didn't spend that time being "confrontational" or seeing how many times I could say "**** you."

And are you really advocating "deadly force" for anyone who runs up to you? Certainly you should be prepared to defend yourself (up to and including the use of deadly force) but that isn't a shooting situation by itself.

Again for the record, we don't know who did what.

If Martin was doing NOTHING wrong and simply coming home from the store that is not a crime.

If Zimmerman only questioned Martin he did NOTHING wrong and that is not a crime.

Both are perfectly acceptable and reasonable things and neither is justification for any kind of violence.

But at some point one of them attacked the other. Whoever attacked the other person is the criminal and started the problem regardless of who was shot.

We need to know who attacked the other person because it wasn't started because "somebody was walking home" or because "somebody asked a person some questions."

Palmguy

06-21-13, 16:55

Mjolnir

06-21-13, 17:11

I can take that one. Been there LOTS of times, especially when I returned home from school and the local "security dudes" didn't recognize me.

I also dressed pretty sketchy and liked to wear all black in the evening so I looked like a good "B&E" candidate.

In every single instance, probably as many as two dozen, I understood that this was a neighborhood security watch that my parents paid for and that they were "looking out" for my parents neighborhood.

So when they asked who I was I told them. When they asked for an address, I told them. I found it takes about 90 seconds to get a neighborhood watch guy satisfied and I was on my way to where ever I was going.

Of course I didn't spend that time being "confrontational" or seeing how many times I could say "**** you."

And are you really advocating "deadly force" for anyone who runs up to you? Certainly you should be prepared to defend yourself (up to and including the use of deadly force) but that isn't a shooting situation by itself.

Again for the record, we don't know who did what.

If Martin was doing NOTHING wrong and simply coming home from the store that is not a crime.

If Zimmerman only questioned Martin he did NOTHING wrong and that is not a crime.

Both are perfectly acceptable and reasonable things and neither is justification for any kind of violence.

But at some point one of them attacked the other. Whoever attacked the other person is the criminal and started the problem regardless of who was shot.

We need to know who attacked the other person because it wasn't started because "somebody was walking home" or because "somebody asked a person some questions."

My point is (and many try to dodge it in this case) Z was also "suspicious" as we have a strange guy following another guy who is apparently walking to his parents' home while talking on the phone with his girlfriend. Are we to think nothing of that?

If I'm minding my business walking in my neighborhood and you (understood you) are following me while on the phone I'll not be "nice and kind" to you. Especially if the "creeper" isn't obviously LE.

Had he kept his ass in the vehicle he would not be in his predicament. End of story. Only YOU can control YOU.

Calling 911 80 times in a month (something like that) makes him look like one odd ass individual "playing cop". Tray is what a huge percentage of teens around me (Black, White and Latino) seem to be: "fronting" or trying to appear "hard" such that they appear "manly". Mildly dangerous? Some of them make the appearance of being so but so would a short little Hispanic dude - regardless of dress - following me around as I walked in the rain. How some of you don't get that is puzzling to me.

-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."

Mjolnir

06-21-13, 17:13

It's not a matter of fact that Zimmerman "ran up on" Martin. According to him, he was returning to his vehicle.

That's what he says. Trayvon's girlfriend claims Trayvon ran away from him.

Had he kept his ass planted in Te seat of his vehicle no one would be discussing this then "non-event".

Care to elaborate?

While the economy collapses, police are becoming highly militarized, DHS sits on mountains of ammo, we are starting another war on a non-threatening nation and then we have a case that is politically charged and "automatically" decisive. And the summer has only just begun...

-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."

SteyrAUG

06-21-13, 17:29

My point is (and many try to dodge it in this case) Z was also "suspicious" as we have a strange guy following another guy who is apparently walking to his parents' home while talking on the phone with his girlfriend. Are we to think nothing of that?

Those facts are not in evidence. Zimmerman acting "suspicious" is an assumption on your part.

If I'm minding my business walking in my neighborhood and you (understood you) are following me while on the phone I'll not be "nice and kind" to you. Especially if the "creeper" isn't obviously LE.

So if you one day live in a community with a security patrol it is your intention to be confrontational and aggressive with them?

Had he kept his ass in the vehicle he would not be in his predicament. End of story. Only YOU can control YOU.

And had everyone done that all year long, all of the violent crimes that were PREVENTED or INTERRUPTED by various security / neighborhood watch programs would have continued to their final conclusion.

Calling 911 80 times in a month (something like that) makes him look like one odd ass individual "playing cop". Tray is what a huge percentage of teens around me (Black, White and Latino) seem to be: "fronting" or trying to appear "hard" such that they appear "manly". Mildly dangerous? Some of them make the appearance of being so but so would a short little Hispanic dude - regardless of dress - following me around as I walked in the rain. How some of you don't get that is puzzling to me.

That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. The entire purpose of a neighborhood watch program is to "look for" suspicious and / or criminal activity and then call 911 and report it.

If you happened to live in that neighborhood and Zimmerman happened to report a suspicious individual loitering near your property and the police arrived and arrested a person with a criminal history of home invasion, robbery and rape I'm sure you'd have a different opinion.

But all of this is besides the point.

AGAIN, there is nothing wrong with walking home from the store and there is nothing wrong with a neighborhood watch checking somebody out. Neither action is justification for violence or even a bad attitude.

What is important is at sometime during the encounter either Martin or Zimmerman crossed a line and started a confrontation and one of them assaulted the other person. THAT is where a crime was committed. Now we simply need to determine who was the criminal.

Eurodriver

06-21-13, 17:30

My point is (and many try to dodge it in this case) Z was also "suspicious" as we have a strange guy following another guy who is apparently walking to his parents' home while talking on the phone with his girlfriend. Are we to think nothing of that?

If I'm minding my business walking in my neighborhood and you (understood you) are following me while on the phone I'll not be "nice and kind" to you. Especially if the "creeper" isn't obviously LE.

Had he kept his ass in the vehicle he would not be in his predicament. End of story. Only YOU can control YOU.

Calling 911 80 times in a month (something like that) makes him look like one odd ass individual "playing cop". Tray is what a huge percentage of teens around me (Black, White and Latino) seem to be: "fronting" or trying to appear "hard" such that they appear "manly". Mildly dangerous? Some of them make the appearance of being so but so would a short little Hispanic dude - regardless of dress - following me around as I walked in the rain. How some of you don't get that is puzzling to me.

-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."

Did he commit a crime by getting out of his vehicle?

Did he commit a crime by asking TM anything?

And what do you think was more likely:

GZ attacked TM first or TM attacked GZ first? (I'm asking what you think. Just guess)

SteyrAUG

06-21-13, 17:35

Had he kept his ass planted in Te seat of his vehicle no one would be discussing this then "non-event".

You keep wanting to blame the security patrol for asking questions as if that is some kind of crime. It reminds me of that "he be disrespecting me" bullshit some scumbags used as justification for assault.

Security patrols and neighborhood watch are ALLOWED to ask people questions about what they are up to and doing if they believe they are acting suspiciously. That is NOT a crime.

Now IF the security patrol decides to try and forcibly detain you and you have done nothing wrong THEN they have crossed the line and you may defend yourself.

But you aren't allowed to attack them for simply checking you out and asking questions. You are certainly allowed to say "none of your business" and keep walking but them asking isn't a crime and it isn't justification for assault.

SteyrAUG

06-21-13, 17:36

Did he commit a crime by getting out of his vehicle?

Did he commit a crime by asking TM anything?

And what do you think was more likely:

GZ attacked TM first or TM attacked GZ first? (I'm asking what you think. Just guess)

Thank God somebody else gets it. I seriously cannot have this conversation...again.

davidjinks

06-21-13, 17:37

With that being said (In red), that could also be a huge negative effect on Zimmerman's trial.

What many don't realize is that BOTH "sides" are being manipulated for mass effect.

There are existing racial issues in that community - including the police department.

Looks like the timing is "perfect"...

-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."

davidjinks

06-21-13, 17:41

My personal opinion:

No crime was committed by getting out of his car.

No crime was committed by asking questions.

I personally believe that the young Martin had to show his alpha male role and attacked the man who questioned him.

Being part of a fairly close community, it isn't uncommon at all for neighbors to question unknown people walking around the neighborhood.

Did he commit a crime by getting out of his vehicle?

Did he commit a crime by asking TM anything?

And what do you think was more likely:

GZ attacked TM first or TM attacked GZ first? (I'm asking what you think. Just guess)

Moose-Knuckle

06-21-13, 17:49

Mabye there is some hope yet . . .

Jose Baez (defense attorney for Casey Anthony) said today that, "this is a defenses dream jury".

Also, Susan Constantine, a jury consultant was in the courtroom as the jury was selected. She was interviewed today on America Live, to date she is the only person commenting on the jury pool/selection who was actually there.

(scroll down for video of interview)
http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/06/21/will-all-female-jury-impact-george-zimmerman-trial#ixzz2WtSqIMjd

Moose-Knuckle

06-21-13, 17:50

It'll be worse than the White riots after OJ got off!! :eek:

:lol::lol::lol:

RWK

06-21-13, 18:43

I have little doubt that this trial will mushroom into such a circus that the Kardashians will end up testifying.

Yep: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/06/21/zimmerman-jury-homogenous-dangerous/?test=latestnews

Here's a sampling: "This jury needed at least one African-American jury member, and one male. The selected panel can certainly be “impartial,” but because previous racially charged trials focused on the jury, the Zimmerman trial attorneys should have been aware of how the make-up could impact responses outside of the courtroom and, potentially, to the safety of the jurors."

T2C

06-21-13, 19:08

I learned a long time ago that the only thing you can predict about juries is that they are unpredictable.

Moose-Knuckle

06-21-13, 19:20

I learned a long time ago that the only thing you can predict about juries is that they are unpredictable.

I can think of nothing more freighting that to have my life in the hands of six or twelve mindless sheep.

SteyrAUG

06-21-13, 20:52

I can think of nothing more freighting that to have my life in the hands of six or twelve mindless sheep.

No kidding. Especially since specific knowledge of the law or elements of the factors involved in the case typically get you excluded.

Mjolnir

06-21-13, 21:10

You keep wanting to blame the security patrol for asking questions as if that is some kind of crime. It reminds me of that "he be disrespecting me" bullshit some scumbags used as justification for assault.

Security patrols and neighborhood watch are ALLOWED to ask people questions about what they are up to and doing if they believe they are acting suspiciously. That is NOT a crime.

Now IF the security patrol decides to try and forcibly detain you and you have done nothing wrong THEN they have crossed the line and you may defend yourself.

But you aren't allowed to attack them for simply checking you out and asking questions. You are certainly allowed to say "none of your business" and keep walking but them asking isn't a crime and it isn't justification for assault.

Are we ASSUMING that he was attacked or do you KNOW it?

See, I can play too.

As far as "being allowed to ask questions" I have a RIGHT not to answer you. If you are LE show your creds and I'll kindly assist you, wish you well and move on my merry way.

Just because you may be a part of neighborhood patrol grants you what? Beans. You observe and you report. Been on BOTH sides of that, brother. There are those who are confrontational when interacting with people while they patrolled and it NEVER goes well. Got so bad (to me) I quit. Not more than a year later two guys got there asses handed to them in the most approved bulldog fashion because "everyone who looked like them" 'just had to be up to no good'. Just like "Z" they called 911 LITERALLY every freaking day. Nothing came of ANY of their calls.

"Look for a snake find a snake." They did and Z did. If he was getting his ass handed to him he may have been lucky to have had a pistol. Either way he's learned his lesson: IF U AREN'T A COP DON'T PRETEND TO POLICE.

I watch the youth around me - especially in the summer as the runts don't work and as the sun begins to cast long shadows they hang out. I've photographed them and I take notes of who goes where and I've managed to get a plate or four. If I have any issues I can hand over a photo with a "positive" ID. I don't get paid to pursue anyone. You can do as you please. Just be assured that everyone's threat threshold is different. What you may constitute as a threat may not so much as garner a second look AND VICE VERSA. That's common sense. Live a bit on the street and you learn a lot. New Orleans, Atlanta, Detroit have imprinted a lot on me: like leave strange people the Hell alone.

-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."

williejc

06-21-13, 21:37

SteyrAUG

06-21-13, 22:01

Are we ASSUMING that he was attacked or do you KNOW it?

See, I can play too.

No we are not. I pretty well covered this earlier.

Somebody started it, but we don't know which one.

From my Page 3 reply to you.

Again for the record, we don't know who did what.

If Martin was doing NOTHING wrong and simply coming home from the store that is not a crime.

If Zimmerman only questioned Martin he did NOTHING wrong and that is not a crime.

Both are perfectly acceptable and reasonable things and neither is justification for any kind of violence.

But at some point one of them attacked the other. Whoever attacked the other person is the criminal and started the problem regardless of who was shot.

We need to know who attacked the other person because it wasn't started because "somebody was walking home" or because "somebody asked a person some questions."

And later on...

AGAIN, there is nothing wrong with walking home from the store and there is nothing wrong with a neighborhood watch checking somebody out. Neither action is justification for violence or even a bad attitude.

What is important is at sometime during the encounter either Martin or Zimmerman crossed a line and started a confrontation and one of them assaulted the other person. THAT is where a crime was committed. Now we simply need to determine who was the criminal.

SteyrAUG

06-21-13, 22:04

As far as "being allowed to ask questions" I have a RIGHT not to answer you.

Amazing, you just said essentially what I said if you took the time to read it.

From the post you just replied to...

But you aren't allowed to attack them for simply checking you out and asking questions. You are certainly allowed to say "none of your business" and keep walking but them asking isn't a crime and it isn't justification for assault.

This is why I just can't have this conversation again. People don't even take the time to read what is being said.

FromMyColdDeadHand

06-21-13, 22:14

Mjolnir

06-21-13, 22:28

From having worked with inner city kids, I can give this information that perhaps some of you may be able to use. These folks fight and sometimes kill each other over direct eye contact, facial expressions, and other body language. One reason that I was successful as a correctional employee was that I knew this lingo by heart and could employ it as part of my verbal judo--mainly by avoiding certain phrases and ignoring others.

What might irritate the preppy kid could very well enrage the ghetto guy if he perceives(falsely or not)that he's being punked out. Eye contact for more than a glance is called mugging. Big sin. Smiling at somebody else. Bang. It goes on and on.

Go into an inner city elementary school and stare at a little kid. He'll likely ask you what the **** is wrong, asshole.

Exactly. Most of us here live relatively privileged lives compared to inner city, trailer park and reservation dwellers.

It's stupid to assume "one size fits all" here on a web board but it could be dangerous where the "rubber meets the road".

We ASSUME that Z did everything correctly. I he did we'd not know his name and Tray could be doing whatever the Hades he had been doing - good, bad and/or indifferent.

We are all responsible for our actions. It's like the kid who was punched in the mouth and is now crying. The other kid should not have punched him but I'm AWFULLY CURIOUS what he was up to just prior to getting hit. He may have been "innocent" or he may have FULLY asked for it.

Again, had he sat his butt in his vehicle he would not likely have had to defend himself. So I stick to my guns, pun intended, that "Zim has learned his lesson the hard way." I'd you could ask him and he were to be honest he'd tell you as much - and he will do just that after this is over no matter the outcome.

-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."

SHIVAN

06-21-13, 22:59

Iraqgunz

06-22-13, 00:22

I see some of the usual suspects are arguing semantics again as the usually do instead of trying to apply a little bit of reason.

Mjolnir

06-22-13, 06:36

You know who is more believable? George Zimmerman.

I don't identify with him, with his reported outlook on life, aspirations, or anything else. I don't see anything in GZ that I see in myself, but his story sounds more believable than the corollary arguments being laid out. In fact, it seemed so believable that it had him out free for quite some time, before it become a racially motivated sideshow.

That police department had serious racial issues prior to the unfortunate meeting. So I'm not entirely sure your point. If there were no racial or very little racial tensions and it happened I'd readily concede your point.

So it was a "racial sideshow" - the community & the Sanford police department (but it always goes higher than that; behavior is accepted, sanctioned and ultimately nurtured it to become endemic). Same with any organization. The place I'm employed with has a bullying issue with management. Pathetic environment in some areas of the place.

-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."

Crow Hunter

06-22-13, 07:44

We are all responsible for our actions. It's like the kid who was punched in the mouth and is now crying. The other kid should not have punched him but I'm AWFULLY CURIOUS what he was up to just prior to getting hit. He may have been "innocent" or he may have FULLY asked for it.

This is where you and I disagree.

No one "asks for it".

Violence should only be used in self defense. No matter what racist, aggressive, or hurtful thing was said, you don't punch someone in the mouth unless they have physically attacked you. There is no moral or lawful justification for physically assaulting anyone.

I think, therein lies the issue at hand, and one of the reasons I disagree with the Judge leaving out evidence of Treyvon's past. Non-"thug culture" people would respond to "Hey kid, where are you going?" with "I am going to my parents house" or "None of your business". Members of the "thug culture", however, would see this as a sign of "he be disrespecting me" and attempt to show their physical dominance over someone who would dare to question him.

Whether that happened or not, I don't know but if the evidence of GZ's "wannabe cop" status is allowed in evidence, then TM's "wannabe thug" status should also be allowed in evidence.

Otherwise the case should revolve around just the moment in time in which the fight and then shooting took place looking only at the evidence of who threw the first punch.

In my opinion only allowing the background of only one member of the altercation is leaning heavily towards railroading.

Mjolnir

06-22-13, 08:16

This is where you and I disagree.

No one "asks for it".

Violence should only be used in self defense. No matter what racist, aggressive, or hurtful thing was said, you don't punch someone in the mouth unless they have physically attacked you. There is no moral or lawful justification for physically assaulting anyone.

I think, therein lies the issue at hand, and one of the reasons I disagree with the Judge leaving out evidence of Treyvon's past. Non-"thug culture" people would respond to "Hey kid, where are you going?" with "I am going to my parents house" or "None of your business". Members of the "thug culture", however, would see this as a sign of "he be disrespecting me" and attempt to show their physical dominance over someone who would dare to question him.

Whether that happened or not, I don't know but if the evidence of GZ's "wannabe cop" status is allowed in evidence, then TM's "wannabe thug" status should also be allowed in evidence.

Otherwise the case should revolve around just the moment in time in which the fight and then shooting took place looking only at the evidence of who threw the first punch.

In my opinion only allowing the background of only one member of the altercation is leaning heavily towards railroading.

Everyone knows Trayvon's life - the photos, marijuana, "the hoodie".

There are other gems in Z's past - police contact; the crazy amount of 911 calls. What I don't wish to be attacked is the common sense "stand your ground" concept.

I am well aware of the bravado/false bravado of teens - I see it in plenty of white teens where I am and I see the posturing amongst themselves and with others. But we forget that we are ASSUMING a lot and we all KNOW that if Z had not got on foot this would not have happened.

We only control ourselves at the end of the day.

As far as asking for it. I will beg to differ. I can agitate u to the point you hit me. And I may very well DESERVE it. I am a Southerner. We leave people the Hades alone and we never argue with strangers.

-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."

ForTehNguyen

06-22-13, 08:45

SHIVAN

06-22-13, 10:50

That police department had serious racial issues prior to the unfortunate meeting. So I'm not entirely sure your point. If there were no racial or very little racial tensions and it happened I'd readily concede your point.

So it was a "racial sideshow" - the community & the Sanford police department (but it always goes higher than that; behavior is accepted, sanctioned and ultimately nurtured it to become endemic).

From recollection, there were a series of folks who thought no charges should be filed. Including, initially, the DA there. There was one guy who had a hard-on for GZ and, again from recollection, thought that they should charge him and let a grand jury figure it out.

Then, it hit the NATIONAL news. OMG.....OMG....a black kid was killed holding skittles and Arizona tea....OMG....with the pictures of a 10yr old Trayvon shown around, like that is the kid who was killed.

There were no photos of the 17yr old Trayvon, because apparently all of THOSE photos show a thuggish looking juvenile with the paperwork "cred" to back up the look. Like some lingering charges of possession of weed, tools of theft, etc, etc.

The story was being molded on a NATIONAL level, and intense pressure was being put on people there.

It turned in to a racially charge sideshow at the behest of NBC/ABC/CBS and Obama, et al.... Remember, it wasn't some Sanford official who coined "If I had a son...."

Mjolnir

06-22-13, 12:17

Actually that photo was from his freshman or sophomore year in high school. He matured a lot from the time of the photo no doubt.

One thing that u did not mention - what role is his father play in the DA/LE meetings? I don't recall all details as this remains a "case of what we are NOT to do" is that his father is a retired magistrate and WAS involved (as would u or I if it were our child) somehow prior to the case becoming national.

Either way, it sucks to be EITHER Zim or Tray.

-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."

Mjolnir

06-22-13, 12:20

the biggest thing I see is after GZ lost sight of TM, there was a 3-4 minute window where TM is unaccounted for. At this point TM was just 1 minute away from the house he was staying at. Was this not enough time for him to get to his house? How did GZ suddenly find him again or did TM find him?

I've not gone through those details but if you're correct it is very interesting, indeed. We will never know for sure as all we have is Zim and Tray's girlfriend.

Of course, we could petition the NSA...

LOL!

-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."

Singlestack Wonder

06-22-13, 15:29

Judge announced today that the testimony of examiners who reviewed the 911 call will be excluded. Two different experts (one for the prosecution and one for the defense) had different opinions as to whether it was Zimmerman or Martin screaming on the call.

SHIVAN

06-22-13, 18:40

Initially, this was reported as Trayvon Martin:

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/jamesfallows/assets_c/2012/03/Trayvon-Martin-thumb-250x311-82069.jpg

Whether he was 10, or 13, at the time of the above photo is mostly irrelevant. It was spin doctoring to get people pissed off and demanding something be done, even though a whole slew of investigators and street cops seemed to think it was a justified homicide.

The pictures below is who George Zimmerman shot in the chest after taking a beatdown:

http://cdn.abclocal.go.com/images/kabc/cms_exf_2007/_video_wn_images/8666692_600x338.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-5iXNMDlxkFU/T3I4kC-M-PI/AAAAAAAAALs/gynod4539dU/s1600/Trayvon+Martin+at+17
http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/tm.jpg

SHIVAN

06-22-13, 18:47

I'm no expert, but the clerk in the 7-11 looks nervous during this transaction..

http://newsone.com/2016203/trayvon-martin-7-11/

GeorgiaBoy

06-22-13, 18:47

SHIVAN

06-22-13, 18:57

I could not care less what color any of the idiots in this case are, to be honest.

Fact is, the way the media, Obama, and all the others revved this up was through race and a portrayal of a 20-something WHITE vigilante killing an unarmed BLACK kid...

Then they show a picture of an immature 10-13 year old....so everyone knee jerks....OMG....OMG....

Then it comes out Zimmerman's not really "white" or a vigilante. Oh yeah, and the "kid" is 6'2" and a bit of a roughneck thug.... GZ was supposed to be there, observing and calling in suspicious people/events. In the process of doing what he was tasked to do, he caught a beatdown.

Not a single person, evidence or anything else points to GZ making this a physical altercation, and his story never seemed to waiver - -despite new evidence being presented, new recordings, testimony etc. Trayvon Martin has all the offensive hand injuries -- as well as one hole in his chest. GZ has all submissive injuries, commensurate with being mounted and beatdown...head against concrete. Which is considered deadly force.

Can anyone elaborate what GZ might have said that could have given TM any legal leeway to make their interaction physical in nature??
The "N" word? Telling him to get out of his 'hood? How did it go down in your mind? Illustrate the alternative story for us so I understand...

Thanks.

Eurodriver

06-22-13, 18:58

Since Trayvon was the unarmed victim that was shot, I am not surprised the media would use better, non-"thuggish" pictures of him. And I'm sure that if he was white they would do the exact same thing.

I'm sorry, you said "victim"?

Can't wait to find you one night and start beating your ass while I'm unarmed.

GeorgiaBoy

06-22-13, 19:06

Can't wait to find you one night and start beating your ass while I'm unarmed.

Umm.. ok dude... :rolleyes:

vic·tim [ víktim ]
somebody hurt or killed: somebody who is hurt or killed by somebody or something, especially in a crime, accident, or disaster
somebody or something harmed: somebody who or something that is adversely affected by an action or circumstance

SHIVAN

06-22-13, 19:16

Victim:

http://www.blacknews.com/images/george_zimmerman_injury.jpg
http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1212576.1354571421!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/article-trayvon-4-1203.jpg
http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1064773.1334928859!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/zimmerman21n-2-web.jpg

Moose-Knuckle

06-22-13, 19:21

Since Trayvon was the unarmed victim that was shot, I am not surprised the media would use better, non-"thuggish" pictures of him.

:lol:

And I'm sure that if he was white they would do the exact same thing.

I take it that you missed this then . . . (one of many)

Meanwhile Cleveland Anthony Murdock (a black man) who shot and killed Patrick Lavoie (a white man) who hadn't even physically touched him yet has yet to be arrested.

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2010-09-16/news/fl-pompano-fatal-shooting-20100915_1_man-shot-apparent-road-rage-incident-drunken-driver

There is no racial bias of course in comparing these two shootings.

SteyrAUG

06-22-13, 19:35

Since Trayvon was the unarmed victim that was shot, I am not surprised the media would use better, non-"thuggish" pictures of him. And I'm sure that if he was white they would do the exact same thing.

Cleveland Anthony Murdock shot and killed an UNARMED white man who hadn't even physically touched him. He wasn't even arrested. The media didn't even have to bother finding any pictures of him in order to influence the story.

GeorgiaBoy

06-22-13, 19:43

[B][I][U]Victim:

Sure, he's a victim, technically.

But I guess I'll ignore that Zimmerman is alive and well, and Martin is dead.

I'll also ignore that Martin was walking home with a sweat tea and a bag of skittles, and that Zimmerman was performing "neighborhood watch" while armed as if he is some sort of real "security". Oh wait, he technically wasn't even doing that. He was just riding home and saw Martin.

I'll also ignore that fact that Zimmerman chased after Martin.

Zimmerman was the armed force-multiplier. One of the biggest responsibilities of a carrying a defensive firearm is never to be the force-multiplier when its avoidable, and only use your firearm to defend yourself when there is no option for avoiding the situation. That's basic stuff. Instead, the CCWing Zimmerman PUT HIMSELF in that position by choosing to chase Martin. He should have called the cops and left at that, not try to initiate contact with him (if he was truly suspicious). Had he have just called and went home, Martin would be alive (maybe) and Zimmerman wouldn't be facing second-degree murder charges.

But what do my opinions matter? The jury will ultimately decide, anyway.

SHIVAN

06-22-13, 20:00

Sure, he's a victim, technically.

"Technically" still means he is a victim, right? I mean, please frame the story of what you believed produced offensive striking wounds to Trayvon's hands, and only defensive wounds to George Zimmerman?

I'm curious to how you "have it going down". Did GZ call Trayvon names? Diss him?

Or did Trayvon circle back and ambush him, as is outlined? Trayvon was several feet from being home, yet 3-4 minutes later he wasn't home -- he was astride GZ pounding his head in the ground.

How? Why? Frame it out for us.

GeorgiaBoy

06-22-13, 20:06

How? Why? Frame it out for us.

I don't need to frame out anything - nothing I said differs from the official story of what happened. It appears you missed my main point, which is that if Zimmerman simply hadn't tried to be the neighborhood hero (which means notify the police and continue on with his business), one of them wouldn't be dead and the other wouldn't be facing murder charges.

Do you condone what Zimmerman did? Do you think it is wise that a person CCWing should follow and thereby increase the possibility of initiating contact with the person that, according to Zimmerman's testimony, looked like a guy "up to no good and on drugs", and had "his hand in his waistband".

ryr8828

06-22-13, 20:15

Sure, he's a victim, technically.

But I guess I'll ignore that Zimmerman is alive and well, and Martin is dead.

I'll also ignore that Martin was walking home with a sweat tea and a bag of skittles, and that Zimmerman was performing "neighborhood watch" while armed as if he is some sort of real "security". Oh wait, he technically wasn't even doing that. He was just riding home and saw Martin.

I'll also ignore that fact that Zimmerman chased after Martin.

Zimmerman was the armed force-multiplier. One of the biggest responsibilities of a carrying a defensive firearm is never to be the force-multiplier when its avoidable, and only use your firearm to defend yourself when there is no option for avoiding the situation. That's basic stuff. Instead, the CCWing Zimmerman PUT HIMSELF in that position by choosing to chase Martin. He should have called the cops and left at that, not try to initiate contact with him (if he was truly suspicious). Had he have just called and went home, Martin would be alive (maybe) and Zimmerman wouldn't be facing second-degree murder charges.

But what do my opinions matter? The jury will ultimately decide, anyway.
Either you don't know the difference between chase and follow or you are intentionally sensationalizing the issue.

GeorgiaBoy

06-22-13, 20:17

I'm not getting in a pointless pissing match here in the public forum.

If someone wants to inquire further about my posts, please take it to PM. Thanks.

SHIVAN

06-22-13, 20:31

So GZ is still a victim, per your definition. Completely understand that you can not frame out how TM was legally able to go from pedestrian headed home, to a legal assailant.

You are going quite a bit off the storyline as no one is capable of addressing how it came to be that TM should have been already in his dad's house by the time the confrontation occurred.

How did TM end up face to face with GZ if he was just headed home....??

davidjinks

06-22-13, 20:45

Excellent and honest post right here.

Bottom line is, people will just speculate as to what happened. No one knows what really happened except Zimmerman and Martin. From everything that's been said/stated/reported etc...Zimmermans story hasn't changed.

I could not care less what color any of the idiots in this case are, to be honest.

Fact is, the way the media, Obama, and all the others revved this up was through race and a portrayal of a 20-something WHITE vigilante killing an unarmed BLACK kid...

Then they show a picture of an immature 10-13 year old....so everyone knee jerks....OMG....OMG....

Then it comes out Zimmerman's not really "white" or a vigilante. Oh yeah, and the "kid" is 6'2" and a bit of a roughneck thug.... GZ was supposed to be there, observing and calling in suspicious people/events. In the process of doing what he was tasked to do, he caught a beatdown.

Not a single person, evidence or anything else points to GZ making this a physical altercation, and his story never seemed to waiver - -despite new evidence being presented, new recordings, testimony etc. Trayvon Martin has all the offensive hand injuries -- as well as one hole in his chest. GZ has all submissive injuries, commensurate with being mounted and beatdown...head against concrete. Which is considered deadly force.

Can anyone elaborate what GZ might have said that could have given TM any legal leeway to make their interaction physical in nature??
The "N" word? Telling him to get out of his 'hood? How did it go down in your mind? Illustrate the alternative story for us so I understand...

Thanks.

tb-av

06-22-13, 21:07

Do you condone what Zimmerman did? Do you think it is wise that a person CCWing should follow and thereby increase the possibility of initiating contact with the person that, according to Zimmerman's testimony, looked like a guy "up to no good and on drugs", and had "his hand in his waistband".

Provided what we know, Z-man did nothing "wrong" to condone. He did absolutely nothing that a 75 year old "little old lady" wouldn't do.

There is no "wrong doing" to condone....... based on what we know.

You have pre-supposed that Z-man has "done wrong". We don't know that. We don't know exactly what Martin or Zman did. That's the problem.

I'll also ignore that Martin was walking home with a sweat tea and a bag of skittles, and that Zimmerman was performing "neighborhood watch" while armed as if he is some sort of real "security".

He might have had a rabbits foot and a picture of Ronald Reagan in his pocket too. Makes no difference. Zimmerman was some sort of real security. He was the neighborhood watch Captain. That we do know.

Would you suggest a doctor never defend themselves? They take an oath to do no harm.

IF Martin did attack Zman--- he would have a near zero chance of knowing Zman was neighborhood watch person. So IF Martin attacked Zman... he attacked a citizen.

IF Zman attacked Martin... then he is quite possibly the stupidest person on the planet. He called the Police first, He knew he had a gun, he got his ass kicked and barely won the fight in spite of that. ... and now has basically screwed up his whole life.

Also don't forget the girlfriend told Martin not to go back towards Zman and he did it anyway. Why can't I just make up a story and say Martin was going to impress his girlfriend by telling her he beat up the guy. That's basically all people are doing that say Zman had a gun and just went to shoot Martin. I mean think about it... Martin was all jacked up on Skittles and soda, got a sugar rush and decided to kick some white ass. .... Instead of making up these crazy ass stories, why not just deal with the facts and not get into mind reading?

Moose-Knuckle

06-22-13, 21:45

Some facts about George Zimmerman that are always conveniently left out by the bleeding hearts and the MSM:

Zimmerman once served as a mentor to two African American children, and also did volunteer work for a predominantly African American congregation.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/24/george-zimmerman-lawyer-craig-sonner-cnn_n_1376806.html

Yup, sounds like a filthy half white bigot to me out hunting for unarmed black children . . . :rolleyes:

City officials posted police reports to the city website detailing eight burglary reports in the neighborhood in the 14 months prior to Martin's February 26 death.

In three of those incidents, black males were implicated by witnesses or arrests. A fourth incident was less clear.

A homeowner who reported that someone had broken into her home and had stolen a video game console referred police to a black man who had previously visited her home asking for her son.

Police do not list that man as a suspect in their report.

In the other four incidents, there were no witnesses or suspects, according to police reports.

It was not clear if the documents posted to Sanford's website include all burglary incidents in the time period mentioned by Taaffe. A city spokeswoman did not immediately respond to a request for comments.

Taaffe declined further comment to CNN on Tuesday afternoon.

In his CNN interview, Taaffe credited Zimmerman with preventing what he said would have been a ninth burglary by reporting a suspicious black man trying to break into Taaffe's home.

City documents show that Zimmerman did call police on February 2 to report a black man was possibly trying to break into the house.

By the time police arrived, no one was at the scene, according to a call log posted on the city website.

Zimmerman's supporters say he was just trying to do the right thing in guarding his neighborhood.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/03/justice/florida-teen-shooting-burglaries

So a homeowner is looking out for his friends, neighbors, and his community, assisted in the prevention of multiple burglaries and somehow this makes him a wanna be Dirty Harry . . . :rolleyes:

Iraqgunz

06-23-13, 00:56

Let's not forget that there were numerous burglaries committed in that subdivision. Also, we have seen numerous examples of people (all races) who wore hoodies to commit crimes. All race and BS issues aside we have person with wounds to the face and head and another who appears to have none (that we know of) so it would seem that Zimmerman was protecting himself. In addition we have Florida statute which affords someone to be able to defend themselves. The whole race issue was instigated by those who routinely cry foul when they have no factual defense/argument.

SteyrAUG

06-23-13, 01:13

The whole race issue was instigated by those who routinely cry foul when they have no factual defense/argument.

Yep.

If a black male volunteer security patrol shot Martin or shot a white kid, we'd have never heard about it, just like nobody ever heard about Cleveland Anthony Murdock or the UNARMED person he shot, in FL in September of 2010.

This is about race plain and simple. That is why Zimmerman was a WHITE MALE for several days. You could almost feel the media disappointment when it was learned he was in fact hispanic.

http://i.cdn.turner.com/dr/teg/tsg/release/sites/default/files/assets/zimmermanshirtlarge.jpg

HES

06-23-13, 02:31

Yep.

If a black male volunteer security patrol shot Martin or shot a white kid, we'd have never heard about it, just like nobody ever heard about Cleveland Anthony Murdock or the UNARMED person he shot, in FL in September of 2010.

This is about race plain and simple. That is why Zimmerman was a WHITE MALE for several days. You could almost feel the media disappointment when it was learned he was in fact hispanic.

http://i.cdn.turner.com/dr/teg/tsg/release/sites/default/files/assets/zimmermanshirtlarge.jpg
Bingo!

Look the ponder ancestors of evidence that we have seen would indicate, absent media attempt to inflame the situation, that this was a defensive shooting. Then most we can do is wait to see how the trial rolls at this point.

ForTehNguyen

06-23-13, 08:05

there was a case in NY that was ALMOST identical to this one, instead though it was a black guy who shot a white guy breaking into cars. The black guy was a neighborhood watch type guy like GZ. He received not guily for manslaughter. He was charged right away in the incident unlike GZ. Not a peep from the media. Search for "Roderick Scott Christopher Cervini"

Safetyhit

06-23-13, 08:17

Do you condone what Zimmerman did?

You mean as far as removing a punk thug who was physically attacking him unprovoked from our world? I not only condone his actions I appreciate them a great deal.

Todd00000

06-23-13, 08:20

To put the race card being played in perspective:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/report-532-murdered-chicago-2012_693417.html
In 2012, 532 people were murdered in the city of Chicago, according to statistics compiled by the Crime in Chicago website. The number of people murdered the year before was 441, meaning in the city of Chicago, murders have increased by 91 from 2011 to 2012.

The Chicago Police Department was not available to confirm these numbers today, which is New Year's Day.

The website also claims that, through December 25, 2012, there 2,670 people were shot in Chicago last year. That's also an increase from the year before, when 2,217 people were shot in Chicago that year.

And we all know many of these victims could like the POTUS' son.

a1fabweld

06-23-13, 08:25

IMO, the key factor here is race. Fear of this becoming Rodney king riots part 2 will determine the outcome.

But all in all, I'm as sick of hearing about this case as I am about Michael Jackson or those Kardashian sluts.

The only reason this case even gets any air time is so the left can provoke a race war. Blacks & Mexicans kill each other every day. WTF makes this so special?

Mjolnir

06-23-13, 12:46

He also was arrested for assault I believe and resisting arrest.

According to persons who knew him he was a hot head.

So Zim is like all of us: all over the map I you're trying to "pin someone into a corner".

I would love to ask him in confidence would he do anything differently. If says "no" he's a damned fool. Of course, he may be compelled to answer that question in court so he'll HAVE to say "yes". That's understood. Deep down I know his answer.

In all of the CPL Classes I've taught I've never encouraged anyone to pursue anyone on foot. I've been asked in every single class "what is the appropriate thing to do?" And I tell them all the same: do not put your life or others into any further danger by maintaining very close contact with the person you already perceive as suspicious and probably dangerous. That's the same advice I provide if they are in a mall and shooting erupts: get your loved ones, take cover and make a strategic withdrawal.

His actions, even if all turned out okay, were contrary to smart carry. Apparently, many here would do the same. Please stay out of large southern cities with that outlook. While I disagree strongly with y'all on this one I still do not wish any harm to befall you.

Peace (as always)

-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."

Grand58742

06-23-13, 13:04

He also was arrested for assault I believe and resisting arrest.

According to persons who knew him he was a hot head.

So Zim is like all of us: all over the map I you're trying to "pin someone into a corner".

He was arrested for resisting arrest and assaulting a police officer. Later had the charges reduced and ultimately dropped.

As for the "according to persons who knew him" I wouldn't trust anything I "heard" from the media one tiny bit. If I heard it or saw it with my own eyes, I could make that judgment. But as blatantly biased as the reporting has been on all accounts since this whole thing went on, I wouldn't believe them one iota.

And the same goes for "trying to pin into a corner." The media tried to pin him into the corner of "racist white man" for how long?

I do feel he will be ultimately acquitted of the Murder 2 charges. Whether or not they can reduce that to say something like manslaughter I'm not sure of. And then, we all get to watch as the riots begin and things start to burn since race baiters have already sowed the seeds of discontent in this whole sad situation. And unfortunately, logic won't sway people that have been fed twisted and distorted facts with no inclination to hear the truth.

SHIVAN

06-23-13, 14:31

He also was arrested for assault I believe and resisting arrest.

...but you see, nothing before the interaction with GZ and TM should count towards what happened between them.

At least that's what the prosecution, the media, the President, and black rights group want us to believe when we consider the person with whom George Zimmerman was dealing...

PA PATRIOT

06-23-13, 19:32

tb-av

06-23-13, 19:40

Everyone here is still assuming that TM attacked MZ .....

You have got to be kidding me.

Mjolnir

06-23-13, 19:41

Everyone here is still assuming that TM attacked MZ which lead to the shooting, how do we know that MZ did not grab hold of TM trying to detain him causing the altercation. Then it would be the reverse that TM was defending himself against unlawful detention by MZ.

Two sides to every story but one side is silenced forever so with no direct view independent witness of the event its all a guessing game.

Any how we all get to see the show live tomorrow.

Exactly.

"But that cannot be", PATRIOT.

"Why?" You ask.

"Because Trayvon was a black thug!"

In all honesty, I'm amazed at some responses. Some are convinced (though they were not there) that Trayvon initiated everything.

I admit I do not know.

I've acknowledged that I did not find it prudent for Z to get out of his vehicle in the rain and run after Trayvon (Z's own admission - actually the transcripts from the 911 call).

Now if Trayvon was alive we could cross examine BOTH.

IMHO, if it requires that much evidence to clear myself I've acted irresponsibly. Y'all can take any actions you please but I encourage you to THINK before you act.

P.S.

A Caucasian buddy of mine brought up something that I've never articulated: we know damned well Zim would not have run after Tray if he wasn't armed. I tend to agree as physically he was the smaller of the two and if we accept portions of his story - and I've not found anything to doubt him - he was getting rolled by the teenager.

-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."

tb-av

06-23-13, 19:56

I would love to ask him in confidence would he do anything differently. If says "no" he's a damned fool. Of course, he may be compelled to answer that question in court so he'll HAVE to say "yes". That's understood. Deep down I know his answer.

Someone has already done that for you.

"I feel that it was all God's plan," he told Hannity. When asked if there was "anything you might do differently," Zimmerman responded, "No Sir."

Outrider

06-23-13, 20:15

A Caucasian buddy of mine brought up something that I've never articulated: we know damned well Zim would not have run after Tray if he wasn't armed. I tend to agree as physically he was the smaller of the two and if we accept portions of his story - and I've not found anything to doubt him - he was getting rolled by the teenager.

The lesson with that is people can get overconfident when they are armed and do things / take risks they should not take. For George, it was foolish to get out of the vehicle. He was not particularly well trained and he gave up the advantages that the vehicle provided.

T2C

06-23-13, 20:30

The lesson with that is people can get overconfident when they are armed and do things / take risks they should not take. For George, it was foolish to get out of the vehicle. He was not particularly well trained and he gave up the advantages that the vehicle provided.

I am sure that the jury will be pelted with evidence, opinions, theories and innuendo. They will have to sift through a lot of BS.

There is some risk involved in patrolling an active neighborhood and you should not use equipment as a crutch to fortify your nerve. Equipment is carried to enhance the ability of someone who is willing to get the job done regardless of how they are equipped. I am of the opinion that if you are not willing to make contact unarmed, you have no business carrying a side arm.

We have heard enough speculation over the past several months and I am anxious to hear the facts of the case as they come out during the trial. Let the chips fall where they may.

SteyrAUG

06-23-13, 20:30

Everyone here is still assuming that TM attacked MZ which lead to the shooting

Not everyone. I've been pretty candid about the fact that we don't know who crossed the line on who.

SteyrAUG

06-23-13, 20:36

Exactly.

"But that cannot be", PATRIOT.

"Why?" You ask.

"Because Trayvon was a black thug!"

Disappointing. I've been very specific that NOBODY knows who did what to whom. Your assumptions are no better than the assumptions of those you are criticizing.

Your assertions that some assumptions are racially motivated are no better than the racially motivated assumptions you and others are also making.

SteyrAUG

06-23-13, 20:39

There is some risk involved in patrolling an active neighborhood and you should not use equipment as a crutch to fortify your nerve. Equipment is carried to enhance the ability of someone who is willing to get the job done regardless of how they are equipped. I am of the opinion that if you are not willing to make contact unarmed, you have no business carrying a side arm.

The good news is nobody will ever put themselves at risk again to try and make their neighborhood safer.

NeoNeanderthal

06-23-13, 20:47

All we have are the facts that have been presented. No one will ever really know who attacked who. But the end scenario is one unmarked dead black gangster and one busted up overzealous latino. If it was as GZ says it was... then obviously he should be found innocent.

What bothers me is there are many people that believe (or are willing to accept) GZ's account and still believe he is guilty of murder. Also, "stand your ground" has no bearing on this case. Everyone in the media is talking about race, stand your ground, and concealed carry and no one is talking about who actually attacked who.

T2C

06-23-13, 20:47

The good news is nobody will ever put themselves at risk again to try and make their neighborhood safer.

I will.

ForTehNguyen

06-23-13, 21:20

A Caucasian buddy of mine brought up something that I've never articulated: we know damned well Zim would not have run after Tray if he wasn't armed. I tend to agree as physically he was the smaller of the two and if we accept portions of his story - and I've not found anything to doubt him - he was getting rolled by the teenager.

how did a shorter out of shape middle aged man catch a tall and fit teenager especially after losing him for a few minutes while he talked to 911. The smell test for this was especially funnier when the media got GZ weight incorrect and saying he was 250 lbs and 5'9" vs 160lb 6'3" TM. Yea an overweight middle aged man managed to run and catch a very fit teenager. They were actually the same weight when GZ turned himself in.

Mjolnir

06-23-13, 22:53

how did a shorter out of shape middle aged man catch a tall and fit teenager especially after losing him for a few minutes while he talked to 911. The smell test for this was especially funnier when the media got GZ weight incorrect and saying he was 250 lbs and 5'9" vs 160lb 6'3" TM. Yea an overweight middle aged man managed to run and catch a very fit teenager. They were actually the same weight when GZ turned himself in.

Didn't he "lose sight" of him and began running in his direction? Wasn't he breathing hard on the call with the dispatcher?

I mean, really? What was he thinking? Make a description and report what you saw. There are no "Scooby Snacks" for taking unnecessary risks.

You'll not ever (or very rarely) defending the mainstream media and its reports. I stated earlier in this thread that ALL sides are being played to none of their advantages. I still maintain that.

-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."

Mjolnir

06-23-13, 23:03

Disappointing. I've been very specific that NOBODY knows who did what to whom. Your assumptions are no better than the assumptions of those you are criticizing.

Your assertions that some assumptions are racially motivated are no better than the racially motivated assumptions you and others are also making.

I'm glad you get it.

I'm not using race to make my point. I have not mentioned the race of the two other than my poking fun at those who make those out to be a "race thing", my friend. Go check your own posts for that kinda content. I KNOW its not in mine. I have no evidence WHAT Zim believes. If he does harbor those ideas it may come out in the trial. If he acted as he believed to be correct then I (and many) believe he acted overzealously. I do not care what color the kid is. Race was mentioned by others - perhaps even yourself.

MY POINT: he should have chosen NOT to go ferret the dude out. You lost contact. Okay, let the police know what you saw and where you saw him last.

He would be a lot less poor, weigh a lot less and could be continuing his life as a more or less normal human being.

Some wish to wear rights and a cape at night. I get it. I'll pass.

-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."

Mjolnir

06-23-13, 23:03

The good news is nobody will ever put themselves at risk again to try and make their neighborhood safer.

Shouldn't have to "put yourself at risk"...

-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."

Mjolnir

06-23-13, 23:07

The lesson with that is people can get overconfident when they are armed and do things / take risks they should not take. For George, it was foolish to get out of the vehicle. He was not particularly well trained and he gave up the advantages that the vehicle provided.

I agree. And that's about as far as I'm willing to go. I'll bet whomever instructed him for his CPL did NOT instruct him to heave that way.

Even if he's found not guilty of all charges he's no poster boy for those who choose to carry. Not in my mind, he isn't. The goal is not to seek danger - though he may not agree with my terms.

Apparently, Steyr thinks I believe he should b found guilty as charged and hung by the neck until dead...

SMH

-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."

SteyrAUG

06-23-13, 23:30

Shouldn't have to "put yourself at risk"...

-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."

Thankfully not everyone thinks like you.

http://philly.ihollaback.org/2011/04/16/bystander-intervention-prevents-rape-in-north-philly/

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/crime-law/bystander-with-gun-stops-palm-bay-bank-robbery/nL6g9/

http://www.easybakegunclub.com/news/2535/Everyday-heroes%3A-Bystander-stops-armed-robbery-%28Te.html#.UcfLAkrJKW4

SteyrAUG

06-23-13, 23:32

Apparently, Steyr thinks I believe he should b found guilty as charged and hung by the neck until dead...

No, I believe you are making assumptions about events not in evidence and motivations.

Mjolnir

06-24-13, 06:54

No, I believe you are making assumptions about events not in evidence and motivations.

Just like everyone else who was not an eyewitness that night...

-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."

montanadave

06-24-13, 08:57

And they're off!

"****ing punks! These assholes always get away."

First words of the trial as the prosecution made their opening statement. Slipped by most stations airing the opening statements live and appeared to shock the judge and the jury first thing on a Monday morning.

That's gonna leave a mark. The prosecution appears to be loaded for bear. Zimmerman's gonna be in for a rocky road.

That said, it's still a "he said, he dead" situation and I think Zimmerman walks on the second-degree murder charge. He only needs one juror to accept his version of events as credible.

SHIVAN

06-24-13, 09:08

I don't know who did what, to whom.

What I do know is that in light of a dead thug lying on top of him, and in a cop car being photographed, George Zimmerman gave an account that seemingly has not waivered.

How could he know that no one else in a tightly packed condo/townhouse community did not see what happened before going on the record with the first cops on scene? How could he know that there were no cell phone cameras or security cameras on him?

Yet he willingly told his story to the cops, and from my recollection, the story never changed. Even when some "witnesses" showed up to say otherwise, but were discounted by investigators, or recounted their own stories.

The first thing I was taught about carrying, and the potential for being involved in questioning after a shooting: "No matter how cut and dry you think it might be, shut the **** up about it, until you talk with your lawyer."

So GZ talked willingly, gave one version of the events, and stuck to it. There did not seem to be any gaps in what he told them versus what they knew to be factual.

In that regard, George Zimmerman seems to be more believable than the alternative theory being posed by the prosecution, now.

Littlelebowski

06-24-13, 09:16

austinN4

06-24-13, 09:34

montanadave

06-24-13, 09:49

Zimmerman's attorney begins his opening statement with a "knock, knock" joke? WTF?

tb-av

06-24-13, 09:51

And they're off!

First words of the trial as the prosecution made their opening statement.

Fantastic!! I hope they cover every little detail. Re-create exactly what happened by everyone involved. All the participants, all the witnesses, all the cameras, all the audio.

If anything I especially want to hear how they came to be in contact with each other.

Eurodriver

06-24-13, 10:01

For those of you not able to view live or just want a recap of what is happening as it happens

http://www.baynews9.com/content/news/baynews9/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2013/6/24/zimmerman_opening_statements.html

Guy says an expert will tell the jury all about the gun, and that there were eight rounds in the gun because there was a bullet ready to fire in the chamber.

Guy says the gun has a longer trigger pull to ensure there are no accidental firings. He says the shot was a contact shot. He says the jury will see the burn marks.

What the **** is this shit?

SHIVAN

06-24-13, 10:06

OMG....OMG....a contact shot. Like a mob hit...OMG....

Safetyhit

06-24-13, 10:10

What the **** is this shit?

Not watching nor do I care to at this early stage but it's clearly a distorting smear tactic designed to make the maximum negative impact. Sucks for sure but think of it as a basketball game where one team jumps out to a ten point lead in the early first quarter, as it often means nothing in the long run.

HackerF15E

06-24-13, 10:45

Zimmerman's attorney begins his opening statement with a "knock, knock" joke? WTF?

I found that a completely moronic comment...totally inappropriate for a murder trial opening statement.

HackerF15E

06-24-13, 10:48

Personally, I think that the prosecution's opening statement was just as ridiculous and over-reaching as how they've decided to charge Zimmerman...but I think such bravado will be the case's undoing.

Crow Hunter

06-24-13, 10:49

For those of you not able to view live or just want a recap of what is happening as it happens

http://www.baynews9.com/content/news/baynews9/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2013/6/24/zimmerman_opening_statements.html

What the **** is this shit?

Don't forget, a large percentage of the morons out there who actually CCW do so with an empty chamber and the average moron who watches movies thinks that is normal and you only rack the slide when "you mean business".

Don't forget, lowest common denominator.

And honestly it is pretty darn low.

Eurodriver

06-24-13, 11:03

montanadave

06-24-13, 11:19

Crow Hunter

06-24-13, 11:32

Well I'm glad to hear that if I'm ever attacked by an unarmed thug who just happens to be black the fact that I carry my gun the way its designed to be carried (and the same way police carry their weapons) will be used as an opening statement against me in a racially charged murder trial.

What's bad, is that they could explain that to the average American walking down the street and the only thing they would focus on was:

unarmed thug who just happens to be black

Unfortunately the average American in the jury pool really isn't smarter than a 5th grader...

Of course, that can be a benefit if your lawyer is charismatic enough and can convince the jury he is Perry Mason or Matlock.

Data is real, interpretation of data is reality.

Honu

06-24-13, 11:33

sadly this is also a show and advertising for the lawyers involved they want to become the BIG NAME !
both want the fact that
I got him off !
I got him convicted !

sadly this is going to be about race ! they cant go after George as a white guy liked they hoped so they will go after this as a poor black kid was shot for being black kinda message

tb-av

06-24-13, 11:53

Question: In their opening statement, the prosecution described Zimmerman's weapon and said he had it "tucked in his waistband." Did Zimmerman have an IWB holster or was he employing a "mexican carry" (not meant as a pejorative)?

IWB -- yes, I saw the photo.

Listened to the most of the trial thus far. So far there has been no comment as to how they got "together". How the confrontation initiated.

Other than that.

Eye witness 15' away saw Z on bottom getting wailed on. Other witnesses drew diagrams of red shirt on bottom, black shirt on top. described it as "ground and pound" MMA style mount. Martins body was described by one witness as being in a "riding a bicycle posture" which defense suggests is consistent with being in the mounted position prior to being shot.

So basically all the evidence shows Z getting beat, looking at eye witness and yelling for help, phone call where you can hear calls for help, then a shot and no more calls for help.

It was also noted that Zman cooperated with Police as many times and for as long as they asked and has continued to do so yet witnesses have hired lawyers....... Proof of nothing... just an interesting fact.

But.... no commentary as to how the struggle started.

Can't comment on prosecution as I missed that part. But this guy is very clear and replays the tapes, establishes the time line very well, etc..

austinN4

06-24-13, 12:07

So basically all the evidence shows Z getting beat, looking at eye witness and yelling for help, phone call where you can hear calls for help, then a shot and no more calls for help.
Evidence or opening statement? Opening statements are not evidence.

tb-av

06-24-13, 12:12

Evidence or opening statement? Opening statements are not evidence.

Oh... I don't know... is this an opening statement? It went on until near 1:00. He's playing tapes, showing photos, showing exhibits, etc... .. and they broke for lunch... not that he was finished.

I assumed this was the beginning of the trial.

austinN4

06-24-13, 12:16

Oh... I don't know... is this an opening statement? It went on until near 1:00. He's playing tapes, showing photos, showing exhibits, etc... .. and they broke for lunch... not that he was finished.

I assumed this was the beginning of the trial.
May be. I am not watching it. I thought the prosecution presented their case first. Surely they have not already done so, but the information you posted sounded like defense arguments.

Edited to add: Possible confusion as at trail phases. Opening statements are the first phase of the trial after jury selection. Opening statements are nothing more than claims by both sides made to the jury as to what they intend to prove to the jury after presenting evidence and testimony.

B Cart

06-24-13, 12:16

This entire fiasco sheds a whole new light on the phrase, "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6". I agree that I would rather be alive than dead, however in Zimmerman's case, being "judged by 12" has been sheer and utter hell for him, and has ultimately ruined his life. I'm all for using deadly force if my life or loved ones' lives are truly on the line, however it's a shame Zimmerman didn't have pepper spray or some other less lethal tool he could have used in this case.

If Z-mans story is true, and he was attacked by TM, getting his head smashed into the ground, worried TM would get his gun and use it on him, and truly in fear for his life, I think he made the right choice to use whatever means necessary to stop the threat. Let's just hope the jury sees it that way.

Definitely an interesting start to the trial, and I'm curious to see how this turns out.

montanadave

06-24-13, 12:39

tb-av

06-24-13, 13:04

Ah, ok, I didn't realize opening statements took that long. He keeps calling all this evidence and will be presented later if needed.

That guy opening for the defense, in my opinion, came across as a pompous jerk and somewhat of a bully which is exactly what I would think he didn't want to do regarding Martin. I still haven't seen his whole opening yet but what I have seen would turn me away from him.

markm

06-24-13, 13:10

If Z-mans story is true, and he was attacked by TM, getting his head smashed into the ground, worried TM would get his gun and use it on him, and truly in fear for his life, I think he made the right choice to use whatever means necessary to stop the threat. Let's just hope the jury sees it that way.

That's the legit part in my mind. But putting himself into the position to get attacked was where he messed up.

Eurodriver

06-24-13, 14:10

That's the legit part in my mind. But putting himself into the position to get attacked was where he messed up.

I agree.

While, in my opinion, I feel George Zimmerman did nothing illegal, he most certainly did something wrong that night.

nimdabew

06-24-13, 14:26

I agree.

While, in my opinion, I feel George Zimmerman did nothing illegal, he most certainly did something wrong that night.

Luckly for us, people don't go to trial for being wrong. In this case, given the information in the public domain, I would say that Zimmerman is not guilty of 2/murder. That is all the defense has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Any other arguments only distract from the accusations presented by the prosecution and incite anger and friction within the population.

montanadave

06-24-13, 14:27

That's the legit part in my mind. But putting himself into the position to get attacked was where he messed up.

To my mind, this would have to be the central element in the defense's case. If the defense can separate the events of that night into two distinct sequences of events in the minds of the jurors, I think Zimmerman will be readily found not guilty. The first sequence has to be Zimmerman's initial sighting of Martin, his suspicions, the 911 call, and unadvisedly exiting his vehicle to search for Martin; and the second sequence becomes his actual physical confrontation with Martin wherein Zimmerman found himself overmatched, being beaten, and legitimately fearing for his life.

Drawing a clear line between these two sequences of events would allow the jury to believe Zimmerman "profiled" Martin, acted impulsively or recklessly, and displayed poor judgement, but still accept that Zimmerman was clearly acting in self-defense when he was being physically beaten and overwhelmed by a younger, stronger opponent who threatened his life during the altercation.

It will be interesting to see how vigorously the defense attempts to characterize Martin as a punk or thug, when they inevitably will be given the opportunity to introduce evidence in rebuttal to whatever statements the prosecution presents in their attempts to characterize Martin as a sympathetic teenage victim. Given the all-women jury, the defense will need to tread lightly. I would be more prone to characterizing Martin as young man who felt frightened and/or threatened and responded with violence rather than seeking to paint him as a street-wise, gang-banger wannabe who jumped Zimmerman to give him a beat-down.

I imagine whatever strategy the defense employs will come down to how they feel the jury is responding to the prosecution's case. I don't intend to stay glued to the tube watching this whole thing unfold, but I will be interested in watching the strategies the two sides utilize.

Only one guy alive knows what actually happened during their encounter (and, as cognitive studies demonstrate, even Zimmerman's memories may not be completely reliable) and he's fighting for his life, at least figuratively. So we are unlikely to ever know the "real" truth and will need to content ourselves with watching which side plays the game better.

As Robert Duvall's character observed in the movie A Civil Action, "The truth? I thought we were talking about a court of law. Come on, you've been around long enough to know that a courtroom isn't a place to look for the truth."

SteyrAUG

06-24-13, 14:27

Just like everyone else who was not an eyewitness that night...

-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."

I haven't made any assumptions that I'm aware of.

I used the word "IF" quite a bit.

PA PATRIOT

06-24-13, 14:38

Anyone have a link to the live video feed of the trail, everyone I click on is a redirect to a news channel with printed blow by blow.

Grand58742

06-24-13, 14:45

Anyone have a link to the live video feed of the trail, everyone I click on is a redirect to a news channel with printed blow by blow.

If I'm not mistaken, the judge said there weren't going to be cameras in the courtroom. Could be wrong though

B Cart

06-24-13, 14:48

I agree.

While, in my opinion, I feel George Zimmerman did nothing illegal, he most certainly did something wrong that night.

Valid point. I can definitely sympathize with Z-man's frustrations that past burglars and vandals in the neighborhood keep "getting away", so I can definitely understand why he, as head of the neighborhood watch, would want to follow and watch to make sure TM wasn't doing anything illegal. I would think that many neighborhood watch captains would have probably done the same thing in his shoes.

That being said, his decision to follow TM obviously let to disastrous consequences in this particular case. Was it illegal to follow TM? Absolutely not. Should he have stayed in his car? Probably.

Either way, a neighborhood watch captain checking up on you for looking suspicious in a recently burglarized private community doesn't warrant then attacking and violently beating said captain.

If TM indeed forcefully attacked Zimmerman with the intent to do serious bodily harm, then Zimmerman was within his right to use deadly force to defend himself. Seems pretty clear to me.

Safetyhit

06-24-13, 14:59

But putting himself into the position to get attacked was where he messed up.

I see that media seems to have successfully pounded this into many a member's head, either that or I'm missing something. Let's see what the critical error was...

1. GZ is legally armed and a designated community watch member.

2. GZ notices a suspicious looking individual he has never seen before and decides the stated individual is worth observation.

3. At some point GZ decides that the overall circumstance is unusual and that his observed individual could be detrimental to the well-being of the community, so he calls the police to file a report of a suspicious person. This primarily due to previous crimes in the community, crimes which spawned the creation of the neighborhood watch in the first place.

4. GZ decides while speaking to dispatch that it would be prudent to keep the suspicious person in sight for the benefit of the police, this despite the request to stay away from a dispatcher with no formal discretion whatsoever in such matters. Also a dispatcher who almost certainly has nothing to lose personally should yet another break-in occur in the community.

5. While waiting for the police and also attempting to keep the individual in sight, this also while never having displayed any interest in a confrontation or violence, GZ is surprised by the individual who confronts him aggressively.

6. The individual who at that time was only being watched first becomes irate and then violent with GZ, forcing him to defend himself unexpectedly with his legally owned and carried firearm.

Odd because no matter how many times I consider this scenario I still fail to find guilt with GZ. All of this completely seperate and apart from the fact that we later learned the individual was a typical violent gangster.

Mjolnir

06-24-13, 15:02

Thankfully not everyone thinks like you.

http://philly.ihollaback.org/2011/04/16/bystander-intervention-prevents-rape-in-north-philly/

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/crime-law/bystander-with-gun-stops-palm-bay-bank-robbery/nL6g9/

http://www.easybakegunclub.com/news/2535/Everyday-heroes%3A-Bystander-stops-armed-robbery-%28Te.html#.UcfLAkrJKW4

Big difference: Trayvon's presence was not a felony in commission.

Hardly comparable.

-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."

Mjolnir

06-24-13, 15:12

That's the legit part in my mind. But putting himself into the position to get attacked was where he messed up.

That is my point and always has been.

-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."

FromMyColdDeadHand

06-24-13, 15:14

Don't forget, a large percentage of the morons out there who actually CCW do so with an empty chamber and the average moron who watches movies thinks that is normal and you only rack the slide when "you mean business".

Don't forget, lowest common denominator.

And honestly it is pretty darn low.

Question: In their opening statement, the prosecution described Zimmerman's weapon and said he had it "tucked in his waistband." Did Zimmerman have an IWB holster or was he employing a "mexican carry" (not meant as a pejorative)?

I thought I saw pictures of a holster in past articles...

That prosecutor is complete ass-hat. I just watched the beginning of the opening arguments and almost puked.

He says "semi-automatic" like it is a machine gun or something.
Tucked in his waistband like it was illegal for GZ to have a gun or carry it concealed.
Oh my GOD, the gun had a LIVE round in the chamber....

Good-news/bad-news is that the arguments so far are full of falsehoods and misrepresentations aimed at low information people. That could be good or bad....

Eurodriver

06-24-13, 15:26

If TM indeed forcefully attacked Zimmerman with the intent to do serious bodily harm, then Zimmerman was within his right to use deadly force to defend himself. Seems pretty clear to me.

Absolutely.

Zimmerman's face was pretty messed up on the night of the shooting.

As long as (and I doubt this will ever be known) Zimmerman didn't physically confront (meaning actually touch Trayvon Martin) then he was well within his right to defend himself.

I think we can all agree that just because you are on the ground being pummelled in the face doesn't give you the right to shoot the attacker if you are the one that first initiated the physical altercation.

...that is the whole issue with this. No one knows who the hell did what. But I concur with what's already been posted - I'd put my money on TM having the "hey cracker what you lookin at" mentality rather than GZ chasing down and "capturing" TM.

Sensei

06-24-13, 15:26

I see that media seems to have successfully pounded this into many a member's head, either that or I'm missing something. Let's see what the critical error was...

In terms of your first point, I think that the apartment owner would argue that GZ was not acting as a designated community watch member when he decided to arm himself. If my memory serves me correctly, the neighborhood watch program for that community specifies that its members not be armed. Thus, he was just a citizen exercising his right to observe a dude in his neighborhood. The decision to chase TM may be a point where he crossed a line.

In terms of your 5th point, I believe that GZ has always maintained that he actually did abandon his pursuit of TM when advised by the dispatcher. It is the media that has misreported the story to claim that he continued his pursuit. After the dispatcher advised him to stop, GZ has always indicated that he only continued to walk in a manner to determine the cross streets, and the began to return to his vehicle. It was during his return trip that he states that TM attacked him.

Personally, I think that GZ made a big mistake when he decided to chase TM and may have broken some FL statues with this decision. He is fortunate that there appears to be a significant period of time between his pursuit ending and the altercation. Thus, the strongest reasonable case that I see against him would be manslaughter and even this is a stretch. The 2nd degree murder charge appears to be an over charge unless the state has some new evidence.

Honu

06-24-13, 15:38

Watched opening pieces and sadly if Georges lawyer keeps doing what he did ! Crack a stupid joke then tell the jury to laugh it was funny
then after recess come back and mention it again and say it was funny again poor George might be going to prison !

His lawyer so far seems to be a close friend of bubba gumps !

Safetyhit

06-24-13, 15:49

In terms of your 5th point, I believe that GZ has always maintained that he actually did abandon his pursuit of TM when advised by the dispatcher. It is the media that has misreported the story to claim that he continued his pursuit. After the dispatcher advised him to stop, GZ has always indicated that he only continued to walk in a manner to determine the cross streets, and the began to return to his vehicle. It was during his return trip that he states that TM attacked him.

Very good point.

The decision to chase TM may be a point where he crossed a line....Personally, I think that GZ made a big mistake when he decided to chase TM and may have broken some FL statues with this decision.

Just curious as to why you repeatedly substituted the word "follow" with "chase". When I think chase I think one person running after another aggressively, yet we have never once heard about any sort of "chase" that I know of. I say this because if he was running after TM aggressively then TM may have become fearful of his safety for legitimate reasons, however we have no indication of this taking place at all.

TM did realize of course he was being followed at some point, but apparently he was comfortable enough with the situation to decide to ambush/surprise GZ and actually become the aggressor himself.

FromMyColdDeadHand

06-24-13, 16:02

...Thus, he was just a citizen exercising his right to observe a dude in his neighborhood. The decision to chase TM may be a point where he crossed a line.

...
....

Personally, I think that GZ made a big mistake when he decided to chase TM and may have broken some FL statues with this decision.

What line? What statues? Following is not chasing. People seem to be making it out that you have no right to investigate suspicious people ON PRIVATE PROPERTY.

This was not a public street, it is a gated community. Try to Google street view inside that community. GZ was not cruising around looking for punks to shoot, he was INSIDE a controlled access area and saw someone that didn't fit in.

I saw that TM was actually casing the place anyway. Who goes out in the rain to get a tea and some candy for his little brother??

Here's hoping that they play the tape where GZ says that the guy looks high and they can admit the evidence that they found MJ in his system.

Renegade

06-24-13, 16:10

I think we can all agree that just because you are on the ground being pummelled in the face doesn't give you the right to shoot the attacker if you are the one that first initiated the physical altercation.

Disagree.

I do not lose my right to defend myself from unlawful deadly force just because I initiate an altercation.

FromMyColdDeadHand

06-24-13, 16:15

Disagree.

I do not lose my right to defend myself from unlawful deadly force just because I initiate an altercation.

I do not lose my right to defend myself from unlawful deadly force just because I initiate an interaction.

There is a difference.

Renegade

06-24-13, 16:29

I do not lose my right to defend myself from unlawful deadly force just because I initiate an interaction.

There is a difference.

Yep, and I do not lose your right defend myself from unlawful deadly force in that example either.

In Texas, you would lose your Presumption of Reasonableness, but you would not lose your right to self-defense. Perhaps other states are different.

FromMyColdDeadHand

06-24-13, 16:34

Interesting, I thought altercation meant physical contact, but it only means a "A noisy argument or disagreement, esp. in public."

While not smart, I don't think that crosses the line especially since it is a subjective measurement.

Altercate on.

Mjolnir

06-24-13, 16:53

Safetyhit

06-24-13, 17:00

"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."

Unless of course they spray him with flaming lighter fluid or any number of countless other options.

You're an entertaining fellow to say the least. :D

SteyrAUG

06-24-13, 17:28

Big difference: Trayvon's presence was not a felony in commission.

Hardly comparable.

Actually since we were talking about "putting yourself at risk" to prevent crimes or possible crimes, it is exactly the same. The only real difference is "actual crimes" are even more dangerous than "possible crimes."

But again, this is another example of why I just can't have this conversation.

PA PATRIOT

06-24-13, 17:38

Reading some of these posts has really changed my views of a lot of members here.

I have read many of thread from members on this forum about the government & law enforcement watching and over stepping the constructional bounties that violate are civil rights. To not be looked at as criminals for just wanting to exercise the rights given to us by the founding fathers while living their everyday lives.

Those who speak the loudest of these rights seem to forget that they apply to all citizens no matter their age, race, gender or personal living styles. But these same voices have forgotten the TM had these very same rights they wish that others (Mostly the Government) would respect and not encroach on.

So I have to ask,

What was so suspicious about TM's conduct other than being a Black man in a private community?

What infraction of the law did TM violate?

The above questions have not been answered by any member here to validate why GZ even made a 911 call or decided to follow TM on foot in the first place.

Now some have said the reason that GZ called 911 because he did not recognize TM, So What! Does GZ know every person living or walking through the community? So just because MZ didn't know TM that made him suspicious. Now GZ did know that some recent crimes were committed in the area that may have had black males as possible perpetrators and TM was certainly a Black male but was he involved in any illegal action other then walking through the area? NO

So with the above said one may say that GZ racially profiled TM because GZ never actually seen any real suspicious or illegal activities occur. So why the 911 call? A community watch person is instructed to observe but not approach or take any action other then calling 911 If a actual crime is being committed so was this GZ overstepping his self appointed authority? Second it appears the GZ followed TM first in a vehicle and then on foot but I still have to ask what warranted MZ to continue following TM on foot? Again was there some sort or suspicious or illegal actively a foot other then being a black man walking through the area? Here GZ is once again violating the core principles of a community watch person as to not approaching a possible suspect of a crime. But wait TM has not done anything even remotely suspicious or illegal has he and for all accounts the police were on their way.

So we are now up to the point were a interaction occurred and there has been no witness to this point of what actually happened except for GZ version. Now we are talking about who did what to who for the hands on to begin. So far TM has done nothing to warrant GZ attention, GZ has profiled TM called 911 on nothing more then a personal opinion (Not a legal one) and then followed and most likely closed on TM when things went bad. Also GZ made a statement that "The punks always "F"ing get away" which would lend to the mindset that GZ had and would lead a person to think that GZ may have tried to detain TM until the police arrived. But as TM's side of the story will never be heard only the defendant knows what really happened that rainy night.

Also it seems that many here may have judged both TM and GZ by their past histories as both have had problems with law enforcement and anger issues but these are past issues and while they may shed some light to the mentality and maturity of the two it does not indicate what action either took that night.

So in closing we should all afford the same rights under the law to TM as many have already done for GZ. Next time it may be you under the bright light.

FromMyColdDeadHand

06-24-13, 17:40

How is it TM "didn't fit in?" His father lived in the gated community.

What evidence do we have that "TM was casing the joint?"

Walking in the rain? I did as a kid (until I started wearing glasses, that is).

I recall that there WAS a foot chase somewhere in this whole mess.

-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."

Fit in as in being recognized as a resident, walking in a common area instead of a sidewalk or street, I the rain.

Casing the joint as in standing and staring at different condos, just like two home invaders had a few months before .

Safetyhit

06-24-13, 17:50

Reading some of these posts has really changed my views of a lot of members here.

That's unfortunate and surely was no one's intent. Now would you be kind enough to take a moment and reference the brief numbered points above, then tell us which was the issue in your opinion as a police officer?

Edit: And if I missed something as Sensei kindly pointed out then please correct me.

SteyrAUG

06-24-13, 18:05

So I have to ask,

What was so suspicious about TM's conduct other than being a Black man in a private community?

What infraction of the law did TM violate?

Don't know, wasn't there.

But I have been frequently subject to "a few questions" when I was a white guy living in a mostly black neighborhood. Police constantly assumed I was there to buy crack. I've been followed, stopped and questioned more times than I can count.

When I came home from school to my parents gated community the security patrols didn't know who I was and I was regularly stopped and questioned. Wasn't because I was black, white or doing anything suspicious...I was just a guy they didn't know or recognize from the neighborhood.

While I was probably profiled more than a few times when I lived in a bad neighborhood, I don't think my rights were ever violated. I was never subject to a search that I didn't consent to and never had my property seized.

I suspect, but don't know, that GZ simply didn't recognize TM and given the history or break ins he seemed like a good "possible candidate" to check out. I suspect if he was a white kid in a hoodie of the same age he also would have also been checked out.

The only thing "wrong" about any of it is one of them obviously crossed the line on the other and right now we don't know who that is.

Mjolnir

06-24-13, 18:22

Actually since we were talking about "putting yourself at risk" to prevent crimes or possible crimes, it is exactly the same. The only real difference is "actual crimes" are even more dangerous than "possible crimes."

But again, this is another example of why I just can't have this conversation.

No. Not the same thing but if you insist it must only be the case in your world.

-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."

FromMyColdDeadHand

06-24-13, 18:26

Reading some of these posts has really changed my views of a lot of members here.

I have read many of thread from members on this forum about the government & law enforcement watching and over stepping the constructional bounties that violate are civil rights. To not be looked at as criminals for just wanting to exercise the rights given to us by the founding fathers while living their everyday lives.

Those who speak the loudest of these rights seem to forget that they apply to all citizens no matter their age, race, gender or personal living styles. But these same voices have forgotten the TM had these very same rights they wish that others (Mostly the Government) would respect and not encroach on.

If you can't see the difference between the govt collecting information about our contacts, travel, phone calls, emails and a citizen watching out for his community- I really can't help you. In the year leading up to TM shooting the police were dispatched to this small community over 400 times. GZ only made 7 of those calls.

So I have to ask,

What was so suspicious about TM's conduct other than being a Black man in a private community?

What infraction of the law did TM violate?

The above questions have not been answered by any member here to validate why MZ even made a 911 call or decided to follow TM on foot in the first place.

First, he never called 911, he called the non-emergency line- get it straight. I answered it a few posts ago, but I'll repeat it. He was walking in the rain, looking at condos while not seeming to be going to have a destination- just like people had been seen previously doing before break-ins.

Now some have said the reason that MZ called 911 because he did not recognize TM, So What! Does MZ know every person living or walking through the community? So just because MZ didn't know TM that made him suspicious. Now MZ did know that some recent crimes were committed in the area that may have had black males as possible perpetrators and TM was certainly a Black male but was he involved in any illegal action other then walking through the area? NO
.

Wrong

From Wikipedia:

Three weeks prior to the shooting, on February 2, 2012, Zimmerman called police to report a young man peering into the windows of an empty Twin Lakes home. Zimmerman was told a police car was on the way and he waited for their arrival. By the time police arrived, the suspect had fled. On February 6, workers witnessed two young black men lingering in the yard of a Twin Lakes resident around the same time her home was burglarized. A new laptop and some gold jewelry were stolen. The next day police discovered the stolen laptop in the backpack of a young black man, which led to his arrest. Zimmerman identified this young man as the same person he had spotted peering into windows on February 2.

Sounds just like the TM encounter

Most of the rest of your post is based on your incorrect facts and assumptions, so I'll just leave them out for brevity.

PA PATRIOT

06-24-13, 18:32

Fit in as in being recognized as a resident, walking in a common area instead of a sidewalk or street, I the rain.

Casing the joint as in standing and staring at different condos, just like two home invaders had a few months before .

So I have to ask what is "fitting in" and what does it have to do with anyone's legal right to be walking through a community, TM had permission from his father who lives in that community and no one really has the right to inquire on someone's right to be in that community unless they are a paid security service, property management or TM was crossing the private property of a resident.

And to this casing of homes were is this information coming from? The guy on trial for murder or a independent witness?

PA PATRIOT

06-24-13, 19:14

From MyColdDeadHand,

If you can't see the difference between the govt collecting information about our contacts, travel, phone calls, emails and a citizen watching out for his community-

Rebuttal,
I'M talking about all the posts in GD bitching about L/E infringement of personal rights, I'M stating that GZ in his role as Community watch be held to the same standard in observing personal liberties. Also good intent has lead to many tragedies as seen in this event.

From MyColdDeadHand,

First, he never called 911, he called the non-emergency line- get it straight. I answered it a few posts ago, but I'll repeat it. He was walking in the rain, looking at condos while not seeming to be going to have a destination- just like people had been seen previously doing before break-ins.

Rebuttal,
Once again who stated he was looking at condo's but a guy who wanted police there right away. Never heard any detailed information as to TM's looking into homes, Hell I look at homes all the time while walking by just to admire the gardening or architecture. Maybe TM was doing the same as I do looking at the houses as he walked in the rain and were is the crime in that. Now your statement could infer that TM was nose to the windows starring in so if you can clarify your statement with actual fact to what actually occurred it would enlighten us all. I don't think you can as only source/witness is the guy who shot and killed a kid under suspect reason.

From MyColdDeadHand,

From Wikipedia:

Three weeks prior to the shooting, on February 2, 2012, Zimmerman called police to report a young man peering into the windows of an empty Twin Lakes home. Zimmerman was told a police car was on the way and he waited for their arrival. By the time police arrived, the suspect had fled. On February 6, workers witnessed two young black men lingering in the yard of a Twin Lakes resident around the same time her home was burglarized. A new laptop and some gold jewelry were stolen. The next day police discovered the stolen laptop in the backpack of a young black man, which led to his arrest. Zimmerman identified this young man as the same person he had spotted peering into windows on February 2

Sounds just like the TM encounter

Rebuttal,
That just goes to show that GZ knew that the suspect to those crimes was arrested and the suspicions he had about TM possibly being a perpetrator to those crimes was non existent. Just more proof the GZ racially profiled TM as there was not a current unsolved crime spree in that area which needed the addition attention of following a Black man through a private community.

From MyColdDeadHand,

Most of the rest of your post is based on your incorrect facts and assumptions, so I'll just leave them out for brevity.

Fact,
You assume to much based on so little.

HackerF15E

06-24-13, 19:20

So in closing we should all afford the same rights under the law to TM as many have already done for MZ. Next time it may be you under the bright light.

Who is "MZ"?

SHIVAN

06-24-13, 19:27

He was profiled because he looked out of place. I do not believe it had anything to do with his skin color, as there are black residents in that neighborhood -- like Trayvon Martin's dad....

When you look out of place, you look out of place. I "profile" the shit out of people loitering about when I am walking a long distance to my car in the parking lot during Christmas shopping. None of it has to do with race, but I would be a fool to exclude noticing that, in case I needed to ID someone at a later time.

PA PATRIOT

06-24-13, 19:39

Who is "MZ"?

Sorry the auto correct on my phone switch it for some reason from GZ.

streck

06-24-13, 19:54

Sensei

06-24-13, 19:54

Just curious as to why you repeatedly substituted the word "follow" with "chase". When I think chase I think one person running after another aggressively, yet we have never once heard about any sort of "chase" that I know of. I say this because if he was running after TM aggressively then TM may have become fearful of his safety for legitimate reasons, however we have no indication of this taking place at all.

I believe that the evidence shows GZ both followed and at least briefly chased TM. The following portion of occurred while GZ was still in his vehicle. At that point, TM was not making an ernest attempt to evade GZ. The chasing began when TM began running away and GZ began a foot pursuit. Whether that foot pursuit was for continued observation or some other purpose remains to be determined.

Palmguy

06-24-13, 19:55

Absolutely.

Zimmerman's face was pretty messed up on the night of the shooting.

As long as (and I doubt this will ever be known) Zimmerman didn't physically confront (meaning actually touch Trayvon Martin) then he was well within his right to defend himself.

I think we can all agree that just because you are on the ground being pummelled in the face doesn't give you the right to shoot the attacker if you are the one that first initiated the physical altercation.

...that is the whole issue with this. No one knows who the hell did what. But I concur with what's already been posted - I'd put my money on TM having the "hey cracker what you lookin at" mentality rather than GZ chasing down and "capturing" TM.

This is not accurate based on Florida law.

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

IF Zimmerman initially provoked the use of force by Martin (by more than just "following" him or "questioning" him), and if Martin was on top of Zimmerman, preventing Zimmerman from escaping and beating Zimmerman's head into the ground in a manner likely to cause death or GBH, Zimmerman is justified in using lethal force to defend himself.

Palmguy

06-24-13, 19:56

I believe that the evidence shows GZ both followed and at least briefly chased TM. The following portion of occurred while GZ was still in his vehicle. At that point, TM was not making an ernest attempt to evade GZ. The chasing began when TM began running away and GZ began a foot pursuit. Whether that foot pursuit was for continued observation or some other purpose remains to be determined.

I haven't heard any real evidence establishing this as a matter of fact....could have missed it though.

SHIVAN

06-24-13, 19:58

If I remember correctly, TM's father was visiting a girlfriend that lives in the neighborhood. His father did not live there.

Ok...point remains that there are black residents there, from recollection.

SteyrAUG

06-24-13, 20:24

No. Not the same thing but if you insist it must only be the case in your world.

[sigh]

Ok, tell me which of the bystanders didn't "put themselves at risk" and how were any of those scenarios less dangerous than a neighborhood watch "putting himself at risk" by checking somebody out?

tb-av

06-24-13, 21:07

So I have to ask what is "fitting in" and what does it have to do with anyone's legal right to be walking through a community, TM had permission from his father who lives in that community and no one really has the right to inquire on someone's right to be in that community unless they are a paid security service, property management or TM was crossing the private property of a resident.

And to this casing of homes were is this information coming from? The guy on trial for murder or a independent witness?

You have obviously never lived in that type community. It was dark, very dark according to witnesses. the weather was bad and it was Winter. It was dark and raining. TM was meandering around aimlessly looking in the clubhouse and possibly some other areas. If someone you didn't recognize was wandering around your property in the rain, in the dark, you would probably wonder what the hell they were up to,,,,, especially,,,, if you had seen recent home invasions, and other such behavior on your property. That is just normal reaction.

So very calmly ( unlike the off the chain gun weilding nut that people want you to believe ) he calls the "non-emergency" police line. Then proceeds to calmly explain the situation and ask for professional immediate assistance.

Why do you find that so odd?

tb-av

06-24-13, 21:10

Ok...point remains that there are black residents there, from recollection.

Yes, there are and one identified GZ for the police, which I believe prompted the photo of his smashed nose.

tb-av

06-24-13, 21:14

I haven't heard any real evidence establishing this as a matter of fact....could have missed it though.

I'm not clear on that either. In fact, I'm beginning to think Zman may not have done much seeking/chasing at all. the snippet and commentary they play on the news makes it sound that way but I'm not now convinced that in fact happened to any degree that would matter at all.

I'm pretty certain they will cover that aspect though.

Here is the recording again..... This was played at least twice today and Zman's lawyer told the jury he hopes they listen to it 5, 10, 20, 50 times if they need to. Zman had 2 flashlights ( which the DA thought was horrendous for some reason )... but one didn't work. I believe his backup was a little keychain light. But listen and after you think you hear him running ( so they say ), mostly what you hear is just mic wind noise and then about 2:50 you hear tap tap tap like a flashlight not working... and from there until 3:15 maybe you keep hearing that tap tap tap tap of him banging that light. AND you hear him say ok, I'll meet them at the mailboxes, which is pretty much right where he was. I'm not convinced he set off on some fast action hunt for Martin like the news suggested. Certainly he went somewhere but I'm not so sure it was a chase. Hell he wouldn't give out his address because he was afraid Martin would hear. He had no idea where he was.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9A-gp8mrdw

SHIVAN

06-24-13, 21:16

He tells the dispatcher that he lost contact and was headed back to his truck -- right?

tb-av

06-24-13, 21:34

IF Zimmerman initially provoked the use of force by Martin (by more than just "following" him or "questioning" him), and if Martin was on top of Zimmerman, preventing Zimmerman from escaping and beating Zimmerman's head into the ground in a manner likely to cause death or GBH, Zimmerman is justified in using lethal force to defend himself.

I just don't see how the DA any possible case. They are going to have to prove that Zman premeditated this. I just can't understand how they can imagine winning. Although I suppose they figure what have they got to loose.

tb-av

06-24-13, 21:39

He tells the dispatcher that he lost contact and was headed back to his truck -- right?

I don't know that for sure. Knowing more about the noises we are hearing and his general tone of voice as he confirms ok to meet at mailboxes, it sounds as such. BUT... he ended up in a tangle not at the truck... so.....

Yes, he lost contact but that was before getting out. did he venture out, light fail, go back or stop, try to fix light, venture out again? He obviously had to go back out but I just don't think it was a "chase". More like a "cautious search/walk".

Sensei

06-24-13, 21:47

What line? What statues? Following is not chasing. People seem to be making it out that you have no right to investigate suspicious people ON PRIVATE PROPERTY.

This was not a public street, it is a gated community. Try to Google street view inside that community. GZ was not cruising around looking for punks to shoot, he was INSIDE a controlled access area and saw someone that didn't fit in.

I saw that TM was actually casing the place anyway. Who goes out in the rain to get a tea and some candy for his little brother??

Here's hoping that they play the tape where GZ says that the guy looks high and they can admit the evidence that they found MJ in his system.

Chasing someone in a manner that makes them fear for their safety is assault in FL:

(1) An “assault” is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.
(2) Whoever commits an assault shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

Did GZ commit assault by chasing TM? I don't know, but he sure opened the door of possibility when he got out of his vehicle and ran toward TM.

To me, the crux of the matter centers around 2 questions. First, how was the initial physical confrontation initiated? Second, was GZ nearly incapacitated and in fear of his life when he used deadly force. So far, GZ has put forward a version of events that depicts him being attacked by TM 1 or 2 minutes after he abandoned his pursuit (or following or chase) and was returning to his car. He has also stated that he was fighting from a defensive position, near incapacitation, and in fear for his life when he used lethal force. As of today, I've still not seen any indication from the State to disprove this version of the events. FWIW, the State must disprove both of these points to convict GZ of murder2.

I haven't heard any real evidence establishing this as a matter of fact....could have missed it though.

GZ has admitted in press statements that he initially ran after TM to see in which direction he was going. This is supported by the 911 tapes that depict GZ as being breathless around the time that he was told by the dispatcher to abandon his pursuit (or chase or following).

tb-av

06-24-13, 22:17

GZ has admitted in press statements that he initially ran after TM to see in which direction he was going. This is supported by the 911 tapes that depict GZ as being breathless around the time that he was told by the dispatcher to abandon his pursuit (or chase or following).

That's not enough for assault. He was running for a vantage point to offer direction to the Police. That was in fact -the topic- of the conversation.... where is he / where are you.

About the second part, I have no don't from what I've seen and heard he was in fear of life.

Martins knees were soiled on his pants among other things we've already heard. Also the shot was fired at contact with his clothes but not his body. The burns and hole were consistent with clothes hanging down, meaning again Martin was on top.

There has simply been zero evidence or comment to suggest Z wasn't getting a beating that could have killed him.

The chase part is up in the air but imo they really better have some serious story to prove that one.... and then to turn it into assault..... It's going to be tough to prove that even if it were true.

There is location oriented movement if Martin was scared for his safety. He could have gone home but went another direction and his 12 year old cousin was home alone. Both parents were gone.

I just don;t see how they are going to prove this to any reasonable person and have them honestly say they have no doubt.

Sensei

06-24-13, 22:32

That's not enough for assault. He was running for a vantage point to offer direction to the Police. That was in fact -the topic- of the conversation.... where is he / where are you.

About the second part, I have no don't from what I've seen and heard he was in fear of life.

Martins knees were soiled on his pants among other things we've already heard. Also the shot was fired at contact with his clothes but not his body. The burns and hole were consistent with clothes hanging down, meaning again Martin was on top.

There has simply been zero evidence or comment to suggest Z wasn't getting a beating that could have killed him.

The chase part is up in the air but imo they really better have some serious story to prove that one.... and then to turn it into assault..... It's going to be tough to prove that even if it were true.

There is location oriented movement if Martin was scared for his safety. He could have gone home but went another direction and his 12 year old cousin was home alone. Both parents were gone.

I just don;t see how they are going to prove this to any reasonable person and have them honestly say they have no doubt.

I generally agree. You will notice from reading my post that I did not claim GZ committed assault. I only stated that he opened the door to the accusation.

Mjolnir

06-24-13, 22:51

[sigh]

Ok, tell me which of the bystanders didn't "put themselves at risk" and how were any of those scenarios less dangerous than a neighborhood watch "putting himself at risk" by checking somebody out?

Please, man, if you cannot use common deduction just cease discussing this matter with me. TM WAS NOT COMMITTING A FELONY AND *ALL* OF YOUR EXAMPLES WERE OF CITIZENS INTERVENING A FELONY IN COMMISSION.

NOT
THE
SAME

What is there not to see? :confused:

-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."

Moose-Knuckle

06-25-13, 02:07

One point that I still think many fail to realize is that George Zimmerman did not know the race of Trayvon Martin until the confrontation. He saw a figure walking wearing pants and a hooded sweatshirt. No way in hell someone is going to be able to determine the race of someone on a rainy night wearing a hoodie from behind. I think it will come out that George Zimmerman did not know the race of Trayvon Martin until he was on top of him, until that time Trayvon Martin was just a figure in the shadows.

SteyrAUG

06-25-13, 02:36

Please, man, if you cannot use common deduction just cease discussing this matter with me. TM WAS NOT COMMITTING A FELONY AND *ALL* OF YOUR EXAMPLES WERE OF CITIZENS INTERVENING A FELONY IN COMMISSION.

NOT
THE
SAME

What is there not to see? :confused:

-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."

It is the same for the BYSTANDER. That is what you keep missing over and over.

It was your assertion that nobody should "put themselves at risk" to check somebody out who "might" or "might not" be up to something.

I said thankfully nobody thinks like you and provided several examples of people who "put themselves at risk" in situations that were far more dangerous.

Please go RE READ what I wrote WITHOUT your assumptions. NOT ONCE did I make any claims about TM or suggest he was actually doing anything. I have been excessively candid about that.

So let me try and summarize again.

If YOU BELIEVE that nobody should risk "getting out of the car to investigate a person they have deemed suspicious" then how can you condone anyone assuming the "greater risk" of intervening in an actual crime or crime about to happen?

Again, nobody takes the time to read what I'm actually saying which is why I should know better about getting involved in this topic...AGAIN.

So let me leave a final word. Nobody knows anything.

IF GZ in the course of checking out TM crossed the line and did some stupid shit like attempt to physically detain him by force then GZ is to blame. He does NOT have powers of arrest to the best of my knowledge and TM was free to "keep walking." In that situation TM would have been defending himself and was free to use force to do so including taking him down to the pavement and inflicting injury.

But...

IF GZ did NOT try to physically restrain TM and was simply asking questions and TM became confrontational and violent and attacked GZ then GZ was fully within his rights to defend himself up to and including the use of deadly force.

It was either one or the other, or some closely related scenario, that happened. Right now we don't know who did what. I only help the evidence comes out to jurors can base a decision on more than "what they feel probably happened" because that never goes well.

Everything else is just bullshit, most of it being waved around to distract people from the fact that somebody crossed a line that night and THAT is the person who is to blame.

And that is the last thing I have to say on this subject. I just can't deal with all the related stupidity. If you have any questions just re read what I wrote until you understand what I am saying.

Mjolnir

06-25-13, 04:18

It is the same for the BYSTANDER. That is what you keep missing over and over.

It was your assertion that nobody should "put themselves at risk" to check somebody out who "might" or "might not" be up to something.

I said thankfully nobody thinks like you and provided several examples of people who "put themselves at risk" in situations that were far more dangerous.

Please go RE READ what I wrote WITHOUT your assumptions. NOT ONCE did I make any claims about TM or suggest he was actually doing anything. I have been excessively candid about that.

So let me try and summarize again.

If YOU BELIEVE that nobody should risk "getting out of the car to investigate a person they have deemed suspicious" then how can you condone anyone assuming the "greater risk" of intervening in an actual crime or crime about to happen?

Again, nobody takes the time to read what I'm actually saying which is why I should know better about getting involved in this topic...AGAIN.

So let me leave a final word. Nobody knows anything.

IF GZ in the course of checking out TM crossed the line and did some stupid shit like attempt to physically detain him by force then GZ is to blame. He does NOT have powers of arrest to the best of my knowledge and TM was free to "keep walking." In that situation TM would have been defending himself and was free to use force to do so including taking him down to the pavement and inflicting injury.

But...

IF GZ did NOT try to physically restrain TM and was simply asking questions and TM became confrontational and violent and attacked GZ then GZ was fully within his rights to defend himself up to and including the use of deadly force.

It was either one or the other, or some closely related scenario, that happened. Right now we don't know who did what. I only help the evidence comes out to jurors can base a decision on more than "what they feel probably happened" because that never goes well.

Everything else is just bullshit, most of it being waved around to distract people from the fact that somebody crossed a line that night and THAT is the person who is to blame.

And that is the last thing I have to say on this subject. I just can't deal with all the related stupidity. If you have any questions just re read what I wrote until you understand what I am saying.

I think you were correct when you've stated several times "you cannot discuss this" I you fail to see the difference in OBSERVATION and INTERDICTION...

-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."

tb-av

06-25-13, 08:13

One point that I still think many fail to realize is that George Zimmerman did not know the race of Trayvon Martin until the confrontation.

That is incorrect. When asked his race he said I think he's black but can't tell. Shortly thereafter he said... he's walking towards me now... he's black ( paraphrased)

"He looks black" 00:28

"and he's a black male" 01:08

"late teens" 01:13

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9A-gp8mrdw

tb-av

06-25-13, 08:31

I think you were correct when you've stated several times "you cannot discuss this" I you fail to see the difference in OBSERVATION and INTERDICTION...

What you don't want to accept is that it doesn't matter what TM or GZ "were doing". It doesn't matter that both were doing nothing or doing something.

They each have a freedom to walk up to the other and ask one another what the other is doing or if they are in need of some assistance for some reason. Why? Because they were both on shared commonly owned private property. Zman by the nature of the fact that he owned it in common. Martin by the fact that he was the child of a co-owner with Zman.

In fact... one could without much of a stretch at all say that Zman had more right and somewhat of a responsibility as Martin was...
a. - non-resident
b. - minor child unattended by adult owner ( there are usually rules and regs in home owners docs that speak to this )

I have lived in and own property in that type environment and I can tell you, that is normal behavior. The residents are aware of who is who and they naturally question "new faces".... generally for a friendly hello, nice to meet you, which section do you live in, etc..

PA PATRIOT

06-25-13, 08:37

Maybe it would be best to discuss each days testimony instead of guessing at the facts.

Just a suggestion.

tb-av

06-25-13, 08:40

Safetyhit

06-25-13, 08:47

Maybe it would be best to discuss each days testimony instead of guessing at the facts.

Just a suggestion.

Absolutely outrageous! If you can't recklessly toss around partially informed opinions here then this place will have nothing but crickets chirping. We must continue the trend of assumptions accompanied by witty (but not necessarily accurate) rebuttals for the sake of something or other.

By the way you never did answer my question. ;)

SHIVAN

06-25-13, 08:56

I don't know that for sure. Knowing more about the noises we are hearing and his general tone of voice as he confirms ok to meet at mailboxes, it sounds as such. BUT... he ended up in a tangle not at the truck... so.....

Yes, he lost contact but that was before getting out. did he venture out, light fail, go back or stop, try to fix light, venture out again? He obviously had to go back out but I just don't think it was a "chase". More like a "cautious search/walk".

It's been some time ago, but the map posted had time stamps that were gleaned from his call to the police dispatcher, and his description of where he was to that dispatcher. He gives a location of where he was when "he lost sight"...that was mapped with a time stamp.

Then, as I recall, he says on the recording that he is now backtracking and heading back to his truck.

The fatal altercation takes place on the back track, and is timestamped from the 911 call from the witness who sees the fight, with a location shown, and it matched exactly what GZ told dispatch he was doing.

As I said, George Zimmerman's story, true or not, meshes with the actual facts that the police and investigators have. It makes him infinitely more believable.

I believe it was USA Today or CNN who analyzed that map and timestamps and raised the question that if Trayvon was just headed home, he should have had plenty of time to get there in the 3-4 minutes that elapsed between the time GZ tells dispatch he lost sight, and the time the attack takes place....plenty of time by about 2.5 minutes, or more....

That raises SERIOUS doubt in the prosecutions assertion that TM was just going to the house after returning from 7-11. It begs the question, was TM looking to ambush GZ after being followed? Or was he really out looking to do other things, who knows what?, but certainly not heading directly home to play Playstation...

markm

06-25-13, 09:01

We must continue the trend of assumptions accompanied by witty (but not necessarily accurate) rebuttals for the sake of something or other.

I agree.

SHIVAN

06-25-13, 09:02

IF GZ in the course of checking out TM crossed the line and did some stupid shit like attempt to physically detain him by force then GZ is to blame. He does NOT have powers of arrest to the best of my knowledge and TM was free to "keep walking." In that situation TM would have been defending himself and was free to use force to do so including taking him down to the pavement and inflicting injury.

I agree with this but only up to the point that GZ would stop the physical detention. TM could never leap from stopping a physical detention where there was no fear for his life, to deadly force -- beating GZ's head on the concrete.

However, the corollary argument for GZ not being there is that TM could have already been back at his house WAAAAAAY before the altercation took place. Why did he choose to cross paths again with GZ after he "lost" him...??

Sensei

06-25-13, 09:23

That raises SERIOUS doubt in the prosecutions assertion that TM was just going to the house after returning from 7-11. It begs the question, was TM looking to ambush GZ after being followed? Or was he really out looking to do other things, who knows what?, but certainly not heading directly home to play Playstation...

In all fairness, we don't know if TM was trying to run home and got lost when he ran between the buildings. I'm embarrassed to say that I once got turned around in an unfamiliar portion of my own apartment complex, and it took me 5 minutes to get my bearings. While it looks like TM may have doubled back to affect an ambush, it is not unreasonable that TM may have taken a wrong turn in his haste and just happened to stumble upon GZ. Either way, it should not affect the outcome of the trial since guilt should be termined by how the physical confrontation unfolded.

montanadave

06-25-13, 09:29

Apparently this morning the DA is trying to get all of Zman's prior calls and actions admitted as evidence.

He continues to throw out the term assholes and punks and how Zman came to use that term. This could in fact turn out to be America's first high profile thought crime trial.

They have no evidence so they need to paint him as having some long standing ill will that manifested itself that day.

Somewhere there's a clip of Jack McCoy on Law & Order imploring the judge, "Your Honor, the defendant's state of mind prior to the commission of the crime goes directly to motive!" ;)

markm

06-25-13, 09:37

Somewhere there's a clip of Jack McCoy on Law & Order imploring the judge, "Your Honor, the defendant's state of mind prior to the commission of the crime goes directly to motive!" ;)

BONG BONG!!!!

SHIVAN

06-25-13, 09:40

In all fairness, we don't know if TM was trying to run home and got lost when he ran between the buildings.

Guess this kid just had the worst luck in his entire life. Caught with weed -- but not his. Caught with tools of burglary, but he was holding them for someone else. Video of fights and thugging on his phone, they were mostly of other people though. Pictures of a handgun, someone else's, but on his dad's kitchen table. Get's lost in a tiny townhouse community but has the navigation skills to find the 7-11 just fine. Tries to kill someone, but gets killed instead.

Damn the luck of that guy. Damn the luck.

montanadave

06-25-13, 09:43

BONG BONG!!!!

And if we could get Angie Harmon to make an appearance we could add a little ...

"Sha--wing!"

tb-av

06-25-13, 09:47

It's been some time ago, but the map posted had time stamps that were gleaned from his call to the police dispatcher, and his description of where he was to that dispatcher. He gives a location of where he was when "he lost sight"...that was mapped with a time stamp.

Then, as I recall, he says on the recording that he is now backtracking and heading back to his truck.

The fatal altercation takes place on the back track, and is timestamped from the 911 call from the witness who sees the fight, with a location shown, and it matched exactly what GZ told dispatch he was doing.

As I said, George Zimmerman's story, true or not, meshes with the actual facts that the police and investigators have. It makes him infinitely more believable.

I believe it was USA Today or CNN who analyzed that map and timestamps and raised the question that if Trayvon was just headed home, he should have had plenty of time to get there in the 3-4 minutes that elapsed between the time GZ tells dispatch he lost sight, and the time the attack takes place....plenty of time by about 2.5 minutes, or more....

That raises SERIOUS doubt in the prosecutions assertion that TM was just going to the house after returning from 7-11. It begs the question, was TM looking to ambush GZ after being followed? Or was he really out looking to do other things, who knows what?, but certainly not heading directly home to play Playstation...

I see,,, I have not seen that report laid out. It is quite clear though that the DA has minimal evidence. Sensei has a good point too. Although that particular community looks pretty straight forward, one could argue he got turned around. It's a stretch but possible.

What they are doing today is the DA is questioning the NH Watch coordinator from the Police dept. Showing the handbook, she gave out and such. Trying to present it as though it is law and applies universally. It's quite clear the DA is grasping at straws trying to have the jury invent a scenario and mindset as opposed to analyze facts.

Granted if Zmanis lying... he really laid out a damn good story under a high stress situation which I would think would be pretty damn hard for the average person. In fact, I think most of the LEO here are of the mindset that most citizens get their eye-witness accounts wrong. So for Zman to have just shot someone, create a recollection, and to this day have it all line up to witness accounts and electronic surveillance is remarkable.

========================
Cross examination of NH watch person is revealing an ongoing level of stress over crime, break-ins in this community. Interaction of residents and the NH coordinator(Zman) as the central figure to contact and coordinate information.
========================

SHIVAN

06-25-13, 09:51

Granted if Zman is lying... he really laid out a damn good story under a high stress situation which I would think would be pretty damn hard for the average person. In fact, I think most of the LEO here are of the mindset that most citizens get their eye-witness accounts wrong. So for Zman to have just shot someone, create a recollection, and to this day have it all line up to witness accounts and electronic surveillance is remarkable.

...and remember he gave his account literally within the same minutes of killing Trayvon, and still bleeding all over the place.

Absolutely amazing coincidence that his "story" seems to fit all the evidence they have to a tee. Nary a loose end to be found.

SHIVAN

06-25-13, 10:05

So no neighborhood watch (NW) prohibition against carrying a firearm if you are legal to do so....

George Zimmerman was literally following every instruction from NW to a tee, but the state wants the jury to believe that he followed all the other rules, but decides to accost TM in direct contradiction to their rules? Typically, a rule follower follows the rules, and doesn't pick and choose the ones they follow.

Looks bad so far for the state.:lol:

brickboy240

06-25-13, 10:53

O'Mara actually opened with a "knock-knock" joke!

Zimmerman is soooo screwed!

-brickboy240

T2C

06-25-13, 11:00

I think the two key issues for the Zimmerman trial should be:

1) Did Zimmerman have a legal right to be where he was when the altercation started?

2) Was Zimmerman in reasonable apprehension of great bodily harm or death when he fired his pistol?

Any other issues should only be considered at the sentencing hearing if Zimmerman is found guilty.

Sensei

06-25-13, 11:39

Guess this kid just had the worst luck in his entire life. Caught with weed -- but not his. Caught with tools of burglary, but he was holding them for someone else. Video of fights and thugging on his phone, they were mostly of other people though. Pictures of a handgun, someone else's, but on his dad's kitchen table. Get's lost in a tiny townhouse community but has the navigation skills to find the 7-11 just fine. Tries to kill someone, but gets killed instead.

Damn the luck of that guy. Damn the luck.

Let me be clear: I think that that CURRENTLY known evidence does not support a murder2 charge, and that the preponderance now suggests that GZ acted in self defense. However, I have seen no evidence to suggest that TM was "casing" the place for a future robbery as some have stated in this thread, nor do I think that past actions from either party are particularly useful in predicting guilt or innocence in this case.

montanadave

06-25-13, 11:56

Let me be clear: I think that that CURRENTLY known evidence does not support a murder2 charge, and that the preponderance now suggests that GZ acted in self defense. However, I have seen no evidence to suggest that TM was "casing" the place for a future robbery as some have stated in this thread, nor do I think that past actions from either party are particularly useful in predicting guilt or innocence in this case.

This pretty much sums up my position (in light of the evidence currently made public).

SteyrAUG

06-25-13, 13:41

I think you were correct when you've stated several times "you cannot discuss this" I you fail to see the difference in OBSERVATION and INTERDICTION...

-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."

Please re read my posts until you find your error.

SHIVAN

06-25-13, 14:55

However, I have seen no evidence to suggest that TM was "casing" the place for a future robbery as some have stated in this thread,

He was getting the contents for Purple Drank, but apparently saying that is racist.

Moltke

06-25-13, 15:02

Moose-Knuckle

06-25-13, 15:06

He continues to throw out the term assholes and punks and how Zman came to use that term. This could in fact turn out to be America's first high profile thought crime trial.
They have no evidence so they need to paint him as having some long standing ill will that manifested itself that day.

This, last I checked racists make racials slurs. Guess "punks" and "assholes" are now "racist". :suicide:

FromMyColdDeadHand

06-25-13, 15:26

This, last I checked racists make racials slurs. Guess "punks" and "assholes" are now "racist". :suicide:

Everytime they say it, it will desensitize people to it.

Did the girlfriend testify yet?

Moose-Knuckle

06-25-13, 15:27

O'Mara actually opened with a "knock-knock" joke!

Zimmerman is soooo screwed!

-brickboy240

Actually I think it was brilliant!

"Knock, knock . . . "
"Who's there?"
"George Zimmerman."
"George Zimmerman who?" (Due to the fact that none of them had any idea who he was, which is hard to come by.)

For the opening arguments he was only addressing the six panel jury, no one else on the planet matters. They laughed, he knows what he is doing. ;)

Eurodriver

06-25-13, 15:49

Let's just take race out of it.

A resident saw a suspicious person walking alone at night in the rain wearing dark clothing outside of homes that had been experiencing break ins... so he calls the police and tells them what he sees. Then instead of losing sight of the potential bad guy who might be about to commit a crime, he follows him. The resident finally loses him anyway and starts back to the car when he's attacked. After screaming for help and getting beaten, the resident pulls his legally owned/carried pistol and shoots his attacker in self defense.

It's sad to see this witch hunt still going on.

That's just not how the left sees it.

They can't leave race out of it and they see a young innocent child going to buy candy and being shot by a white man who thinks all black kids are up to no good.

It doesn't matter if you want to leave race out of it, they won't.

Just read Huffington post's comments on Zimmerman articles.

"Why should any kid die because he wanted to buy candy?!?!"

The fact that he assaulted Zimmerman with the thug culture is irrelevant because Zimmerman shouldn't have confronted that boy in the first place.

SHIVAN

06-25-13, 16:05

Damn, O"meara just brought up FB....

She is, and always has been a witness for the state, and she "Liked" "Justice for Trayvon" on FB??

So.....uh....yeah...

SHIVAN

06-25-13, 16:21

http://i.imgur.com/AzN9cZ2.png

Moltke

06-25-13, 16:32

Damn, O"meara just brought up FB....

She is, and always has been a witness for the state, and she "Liked" "Justice for Trayvon" on FB??

So.....uh....yeah...

Justice for Trayvon...? Are they going to put him on trial for assault & battery after they finish with Zimmerman? It's only fair...

tb-av

06-25-13, 16:59

Everytime they say it, it will desensitize people to it.

Did the girlfriend testify yet?

No, but you really should try to watch the testimony of the Bahadoor girl...... holy cow..... I actually have known nothing about her....

So I'm listening and the DA questions her, everything went along ok, I thought it was little odd she said they were standing erect and saw arms flailing but also that she couldn't see them. But thought nothing special of it.... then Zmans lawyer starts asking her questions and suddenly she became about as dumb as a brick.... then... as it went on and on and she just couldn't figure anything out.... and he pretty much is catching her in what looks like a coverup.... Then he throws the facebook and news interviews in.... man, she is a piece of work.

Then the DA re-examines and shes like yep, yep, yep remembering every little detail.

He made three important points I believe. Zman's lawyer that is. He ended the day with a testimony you just can't forget. He got her to admit that maybe they were on the ground and those arms flailing were Travon's wailing on Zman, and he showed that she is a clear advocate for having Zman be found guilty.

So far, imo anyway, the DA has got nothing... in fact if I didn't know better, I would think they are trying to prove Zman innocent.

++Update: OOPS!! the evening news forgot to report about Ms. Bahadoor's testimony..... and one guy interviewed even said evidence is being submitted that contradicts Zimmerman's claims. But what we do know is that a highly respected Marine/LEO/SWAT/you name it... gave Martin mouth to mouth without a mask and tried to apply a chest seal with a plastic bag. I'm not sure why the news find that important at this time. Certainly he did an great job but why not report on that when it happened. .... oh wait, that's right.... there's still the issue of Ms. Bahadoor.

Eurodriver

06-25-13, 21:27

I take a class at the local university on public speaking. Its a state university and a summer class at night so there is a broad range of people. 18-44 year olds. White, hispanic, black, asian. Male, female.
From prior class meetings I know for a fact that 15 identify as "democrats", 5 as "republicans", and 5 as "independents". Two of the girls in class did speeches about civil rights and how blacks have been treated unfairly even in the modern era. One guy gave a speech about how Mayor Bloomberg is to be idolized as "looking out for our best interest".

Every single person in the class of 25 said that George Zimmerman, based on what they've seen and read, is innocent. Every single one. Some said they were "unsure, but probably innocent". But no one even remotely said "He's probably guilty".

The closest anyone came to saying he was guilty (And just to make a point, she is a black girl who gave a speech about Spike Lee as an "inspirational figure") and she said something to the effect of "I think George Zimmerman made a lot of mistakes that night, but after seeing the pictures of his face I don't think he could be guilty of 2nd degree murder in any way, shape, or form". Now she might be on board with an involuntary manslaughter charge, but she didn't say that. So who knows.

I was very very surprised. I was expecting to have to open up the floodgates of shut-the-****-up-you-liberal but not a single person even guessed that he might be guilty.

Moltke

06-25-13, 21:40

Eurodriver

06-25-13, 22:17

Euro, that is surprising. I would figure the libs would side on whatever side pushes down gun rights, self defense and personal responsibility - aka, that Zimmerman is somehow guilty but more importantly ... evil because he had a gun.

My jaw was dropped the entire class.

Later in the class the girl in front of me said she is a Democrat but if Hillary runs she will vote Republican just to spite her for Benghazi.

I patted her on the back and said I can forgive her for registering as a Democrat just because she's actually heard of Benghazi.

She replied "Yeah, when she said she had a concussion and couldn't testify my bs meter went off"

I hope to one day marry this girl.

But seriously. I have been blown away by these people. I'm a little angry because I enjoy arguing. Luckily I get to do plenty of that on Facebook.

Mjolnir

06-25-13, 22:30

That's the problem with stereotyping. It's not fact based WITH THE PERSONS IN FRONT OF YOU.

Good to hear, btw, and thanks for sharing.

-------------------------------------
"One cannot awaken a man who pretends to be asleep."

Iraqgunz

06-26-13, 00:32

Her credibility is shit now in my opinion. I also think that her testimony was coached and I am almost willing to say I think she was coaxed into lying. Especially find it interesting that she reviews statements with someone from FDLE with her sister in the same room at the time. Apparently for "comfort" or some bullshit.

No, but you really should try to watch the testimony of the Bahadoor girl...... holy cow..... I actually have known nothing about her....

So I'm listening and the DA questions her, everything went along ok, I thought it was little odd she said they were standing erect and saw arms flailing but also that she couldn't see them. But thought nothing special of it.... then Zmans lawyer starts asking her questions and suddenly she became about as dumb as a brick.... then... as it went on and on and she just couldn't figure anything out.... and he pretty much is catching her in what looks like a coverup.... Then he throws the facebook and news interviews in.... man, she is a piece of work.

Then the DA re-examines and shes like yep, yep, yep remembering every little detail.

He made three important points I believe. Zman's lawyer that is. He ended the day with a testimony you just can't forget. He got her to admit that maybe they were on the ground and those arms flailing were Travon's wailing on Zman, and he showed that she is a clear advocate for having Zman be found guilty.

So far, imo anyway, the DA has got nothing... in fact if I didn't know better, I would think they are trying to prove Zman innocent.

++Update: OOPS!! the evening news forgot to report about Ms. Bahadoor's testimony..... and one guy interviewed even said evidence is being submitted that contradicts Zimmerman's claims. But what we do know is that a highly respected Marine/LEO/SWAT/you name it... gave Martin mouth to mouth without a mask and tried to apply a chest seal with a plastic bag. I'm not sure why the news find that important at this time. Certainly he did an great job but why not report on that when it happened. .... oh wait, that's right.... there's still the issue of Ms. Bahadoor.

SHIVAN

06-26-13, 09:57

It's pretty clear that this case is a railroading attempt...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=74kyUhRsLBc

A key witness who runs to network TV, twice ... despite testifying under oath that it was once...and has preconceived notions of who MUST be guilty and tries to fit testimony to the prosecution narrative....

Ugh.

Army Chief

06-26-13, 10:04

I think what has bothered me the most to this point is the charged invective and/or leading language used in defining all of this. For example, when describing photographs of a deceased Mr. Martin on the ground, the media chose to refer to him as "slain" -- a word with some rather clear (and not especially neutral) connotations. So it goes with virtually every term or reference involved with the entire case.

AC

SHIVAN

06-26-13, 10:25

So Jeanne Manalo says that she had no idea who was who until she saw pictures of Trayvon on TV. Then she knew that he was small, and so he had to be the one on bottom.

GZ weighed the same as TM at the time of the shooting. GZ is 5'8" I think, and TM was 6'2".

The smaller guy was on the bottom, it was GZ.

tb-av

06-26-13, 10:55

So Jeanne Manalo says that she had no idea who was who until she saw pictures of Trayvon on TV.

Is she the one that testified today(morning). The retired mental health person. The one with a cat that sat in the window?

That lady said she believed the higher pitched voice was screaming. The younger. She was certain of that... then she says... and then I heard pow pow pow... .three gun shots.

EDIT: ok Manalo is still on the stand. Don't know name of person that testified earlier. I believe all her testimony was from what she heard though. I've never heard Martins voice but Zman has a very light voice for a man.

Manalo just testified that she made comparisons of size based on photos she saw in the media. The "hoodie shot" and the "football jersey shot".

She did say at one time as well "I may have been wrong"... meaning her conclusions at the time were wrong.