Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman official discussion thread

[saptech]

Of course, he is not going to tell the police that. But there were a number of calls to police about suspicious looking "black men stalking" the area in previous calls. There is a transcript of the police dispatcher telling GZ to stop following him, which he continued to do. All he had to do was keep a safe distance from TM and none of this would be happening.

 

[Gmash]

Like most guys who feel the need to carry guns, Zimmerman is a wuss who gets a little more testicular fortitude with a gun in his pocket. Martin was a punk kid who wasn't counting on the "creepy cracker" he probably confronted for walking behind him being armed. As long as people keep insisting that carrying concealed weapons is a great idea, this is the kind of thing that will happen. Problem is, Zimmerman isn't on trial for being a douche or a wannabe cop, he's on trial for murder, and that hasn't been proven by anything close to beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution case is a mess. Half of their witnesses helped the defense. The cops and prosecutors didn't even want to bring the case, but bowed to public pressure from a publicity seeking family who can't fathom that their kid could ever do anything wrong (like all too many parents these days). Thank goodness this case is almost over one way or the other at least.

 

[Fuzzy13]

Like most guys who feel the need to carry guns, Zimmerman is a wuss who gets a little more testicular fortitude with a gun in his pocket. Martin was a punk kid who wasn't counting on the "creepy cracker" he probably confronted for walking behind him being armed. As long as people keep insisting that carrying concealed weapons is a great idea, this is the kind of thing that will happen. Problem is, Zimmerman isn't on trial for being a douche or a wannabe cop, he's on trial for murder, and that hasn't been proven by anything close to beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution case is a mess. Half of their witnesses helped the defense. The cops and prosecutors didn't even want to bring the case, but bowed to public pressure from a publicity seeking family who can't fathom that their kid could ever do anything wrong (like all too many parents these days). Thank goodness this case is almost over one way or the other at least.

So how would you suggest protecting you and your family against criminals that will ALWAYS have guns?

Either you've been extremely sheltered your entire life and have no idea what the real world is like or your just as naive as every other liberal crazy that thinks taking guns away from law abiding citizens will solve crime.

 

[SiempreTuna]

I haven't been following the case however, the idea that there are untrained, armed vigillantes 'patrolling' the steet is nothing short of madness. The only surprise here is that there haven't been many, many more deaths, both of victim/suspects and vigilantes.

 

[PrinceCorwin]

I haven't been following the case however, the idea that there are untrained, armed vigillantes 'patrolling' the steet is nothing short of madness. The only surprise here is that there haven't been many, many more deaths, both of victim/suspects and vigilantes.

Untrained? Another obviously naive, low information ranter. Why don't you check out what it takes to obtain a license to carry a concealed weapon.
I think his training worked out pretty well for him.

 

[Fuzzy13]

I haven't been following the case however, the idea that there are untrained, armed vigillantes 'patrolling' the steet is nothing short of madness. The only surprise here is that there haven't been many, many more deaths, both of victim/suspects and vigilantes.

I think someone who was actually reckless and "untrained" would have fired at least one shot among the the numerous calls made to police about suspicious people in the neighborhood.

 

[OcalaFlGuy]

Of course, he is not going to tell the police that. But there were a number of calls to police about suspicious looking "black men stalking" the area in previous calls. There is a transcript of the police dispatcher telling GZ to stop following him, which he continued to do. All he had to do was keep a safe distance from TM and none of this would be happening.

It would REALLY BE NICE if you had a clue what you were talking about.

Just. A. Clue.

The ONLY time Zimmy EVER mentioned any color of anything was when he was ASKED by the dispatcher to describe the suspicious people. He apparently had a College Class that included how to be a good witness. He'd probably be a better witness for the cops than most anyone here.

There WERE suspicious black people stalking around that place who WERE burglarizing homes in the subdivision. THAT was Zimmy's main impetus for starting the Neighborhood watch.

How about you actually look at the EVIDENCE? They had Zimmy's neighbor, a BLACK lady. She seems to ADORE Zimmy. Don't you think the Prosecution tried their Very Best to find Anyone who could say Zimmy routinely used the N word or something racist like that? And the closest they came to that was an ear witness to ZIMMY being called a Creepy ass Cracker by his assailant.

There is NO EVIDENCE Zimmy continued following Maritn. And "we don't need you to do that" IS NOT even CLOSE to the same thing as "STOP following him". Besides, please check YOUR lawbooks and clue ME in on what law prohibits Me from following You if I so desire to do so. (Newsflash for you. There's NOT one.) Just because I LEGALLY decide I want to follow you for WHATEVER reason Does Not give You the right to physically attack me. THAT gives YOU the right to go to jail for assault and battery.

If YOU want to interject RACE where it ISN'T already you should at least try and make your position believable by someone who knows what the Evidence IS.

Bruce in Ocala, Fl

 

[Fuzzy13]

It would REALLY BE NICE if you had a clue what you were talking about.

Just. A. Clue.

The ONLY time Zimmy EVER mentioned any color of anything was when he was ASKED by the dispatcher to describe the suspicious people. He apparently had a College Class that included how to be a good witness. He'd probably be a better witness for the cops than most anyone here.

There WERE suspicious black people stalking around that place who WERE burglarizing homes in the subdivision. THAT was Zimmy's main impetus for starting the Neighborhood watch.

How about you actually look at the EVIDENCE? They had Zimmy's neighbor, a BLACK lady. She seems to ADORE Zimmy. Don't you think the Prosecution tried their Very Best to find Anyone who could say Zimmy routinely used the N word or something racist like that? And the closest they came to that was an ear witness to ZIMMY being called a Creepy ass Cracker by his assailant.

There is NO EVIDENCE Zimmy continued following Maritn. And "we don't need you to do that" IS NOT even CLOSE to the same thing as "STOP following him". Besides, please check YOUR lawbooks and clue ME in on what law prohibits Me from following You if I so desire to do so. (Newsflash for you. There's NOT one.) Just because I LEGALLY decide I want to follow you for WHATEVER reason Does Not give You the right to physically attack me. THAT gives YOU the right to go to jail for assault and battery.

If YOU want to interject RACE where it ISN'T already you should at least try and make your position believable by someone who knows what the Evidence IS.

Bruce in Ocala, Fl

Exactly.

People inject assumption in place of factual evidence.

What I find sad is that a good man lost his job for doing his job WHICH was corroborated by his officers in a public court. Not to mention the woman that actually filed charges is being charged herself for falsifying the arrest warrant to make it legit.

 

[OcalaFlGuy]

As long as people keep insisting that carrying concealed weapons is a great idea, this is the kind of thing that will happen.

Bzzzt. Tilt. Fail.

Try this on for size.

Ok, let's assume Zimmy was still doing neighborhood watch and never had bought a gun.

Martin has showed himself to be someone who with little reason to would physically attack someone. THAT is IN EVIDENCE. He's also a teenager who medically, scientifically, doesn't have a brain that fully makes proper decisions. And on top of that, he's a (law breaking) STONER. That REALLY HELPS his already poor decision making process doesn't it.

Martin was a minor. With drug arrests.

HE was looking to buy his OWN gun. Which would have been his first committed FELONY. There was a pic of the gun he wanted to buy On His Phone.

Zimmy legally obtained his weapon. He went through and passed the class that includes when someone can legally use a concealed weapon and HOW to properly shoot it. It appears his instructor was a Federal Air Marshal.

What kind of training do you want me to believe FELON Martin would have gotten re; the use of his ILLEGAL concealed weapon? Hmm?

Where today would Zimmy be without HIS weapon (and Martin With his given the same remaining events of that night)?

That would be right where Martin is now, pushing up daisies. (IF Martin wasn't holding His pistol gangsta style and didn't accidentally shoot the kid in bed in the house across the street that is. )

Bruce in Ocala, Fl

 

[Kelmar]

As long as people keep insisting that carrying concealed weapons is a great idea

I'd open carry if it was legal here!


Seriously though, many of us whom chose to carry do so VERY responsibly. We know what the rules and limitations are. We know when we can defend ourselves and when our firearms must remain hidden and/or holstered; we are fully aware and fully prepared to follow the laws that are in place.

Please please PLEASE don't assume or suggest that our rights to LEGALLY carry our firearms should be revoked based on a situation where ONE person who WAS carrying legally was involved in an unfortunate situation.

... and if so, please look at Chicago where gun laws are frankly outrageous and yet there were 7 people shot to death and 26 shooting relating incidents over the weekend. And it's said that this is an IMPROVEMENT (as there were 8 additional shooting deaths on the same weekend the year before)?!?

Guns in the wrong hands of people willing and knowingly breaking the law or allow guns in the hands of those who ARE trained and lawfully carrying with potential to not only save their own life but possibly those around them.

 

[AndyfromVA]

It was a big mistake for the defense not to put Zimmerman on the stand. The jury was waiting for Zimmerman to tell his story. Now they are wondering what Zimmerman is hiding. Without Zimmerman's account of what occurred the jury will be more inclined to accept the prosecution's version of events.

Either Zimmerman would have been a terrible witnesses (Shifty? Evasive? Arrogant? Aggressive?) or the defense made a huge mistake.

I still think there will be a not guilty verdict or a hung jury but the odds have dropped from 99% to 70%

Now that the jury can consider manslaughter (homicide with malice but with no intent to kill) I'd say the odds of an acquittal or hung jury have dropped to 50%. The prosecution just might pull victory from the jaws of defeat.

 

[OcalaFlGuy]

For the jury to convict LEGITIMATELY for ANYTHING they have to totally Not Believe self defense.

IMO for that to happen you have to be Blind to not see the pics of Zimmy and Deaf to not hear HIS screams.

They may be dumb for all I know, but NONE of the jury I've heard of are deaf AND blind.

Bruce in Ocala, Fl

 

[PrinceCorwin]

I still say it's all a setup for what comes AFTER the verdict.

 

[jhtalisman]

The main thing here is who attacked who first. Stand your ground laws are for the benefit of the attacked, not attacker. So who originated the physical contact? We may never know, but Trayvon probably felt threatened by being stalked throughout the neighborhood by a stranger, as most of us probably would as well. But who threw the first blow is the question.

 

[OcalaFlGuy]

That is NOT legally correct and NOT how the jury will be instructed tomorrow.

You should actually LEARN Something about the Stand Your Ground law before you make silly statements like that.

It has exactly SQUATOLA to do with Who punched First. Zippo. Nada. ZeeeRo.

WHO the law Applies Favorably to can and often DOES CHANGE maybe more than once within any physical confrontation.

For example.

IF you assume Zimmy was the aggressor when he was following Martin, that CHANGED if you believe him when he said that when he was told, "we don't need you to do that" (also NOT the Same thing as being told "Don't follow him"), that *he started back towards his car*. That is RETREATING (from having "BEEN the aggressor"). AT THAT TIME the Stand Your Ground part "Resets" to basically applying to neither one of them. Then, when and if you assume Zimmy's word, when Martin sucker punches him and gets him into an indefensible position on the ground (for someone unskilled in fighting like Zimmy), that THEN puts Martin as the aggressor and Zimmy as the one Stand Your Ground applies favorably to.

THAT is what matters, NOT who did what first.

The Best Call Re; Stand Your Ground was what was the situation IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO the (possible self defense) shot being fired. That was CLEARLY and Undeniably Martin on top of Zimmy beating him into the next galaxy. (Ie; SYG still applying favorably to Zimmy.)

Bruce in Ocala, Fl

 

[Fuzzy13]

That is NOT legally correct and NOT how the jury will be instructed tomorrow.

You should actually LEARN Something about the Stand Your Ground law before you make silly statements like that.

It has exactly SQUATOLA to do with Who punched First. Zippo. Nada. ZeeeRo.

WHO the law Applies Favorably to can and often DOES CHANGE maybe more than once within any physical confrontation.

For example.

IF you assume Zimmy was the aggressor when he was following Martin, that CHANGED if you believe him when he said that when he was told, "we don't need you to do that" (also NOT the Same thing as being told "Don't follow him"), that *he started back towards his car*. That is RETREATING (from having "BEEN the aggressor"). AT THAT TIME the Stand Your Ground part "Resets" to basically applying to neither one of them. Then, when and if you assume Zimmy's word, when Martin sucker punches him and gets him into an indefensible position on the ground (for someone unskilled in fighting like Zimmy), that THEN puts Martin as the aggressor and Zimmy as the one Stand Your Ground applies favorably to.

THAT is what matters, NOT who did what first.

The Best Call Re; Stand Your Ground was what was the situation IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO the (possible self defense) shot being fired. That was CLEARLY and Undeniably Martin on top of Zimmy beating him into the next galaxy. (Ie; SYG still applying favorably to Zimmy.)

Bruce in Ocala, Fl

Perfectly explained

 

[OcalaFlGuy]

Here's how *I* would try and turn the tables and win for the Prosecution tomorrow.

I go though my whole planned (tomorrow) rebuttal to the Defense.

Then I'd END with this.

I'd go over to the jury and instead of screaming at their asses like they did today, I stoop down and speak just loud enough for them to hear me. And here's what I'd say.

"This all boils down to just one thing. Was this a self defense situation for the Defendant or not. If it Was one of those, you Must acquit him. But, It isn't one. The Defense KNOWS it isn't one and I can Prove To You they KNOW that.

IF it were Truly a self defense situation then that also would make it a stand your ground situation. Did you hear the Defense ask for any Stand Your Ground hearing before this trial? No, you didn't. The REASON you didn't see or hear that is the Defense KNEW this wasn't a self defense situation and that by possibly losing that SYG hearing they'd also blow their only remaining real defense for a jury trial. They Couldn't Risk That by going for the SYG hearing.

If they had KNOWN it was a self defense situation and Won the SYG hearing, None of this trial would have even been necessary. They didn't go for the SYG hearing because they KNEW this Wasn't self defense and they'd Lose in that hearing. And at the same time Lose their Best defense for This trial.

This ISN'T a self defense situation and the Defense has PROVEN that to you by these actions."

Now.

I got no damn clue why Omara didn't go for the SYG hearing. But they can say any damn thing they want in closing that isn't patently a false statement. The jury may not know for sure, but saying the above would IMO Damn Sure have them thinking.

That's how I'D try and win tomorrow.

Bruce in Ocala, Fl

 

[jhtalisman]

That is NOT legally correct and NOT how the jury will be instructed tomorrow.

You should actually LEARN Something about the Stand Your Ground law before you make silly statements like that.

It has exactly SQUATOLA to do with Who punched First. Zippo. Nada. ZeeeRo.

WHO the law Applies Favorably to can and often DOES CHANGE maybe more than once within any physical confrontation.

For example.

IF you assume Zimmy was the aggressor when he was following Martin, that CHANGED if you believe him when he said that when he was told, "we don't need you to do that" (also NOT the Same thing as being told "Don't follow him"), that *he started back towards his car*. That is RETREATING (from having "BEEN the aggressor"). AT THAT TIME the Stand Your Ground part "Resets" to basically applying to neither one of them. Then, when and if you assume Zimmy's word, when Martin sucker punches him and gets him into an indefensible position on the ground (for someone unskilled in fighting like Zimmy), that THEN puts Martin as the aggressor and Zimmy as the one Stand Your Ground applies favorably to.

THAT is what matters, NOT who did what first.

The Best Call Re; Stand Your Ground was what was the situation IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO the (possible self defense) shot being fired. That was CLEARLY and Undeniably Martin on top of Zimmy beating him into the next galaxy. (Ie; SYG still applying favorably to Zimmy.)

Bruce in Ocala, Fl

You assume that he even went towards his car.

If he, disobeyed the dispatcher, then he is the aggressor for not following the direct order from him/her. He pursued when clearly instructed not to, escalating the immediate situation. Therefore, he is the attacker, putting Trayvon at risk, and making himself open to whatever charges put before him. He would have not needed to discharge his weapon if he had heeded the order from said dispatcher, and let the professionals handle the perceived threat, rendering this an open and shut case.

Zimmerman, with a 2nd degree murder charge, should be imprisoned for whatever the law alllows since he did not follow a direct order from a sanctioned dispatcher and instead decided to take the law into his own hands. The result: an innocent teenager who had such a deadly weapon as skittles.

For all Trayvon knew, he could have been a predator who preys on teeange boys, but when someone follows me, I make damn sure they better keep away. Otherwise they will get the beatdown they deserve.

 

[copestag]

actually youre pretty close on your explanation and understanding of SYG...... but just off enough that your thoroughly confused.... with the SYG law it makes every bit of difference with every particular of who did what and when....and thats the reason they didnt go for SYG in this case.... it wouldnt have been eligible if we believe either story

however self defense can be used any time your life is in danger........ regardless of who did what or any other particular.... technically by law....... even if zimmerman had been chasing this kid with a chainsaw yelling "N" must die it wouldnt matter..... if he felt his life was in danger then he had a right to defend it

at the point his head was being turned to hamburger...... by the concrete below (for the idiot who thinks this thug was "unarmed").... his life was in danger......he had the right to do anything he felt necessary to defend himself

Im personally not sure how anybody could possibly still be defending this drugged up piece of trash kid

every single shred of evidence points to zimmerman telling the truth..... this case doesnt need reasonable doubt of guilt..... there couldnt possibly be a doubt that hes innocent

 

[Fuzzy13]

You assume that he even went towards his car.

If he, disobeyed the dispatcher, then he is the aggressor for not following the direct order from him/her. He pursued when clearly instructed not to, escalating the immediate situation. Therefore, he is the attacker, putting Trayvon at risk, and making himself open to whatever charges put before him. He would have not needed to discharge his weapon if he had heeded the order from said dispatcher, and let the professionals handle the perceived threat, rendering this an open and shut case.

Zimmerman, with a 2nd degree murder charge, should be imprisoned for whatever the law alllows since he did not follow a direct order from a sanctioned dispatcher and instead decided to take the law into his own hands. The result: an innocent teenager who had such a deadly weapon as skittles.

For all Trayvon knew, he could have been a predator who preys on teeange boys, but when someone follows me, I make damn sure they better keep away. Otherwise they will get the beatdown they deserve.

In Florida it doesn't matter who the initial aggressor is. It matters who's life was in danger and in need of protecting.

I didn't know this until the other day when it was explained more thorough.

Basically GZ could have went up and clocked TM in the face and TM could have retaliated with being his head into the concrete. Being that GZ's life is in danger at this point he can defend his life.

It doesn't matter who started it from a legal stand point. It matters who's life was in danger and following someone is not putting someone's life in danger nor Is it illegal.

I couldn't believe this. I thought whoever made it PHYSICAL first was the aggressor from which you can defend yourself. So it's similar but who started it doesn't matter in Florida.

Btw, following someone isn't aggressive not does it constitute physical retaliation. We will never know what actually happened, we can only go off the evidence and GZ's injuries support his claim.



Oh, and I've been unsure this whole time about who was yelling for help. So I went back and actually pulled all the audio up in my studio for a better listen. If I was to bet on it I would say it was GZ yelling for help. Why? Because TM's voice was actually more "masculine" than GZ's. On the "fight video" we actually have voice evidence of TM's voice. And listening to the screams in a better environment I was able to hear that the clearest scream actually started at the person's baseline voice or near it and went up in pitch. That was the definitive factor in my opinion. But it's still assumption.

 

[Deleted User]

Another thug got what he deserved. He wasn't the "altar boy" that he was portrayed to be.

 

[OcalaFlGuy]

You assume that he even went towards his car.

If he, disobeyed the dispatcher, then he is the aggressor for not following the direct order from him/her. He pursued when clearly instructed not to, escalating the immediate situation. Therefore, he is the attacker, putting Trayvon at risk, and making himself open to whatever charges put before him. He would have not needed to discharge his weapon if he had heeded the order from said dispatcher, and let the professionals handle the perceived threat, rendering this an open and shut case.

Zimmerman, with a 2nd degree murder charge, should be imprisoned for whatever the law alllows since he did not follow a direct order from a sanctioned dispatcher and instead decided to take the law into his own hands. The result: an innocent teenager who had such a deadly weapon as skittles.

For all Trayvon knew, he could have been a predator who preys on teeange boys, but when someone follows me, I make damn sure they better keep away. Otherwise they will get the beatdown they deserve.

There was NO DIRECT ORDER from Any dispatcher. (Not that it would matter if he was COMMANDED by the dispatcher to go french kiss Martin.)

Because, a 911 dispatcher is a civilian employee of the LEO agency. They ARE NOT sworn law enforcement officers. (And I got no idea what orifice of your body you pulled this "follow an Order of a "sanctioned dispatcher" foolishness from.)

Zimmy was told, (the exact quote) "We don't need you to do that."

If YOU think THAT's a direct order to do anything, you need to go relearn the English language.

It's no direct order to do squat. It's a plain and simple (basically legally meaningless) statement.

Bruce in Ocala, Fl

 

[saptech]

What did this TM do the night of his muder? I haven't read, seen or heard he was doing any of the things alot of you all are saying he is/did.

GZ wasn't no angel either. After this happen he and his wife lied about being too poor for bail money, all the while collecting money from supporters.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html

 

[Fuzzy13]

O Mara is doing a great job in closing.

 

[Kelmar]

http://c.washingtontimes.com/neighb...ould-be-found-not-guilt/#.Ud9KwK-PbeA.twitter