I'm watching CNN and they are showing the clip where Zimmerman is showing the cops what happened the day after.
He said that Matin didn't notice the gun until wayyyy after Martin beat the shit out of him. All Zimmerman had to do before Martin attacked him was to show him the gun.
To me, allowing Martin to attack him makes me think he wanted the fight to happen just so he could kill him. He reported many times that there were a couple black people robbing places (heard that on CNN as well. they played a phone call Zimmerman had with a police dispatcher) and I bet this was his way of taking care of it.
I know what I am saying is pretty bizarre, but I just don't see why he didn't do that at first. I know I am probably wrong, but his story puts him in a tough position. He failed to follow police orders and he killed a unarmed man. Yes, Zimmerman was injured, but he instigated it by following Martin and making him scared.
~Carter~
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
As a Canadian I find myself having trouble understanding the "stand your ground" law and ho it works. From what I understand, anyone in Florida has the right to use deadly force if they feel reasonably threatened by a another person. Does this mean that you can stalk somebody and if they turn around and confront you, you now have the right to use deadly force to protect yourself? Taken to an extreme, it seems that a person could easily plan a murder using this law.If the burden of proof for this law is beyond a reasonable doubt it seems that it would be very hard to convict anybody for murder in a stand your ground jurisdiction.
Again, I don't really understand the inner workings of the "stand your ground" law so I'm trying to understand how broad this law actually is.
I disagree. Zimmerman will walk. And deserves to walk. Here's why:
He thought he was a good guy.
He was concerned Martin was a bad guy.
He called the cops; if he had any plan to start a fight he would have called buddies to get his back.
Martin kicked his ass fair and square.
He thought his gun would be used to kill him; if he was acting like a gangster he would have had his finger on the trigger before he got punched in the nose.
He was the one screaming for help; nobody yells for help as they are pummeling someone's head. Martin was not beat up, Zimmerman was.
There's the possibility that Zimmerman pulled the gun and pointed it for a few seconds before he fired and Martin started screaming out of fear of being shot.
Your statements are all as if you are in Zimmerman's head. You have no idea if he wouldve called friends, or if he was a confident person because he had a gun. Perhaps he wanted to go alone because he wasnt afraid to use his gun. You do realize that Zimmerman pursued Martin about three times, right? in the rain. in the dark.
Hey Vant, Martin was a better fighter and tougher than Zimmerman. Size never ever matters in a street fight.
This is agree with though, and it reflects the fact that Zimemrman was a pussy and needed a gun after he got himself in a sticky situation. If I saw someone in a car following me, then saw them get out of the car and follow me more, in the dark and in the rain, I'd feel a bit threatened, as Martin likely did.
Im fully aware that fist fights can be bloody, but does the end result need to be the END of someones life?
If this is the case then Zimmerman will get charged with something because he was told not to follow. He did and as a result someone died. He provoked a fight and killed someone in the process. It could have been avoided.
He was advised to not to follow the suspicious person. He was told, by a non-emergency dispatcher, that they didn't need him to continue to pursue Trayvon.
Bright eyed kid: "Wow Typo Man, you're the best!"
Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
Here's my take (humble though it may be) after reading the last few pages of the thread and following the first few days of the trial:
1. Every case I've ever tried or watched always looks really, really convincing when only one side is presenting it's case. If the State's case looks solid right now, wait until cross of key witnesses. Wait until the defense presents witnesses. If Zimmerman's attorneys are worth their salt, they'll make it close.
2. Someone raised the question of why jury selection allows (hell, encourages) attorneys to make distinctions among jurors that would otherwise be inappropriate in daily life. That's a valid question, and one that is routinely debated among bar associations and attorneys alike. In Minnesota, there are proposals to change the rules of criminal procedure to prohibit the use of sexual orientation during jury selection (proponents argue: if we want to outlaw discrimination, we need to do so everywhere; allowing attorneys to strike jurors because of their LGBT status is discrimination etc). You'd be surprised who is opposing these changes: many defense attorneys (and liberal ones at that). Their argument is that protecting potential jurors from discriminating strikes would create a "quasi-right to sit on a jury," one that does not exist, and one that, if it did exist, should take a back-seat to the rights of a defendant to a fair trial. The essence of the opponents' argument is: if an attorney has to be a bigot to ensure his client gets a fair trial or jury pool, then so be it.
I look at jury selection like this: use of strikes against prospective jurors, for reasons that otherwise might be inappropriate in daily life (keep in mind: race based strikes are NOT OK), is probably a necessary evil. We know juries can be biased, just like anyone else and in some cases, obviously biased. To prevent jurors from exercising those obvious biases against defendants and thereby tainting an otherwise fair process, attorneys need to make some assumptions (sometimes unwarranted) and remove those who they believe may have reason to be unfairly predisposed toward one side or the other.
3. Key facts/arguments that I expect each to hit on
The State: (a) the record of phone calls from Zimmerman in previous months. My gut tells me this is huge. It shows a guy predisposed toward a confrontation; (b) Zimmerman "following" Martin; (c) any witness recollection of Martin screaming or saying "stop following me." These facts, if unsuccessfully impeached, fit perfectly within the State's argument that Zimmerman was the provocateur, or at the very least, not standing his ground.
The Defense: (a) Zimmerman's injuries; injuries on a presumed aggressor are always critical when asserting self-defense. Personally, I find it extremely hard to believe that a skinny 17 year old was able to gain a physical advantage on Zimmerman, even with 4 inches difference in their heights, given than most reports put Zimmerman at anywhere from 35 to 50 pounds heavier than Martin. Expect the defense to hammer this point though; (b) argument or implication about where Martin lived, his recent disciplinary issues at school. I don't believe that those are relevant, unless George Zimmerman knew about those things (which he in all probability could not have known), but I expect the defense, as they should (for their client's sake), to raise them nonetheless; (c) reasonable doubt reasonable doubt reasonable doubt (yes, 3 times over). The toughest cases to prove are the supposed "he-said, she-said" ones. In this case, only two witnesses to the entire incident exist, and only one of them is alive. Without an additional eyewitness, the State has to rely on deductive arguments rather than direct eyewitness evidence, which in many cases, juries confuse for "reasonable doubt." This has to be the defense's strongest argument.
Why Zimmerman will be convicted: the State can likely paint a picture of a man spoiling for a fight, who followed a kid and provoked an argument with a kid and ended it with a bullet. Witness testimony saying Martin told Zimmerman to stop following him, police dispatcher telling Zimmerman to stop following Martin, Zimmerman's history of calling the police about young black males, combined with the sheer illogic of believing that despite all that, an unarmed Martin, alone, jumped Zimmerman could be enough to convict.
Why Zimmerman will be acquitted: Reasonable doubt. The defense will have a strong argument that with no other witnesses, who can say what really happened, other than George Zimmerman? That might not mean he is innocent, but it goes a long way toward convincing a jury that there's doubt, perhaps reasonable, as to whether the State has proven it's case. The best attorneys in the world don't convince juries that defendants are innocent, they convince them that reasonable doubt exists. That's a crucial threshold here.
I disagree. Zimmerman will walk. And deserves to walk. Here's why:
He thought he was a good guy.
He was concerned Martin was a bad guy.
He called the cops; if he had any plan to start a fight he would have called buddies to get his back.
Martin kicked his ass fair and square.
He thought his gun would be used to kill him; if he was acting like a gangster he would have had his finger on the trigger before he got punched in the nose.
He was the one screaming for help; nobody yells for help as they are pummeling someone's head. Martin was not beat up, Zimmerman was.
Hey Vant, Martin was a better fighter and tougher than Zimmerman. Size never ever matters in a street fight.
I find Zimmerman's story completely believable. Martin was pissed some dude was following him and when they were face to face he punched him then proceeded to beat the shit out of him. Zimmerman says Martin saw his gun and said "Ur gonna die tonight". Then Zimmerman held his hand got his gun and shot him. It's a fucking shame but he was protecting himself. The gun was legal and Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch cheif or something. He was trying to help his community not rolling around the streets looking for trouble.
It's too bad a young guy died but there are consequences with your actions; if Zimmerman died I would say the same thing. You risk your life anytime you choose to fight.
I think you nailed it here. agree pretty much 100%.
one thing I think people miss is just because Zimmerman was told not to follow doesn't mean that he wasn't legally allowed to do so. big difference. Zimmerman had as much right to be out on that street as Martin.
As a Canadian I find myself having trouble understanding the "stand your ground" law and ho it works. From what I understand, anyone in Florida has the right to use deadly force if they feel reasonably threatened by a another person. Does this mean that you can stalk somebody and if they turn around and confront you, you now have the right to use deadly force to protect yourself? Taken to an extreme, it seems that a person could easily plan a murder using this law.If the burden of proof for this law is beyond a reasonable doubt it seems that it would be very hard to convict anybody for murder in a stand your ground jurisdiction.
Again, I don't really understand the inner workings of the "stand your ground" law so I'm trying to understand how broad this law actually is.
That's pretty much it.
Basically you can start a fight, have them hit you many times, then you can shoot them cuz you "felt your life was in danger."
It's stupid.
~Carter~
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
I disagree. Zimmerman will walk. And deserves to walk. Here's why:
He thought he was a good guy.
He was concerned Martin was a bad guy.
He called the cops; if he had any plan to start a fight he would have called buddies to get his back.
Martin kicked his ass fair and square.
He thought his gun would be used to kill him; if he was acting like a gangster he would have had his finger on the trigger before he got punched in the nose.
He was the one screaming for help; nobody yells for help as they are pummeling someone's head. Martin was not beat up, Zimmerman was.
Hey Vant, Martin was a better fighter and tougher than Zimmerman. Size never ever matters in a street fight.
I find Zimmerman's story completely believable. Martin was pissed some dude was following him and when they were face to face he punched him then proceeded to beat the shit out of him. Zimmerman says Martin saw his gun and said "Ur gonna die tonight". Then Zimmerman held his hand got his gun and shot him. It's a fucking shame but he was protecting himself. The gun was legal and Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch cheif or something. He was trying to help his community not rolling around the streets looking for trouble.
It's too bad a young guy died but there are consequences with your actions; if Zimmerman died I would say the same thing. You risk your life anytime you choose to fight.
Where did I say Zimmerman would be convicted? Much of your conclusion is based on premises that can only be asserted with George Zimmerman's words. That's the precise crux of the problem: is what George Zimmerman says believable? If the State can piece together, along with other circumstantial evidence, that George Zimmerman was an overzealous guy spoiling for a fight, what Zimmerman says happened might not carry much with the jury.
I'm not saying what I think will happen, but I do think George Zimmerman's story is ripe for scrutiny, in light of the other evidence being presented.
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1 2024-08-31 Wrigley 2 2024-09-15 Fenway 1 2024-09-27 Ohana 1 2024-09-29 Ohana 2
I don't buy any part of Zimmerman's defense. Mostly because Martin is dead because of Zimmerman's actions and not the other way around. Had Martin beat Zimmerman to death it would be more of an example of the Stand your Ground law IMO.
1. He was told to stop pursuit. He responded that "they" will get away with it again. Why does one kid represent all crime in the neighborhood?
2. He gets out of the car to confront Martin. From there there is different variations of what occured. It's clear Martin one the one on one confrontation but there is NO WAY that a 17 year old kid held down a grown man who weighs 30 to 50 pounds more than him. If Zimmerman had the strength to grab his gun he had the stregth to kick Martin off of him and run away. Why didn't he? Becuase of his ego and anger. At least that is what the Prosicution will try to prove.
3. Zimmerman had the "right" to follow Martin, get out of the car, get his ass kicked, and kill Martin suddenly in self defense??? If you confront someone, get in a fight, lose and then kill the person...I have trouble seeing the self defense argument. Had he stayed in the car BOTH would be alive today. Neither would be heading to jail.
4. Hopefully Zimmerman is better at taking directions in prison. He will definitely be made an example of. :twisted:
10/31/2000 (****)
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
I think you nailed it here. agree pretty much 100%.
one thing I think people miss is just because Zimmerman was told not to follow doesn't mean that he wasn't legally allowed to do so. big difference. Zimmerman had as much right to be out on that street as Martin.
This has nothing to do with whether or not he could "legally follow someone" (whatever the hell that means). The very core of the issue is "stand your ground" (hint: stand) and self-defense. He can think he's legally entitled to do whatever he wants, but if the facts show that he didn't stand his ground but instead pursued a confrontation, then his self-defense claim becomes harder to believe.
Again, I'm not making a claim about what I think the jury will do, rather what I see as problems for each side. As I see it, with the evidence that's come in so far, Zimmerman faces an uphill battle convincing a jury that he acted in self-defense. Pursuit is extremely damning for someone claiming self-defense. If the facts are that he pursued Martin and thereby a confrontation, self-defense goes out the window.
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1 2024-08-31 Wrigley 2 2024-09-15 Fenway 1 2024-09-27 Ohana 1 2024-09-29 Ohana 2
I think you nailed it here. agree pretty much 100%.
one thing I think people miss is just because Zimmerman was told not to follow doesn't mean that he wasn't legally allowed to do so. big difference. Zimmerman had as much right to be out on that street as Martin.
This has nothing to do with whether or not he could "legally follow someone" (whatever the hell that means).
It means he was advised by a non-emergency police dispatcher that they didn't need him to pursue the suspect. This was not an order by an officer of the law...it had no legal ramifications. Essentially it was a suggestion. A suggestion that was ignored, but a suggestion nonetheless.
Bright eyed kid: "Wow Typo Man, you're the best!"
Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
cant read cursive ????? must be a "cracker" only thing....
Godfather.
Defense attorney Don West grilled Rachel Jeantel about a letter she had a friend write for Martin's parents in the weeks after the February, 2012 incident, describing the phone conversation she had with Martin as he walked from a convenience store in Sanford, Fla., back to his father’s fiancee’s home in a gated community. West pressed her on what he indicated were inconsistencies between the letter and Jeantel's subsequent depositions and testimony - in particular her recent revelation that Martin told her he was being followed by a "creepy-ass cracker."
"Why wasn't 'creepy-ass cracker' in prior interviews?" asked West, one of the attorneys for Zimmerman, who is facing a charge of second-degree murder.
"Nobody asked me," replied Jeantel, who said she can't read cursive, which the letter is written in.
cant read cursive ????? must be a "cracker" only thing....
Godfather.
Defense attorney Don West grilled Rachel Jeantel about a letter she had a friend write for Martin's parents in the weeks after the February, 2012 incident, describing the phone conversation she had with Martin as he walked from a convenience store in Sanford, Fla., back to his father’s fiancee’s home in a gated community. West pressed her on what he indicated were inconsistencies between the letter and Jeantel's subsequent depositions and testimony - in particular her recent revelation that Martin told her he was being followed by a "creepy-ass cracker."
"Why wasn't 'creepy-ass cracker' in prior interviews?" asked West, one of the attorneys for Zimmerman, who is facing a charge of second-degree murder.
"Nobody asked me," replied Jeantel, who said she can't read cursive, which the letter is written in.
You know the defense is grasping at straws when part of there case is admitting that he's a "creepy-ass" cracker. That doesn't do a lot for me in going towards Not Guilty.
10/31/2000 (****)
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
I don't buy any part of Zimmerman's defense. Mostly because Martin is dead because of Zimmerman's actions and not the other way around. Had Martin beat Zimmerman to death it would be more of an example of the Stand your Ground law IMO.
1. He was told to stop pursuit. He responded that "they" will get away with it again. Why does one kid represent all crime in the neighborhood?
2. He gets out of the car to confront Martin. From there there is different variations of what occured. It's clear Martin one the one on one confrontation but there is NO WAY that a 17 year old kid held down a grown man who weighs 30 to 50 pounds more than him. If Zimmerman had the strength to grab his gun he had the stregth to kick Martin off of him and run away. Why didn't he? Becuase of his ego and anger. At least that is what the Prosicution will try to prove.
3. Zimmerman had the "right" to follow Martin, get out of the car, get his ass kicked, and kill Martin suddenly in self defense??? If you confront someone, get in a fight, lose and then kill the person...I have trouble seeing the self defense argument. Had he stayed in the car BOTH would be alive today. Neither would be heading to jail.
4. Hopefully Zimmerman is better at taking directions in prison. He will definitely be made an example of. :twisted:
Well said. Very well said.
Even if I was in Zimmerman's shoes, I wouldve just taken the beating and tried to escape. Well, actually, I would've stayed in my car or not stalked the kid in the first place.
For all the people defending Zimmerman, would you have done the same if you were in his shoes? Follow the kid in your car, going out of your way, then following him on foot in the dark in the rain?
I think you nailed it here. agree pretty much 100%.
one thing I think people miss is just because Zimmerman was told not to follow doesn't mean that he wasn't legally allowed to do so. big difference. Zimmerman had as much right to be out on that street as Martin.
This has nothing to do with whether or not he could "legally follow someone" (whatever the hell that means). The very core of the issue is "stand your ground" (hint: stand) and self-defense. He can think he's legally entitled to do whatever he wants, but if the facts show that he didn't stand his ground but instead pursued a confrontation, then his self-defense claim becomes harder to believe.
Again, I'm not making a claim about what I think the jury will do, rather what I see as problems for each side. As I see it, with the evidence that's come in so far, Zimmerman faces an uphill battle convincing a jury that he acted in self-defense. Pursuit is extremely damning for someone claiming self-defense. If the facts are that he pursued Martin and thereby a confrontation, self-defense goes out the window.
Thank you again vant. Also well said. I like your lawyerly approach. I also see the holes in each sides stories, that is why this case is so fascinating. I really think it could go either way.
I think you nailed it here. agree pretty much 100%.
one thing I think people miss is just because Zimmerman was told not to follow doesn't mean that he wasn't legally allowed to do so. big difference. Zimmerman had as much right to be out on that street as Martin.
This has nothing to do with whether or not he could "legally follow someone" (whatever the hell that means).
It means he was advised by a non-emergency police dispatcher that they didn't need him to pursue the suspect. This was not an order by an officer of the law...it had no legal ramifications. Essentially it was a suggestion. A suggestion that was ignored, but a suggestion nonetheless.
exactly. to me this case basically boils down to who threw the 1st punch. legally everything before that moment is irrelevant. if Martin hit Zimmerman 1st, irregardless of Zimmerman's prior actions, then Zimmerman's claim of self defense is valid.
and let me say I am only speaking to what I believe the legality of these things are. I think Zimmerman is basically a piece of shit but it doesn't mean he is guilty of murder.
and let me say I am only speaking to what I believe the legality of these things are. I think Zimmerman is basically a piece of shit but it doesn't mean he is guilty of murder.
Yup. In no way am I 'supporting" Zimmerman. I just think there are a lot of things to take into account in this case, and as much as I think Zimmerman is a piece of shit, I also think Trayvon was not the innocent smiley faced little kid we are lead to believe from the outdated photos the media keeps showing us. Based on the text messages that leaked a couple of weeks ago, Trayvon saw himself as a thug and had a couple of run-ins with the law (and was suspended from high school) prior to the shooting.
Bright eyed kid: "Wow Typo Man, you're the best!"
Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
It means he was advised by a non-emergency police dispatcher that they didn't need him to pursue the suspect. This was not an order by an officer of the law...it had no legal ramifications. Essentially it was a suggestion. A suggestion that was ignored, but a suggestion nonetheless.
I say this politely, but that couldn't be more incorrect.
He was told by a non-emergency dispatcher to stop following him. You're right, he was free to continue to do so (which is probably why he's not also charged with say, obstructing legal process or something, right?).
But that fact, that he didn't stop, whether in violation of a police's order or not listening to someone not in a position to make orders, is extremely critical when assessing a self-defense claim.
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1 2024-08-31 Wrigley 2 2024-09-15 Fenway 1 2024-09-27 Ohana 1 2024-09-29 Ohana 2
It means he was advised by a non-emergency police dispatcher that they didn't need him to pursue the suspect. This was not an order by an officer of the law...it had no legal ramifications. Essentially it was a suggestion. A suggestion that was ignored, but a suggestion nonetheless.
I say this politely, but that couldn't be more incorrect.
He was told by a non-emergency dispatcher to stop following him. You're right, he was free to continue to do so (which is probably why he's not also charged with say, obstructing legal process or something, right?).
But that fact, that he didn't stop, whether in violation of a police's order or not listening to someone not in a position to make orders, is extremely critical when assessing a self-defense claim.
Nothing you said in response to my post refutes anything I said. I did not reference his self-defense claim at all.
Bright eyed kid: "Wow Typo Man, you're the best!"
Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
I say this politely, but that couldn't be more incorrect.
He was told by a non-emergency dispatcher to stop following him. You're right, he was free to continue to do so (which is probably why he's not also charged with say, obstructing legal process or something, right?).
But that fact, that he didn't stop, whether in violation of a police's order or not listening to someone not in a position to make orders, is extremely critical when assessing a self-defense claim.
Nothing you said in response to my post refutes anything I said. I did not reference his self-defense claim at all.[/quote]
Here's the point: you've implied that because the person who said to George Zimmerman was a non-emergency dispatcher and not a police officer, then George could "legally" continue to follow Martin. That may be true, but it's irrelevant when considering self-defense. To prove self-defense, you don't have to prove that someone was doing something in violation of an order or a law etc. Instead, you have to prove that the person acted reasonably to prevent an imminent bodily attack (that's MN's law at least; I haven't looked at FL's, but I'll wager it's similar). In this case, whether Zimmerman was told to stop by a cop or a firemen or a donkey is irrelevant when considering whether his actions constitute self-defense.
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1 2024-08-31 Wrigley 2 2024-09-15 Fenway 1 2024-09-27 Ohana 1 2024-09-29 Ohana 2
I don't buy any part of Zimmerman's defense. Mostly because Martin is dead because of Zimmerman's actions and not the other way around. Had Martin beat Zimmerman to death it would be more of an example of the Stand your Ground law IMO.
1. He was told to stop pursuit. He responded that "they" will get away with it again. Why does one kid represent all crime in the neighborhood?
2. He gets out of the car to confront Martin. From there there is different variations of what occured. It's clear Martin one the one on one confrontation but there is NO WAY that a 17 year old kid held down a grown man who weighs 30 to 50 pounds more than him. If Zimmerman had the strength to grab his gun he had the stregth to kick Martin off of him and run away. Why didn't he? Becuase of his ego and anger. At least that is what the Prosicution will try to prove.
3. Zimmerman had the "right" to follow Martin, get out of the car, get his ass kicked, and kill Martin suddenly in self defense??? If you confront someone, get in a fight, lose and then kill the person...I have trouble seeing the self defense argument. Had he stayed in the car BOTH would be alive today. Neither would be heading to jail.
4. Hopefully Zimmerman is better at taking directions in prison. He will definitely be made an example of. :twisted:
Well said. Very well said.
Even if I was in Zimmerman's shoes, I wouldve just taken the beating and tried to escape. Well, actually, I would've stayed in my car or not stalked the kid in the first place.
For all the people defending Zimmerman, would you have done the same if you were in his shoes? Follow the kid in your car, going out of your way, then following him on foot in the dark in the rain?
Very well said... LOL...
A concerned citizen keeps a sharp eye out for suspicious characters and calls the the police.
Zimmerman did exactly that.
Here's the point: you've implied that because the person who said to George Zimmerman was a non-emergency dispatcher and not a police officer, then George could "legally" continue to follow Martin. That may be true, but it's irrelevant when considering self-defense. To prove self-defense, you don't have to prove that someone was doing something in violation of an order or a law etc. Instead, you have to prove that the person acted reasonably to prevent an imminent bodily attack (that's MN's law at least; I haven't looked at FL's, but I'll wager it's similar). In this case, whether Zimmerman was told to stop by a cop or a firemen or a donkey is irrelevant when considering whether his actions constitute self-defense.
Self-defense is one part of this case. A part which, again, I am not talking about. The media is trying to portray this part of the story as if Zimmerman was told to stand down and he defied an order. That is not at all what happened. Again....I am not defending ANY of his actions. I'm just sick of how the media loves to manipulate and distort the facts to play with your emotions. See: NBC editing of the audio tapes of George's phone call.
Bright eyed kid: "Wow Typo Man, you're the best!"
Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
It means he was advised by a non-emergency police dispatcher that they didn't need him to pursue the suspect. This was not an order by an officer of the law...it had no legal ramifications. Essentially it was a suggestion. A suggestion that was ignored, but a suggestion nonetheless.
I say this politely, but that couldn't be more incorrect.
He was told by a non-emergency dispatcher to stop following him. You're right, he was free to continue to do so (which is probably why he's not also charged with say, obstructing legal process or something, right?).
But that fact, that he didn't stop, whether in violation of a police's order or not listening to someone not in a position to make orders, is extremely critical when assessing a self-defense claim.
When you read about a rape victim shooting her attacker do you think she should go to jail for murder?
It means he was advised by a non-emergency police dispatcher that they didn't need him to pursue the suspect. This was not an order by an officer of the law...it had no legal ramifications. Essentially it was a suggestion. A suggestion that was ignored, but a suggestion nonetheless.
I say this politely, but that couldn't be more incorrect.
He was told by a non-emergency dispatcher to stop following him. You're right, he was free to continue to do so (which is probably why he's not also charged with say, obstructing legal process or something, right?).
But that fact, that he didn't stop, whether in violation of a police's order or not listening to someone not in a position to make orders, is extremely critical when assessing a self-defense claim.
When you read about a rape victim shooting her attacker do you think she should go to jail for murder?
When I read about a rape victim who stalked their attacker through the streets before the attack I will let you know.
Here's the point: you've implied that because the person who said to George Zimmerman was a non-emergency dispatcher and not a police officer, then George could "legally" continue to follow Martin. That may be true, but it's irrelevant when considering self-defense. To prove self-defense, you don't have to prove that someone was doing something in violation of an order or a law etc. Instead, you have to prove that the person acted reasonably to prevent an imminent bodily attack (that's MN's law at least; I haven't looked at FL's, but I'll wager it's similar). In this case, whether Zimmerman was told to stop by a cop or a firemen or a donkey is irrelevant when considering whether his actions constitute self-defense.
Self-defense is one part of this case. A part which, again, I am not talking about. The media is trying to portray this part of the story as if Zimmerman was told to stand down and he defied an order. That is not at all what happened. Again....I am not defending ANY of his actions. I'm just sick of how the media loves to manipulate and distort the facts to play with your emotions. See: NBC editing of the audio tapes of George's phone call.
agree with you. and the other part of the story that get's lost is that Zimmerman was out there as a representative of a neighborhood watch group. he was out there to look for suspicious individuals. and found one.
is he a murderer? maybe, but I think with the evidence we know of at this point it is very hard to convict on that. lesser charges are more warranted in my opinion.
When you read about a rape victim shooting her attacker do you think she should go to jail for murder?
The issue of whether or not George Zimmerman is a "victim" is currently being debated.
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1 2024-08-31 Wrigley 2 2024-09-15 Fenway 1 2024-09-27 Ohana 1 2024-09-29 Ohana 2
When I read about a rape victim who stalked their attacker through the streets before the attack I will let you know.
Approaching a man is now grounds for getting your head smashed into concrete?
1) That is not an accurate depiction of Zimmerman's actions and 2) "getting your head smashed into concrete" after strapping on your gun, getting in your car, stalking a guy down the street after being told by authorities to stop does not equal someone getting raped.
Comments
He said that Matin didn't notice the gun until wayyyy after Martin beat the shit out of him. All Zimmerman had to do before Martin attacked him was to show him the gun.
To me, allowing Martin to attack him makes me think he wanted the fight to happen just so he could kill him. He reported many times that there were a couple black people robbing places (heard that on CNN as well. they played a phone call Zimmerman had with a police dispatcher) and I bet this was his way of taking care of it.
I know what I am saying is pretty bizarre, but I just don't see why he didn't do that at first. I know I am probably wrong, but his story puts him in a tough position. He failed to follow police orders and he killed a unarmed man. Yes, Zimmerman was injured, but he instigated it by following Martin and making him scared.
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
Again, I don't really understand the inner workings of the "stand your ground" law so I'm trying to understand how broad this law actually is.
There's the possibility that Zimmerman pulled the gun and pointed it for a few seconds before he fired and Martin started screaming out of fear of being shot.
Your statements are all as if you are in Zimmerman's head. You have no idea if he wouldve called friends, or if he was a confident person because he had a gun. Perhaps he wanted to go alone because he wasnt afraid to use his gun. You do realize that Zimmerman pursued Martin about three times, right? in the rain. in the dark.
This is agree with though, and it reflects the fact that Zimemrman was a pussy and needed a gun after he got himself in a sticky situation. If I saw someone in a car following me, then saw them get out of the car and follow me more, in the dark and in the rain, I'd feel a bit threatened, as Martin likely did.
Im fully aware that fist fights can be bloody, but does the end result need to be the END of someones life?
He was advised to not to follow the suspicious person. He was told, by a non-emergency dispatcher, that they didn't need him to continue to pursue Trayvon.
Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
I think you nailed it here. agree pretty much 100%.
one thing I think people miss is just because Zimmerman was told not to follow doesn't mean that he wasn't legally allowed to do so. big difference. Zimmerman had as much right to be out on that street as Martin.
That's pretty much it.
Basically you can start a fight, have them hit you many times, then you can shoot them cuz you "felt your life was in danger."
It's stupid.
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
Where did I say Zimmerman would be convicted? Much of your conclusion is based on premises that can only be asserted with George Zimmerman's words. That's the precise crux of the problem: is what George Zimmerman says believable? If the State can piece together, along with other circumstantial evidence, that George Zimmerman was an overzealous guy spoiling for a fight, what Zimmerman says happened might not carry much with the jury.
I'm not saying what I think will happen, but I do think George Zimmerman's story is ripe for scrutiny, in light of the other evidence being presented.
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
2024-08-31 Wrigley 2
2024-09-15 Fenway 1
2024-09-27 Ohana 1
2024-09-29 Ohana 2
1. He was told to stop pursuit. He responded that "they" will get away with it again. Why does one kid represent all crime in the neighborhood?
2. He gets out of the car to confront Martin. From there there is different variations of what occured. It's clear Martin one the one on one confrontation but there is NO WAY that a 17 year old kid held down a grown man who weighs 30 to 50 pounds more than him. If Zimmerman had the strength to grab his gun he had the stregth to kick Martin off of him and run away. Why didn't he? Becuase of his ego and anger. At least that is what the Prosicution will try to prove.
3. Zimmerman had the "right" to follow Martin, get out of the car, get his ass kicked, and kill Martin suddenly in self defense??? If you confront someone, get in a fight, lose and then kill the person...I have trouble seeing the self defense argument. Had he stayed in the car BOTH would be alive today. Neither would be heading to jail.
4. Hopefully Zimmerman is better at taking directions in prison. He will definitely be made an example of. :twisted:
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
This has nothing to do with whether or not he could "legally follow someone" (whatever the hell that means). The very core of the issue is "stand your ground" (hint: stand) and self-defense. He can think he's legally entitled to do whatever he wants, but if the facts show that he didn't stand his ground but instead pursued a confrontation, then his self-defense claim becomes harder to believe.
Again, I'm not making a claim about what I think the jury will do, rather what I see as problems for each side. As I see it, with the evidence that's come in so far, Zimmerman faces an uphill battle convincing a jury that he acted in self-defense. Pursuit is extremely damning for someone claiming self-defense. If the facts are that he pursued Martin and thereby a confrontation, self-defense goes out the window.
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
2024-08-31 Wrigley 2
2024-09-15 Fenway 1
2024-09-27 Ohana 1
2024-09-29 Ohana 2
It means he was advised by a non-emergency police dispatcher that they didn't need him to pursue the suspect. This was not an order by an officer of the law...it had no legal ramifications. Essentially it was a suggestion. A suggestion that was ignored, but a suggestion nonetheless.
Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
Godfather.
Defense attorney Don West grilled Rachel Jeantel about a letter she had a friend write for Martin's parents in the weeks after the February, 2012 incident, describing the phone conversation she had with Martin as he walked from a convenience store in Sanford, Fla., back to his father’s fiancee’s home in a gated community. West pressed her on what he indicated were inconsistencies between the letter and Jeantel's subsequent depositions and testimony - in particular her recent revelation that Martin told her he was being followed by a "creepy-ass cracker."
"Why wasn't 'creepy-ass cracker' in prior interviews?" asked West, one of the attorneys for Zimmerman, who is facing a charge of second-degree murder.
"Nobody asked me," replied Jeantel, who said she can't read cursive, which the letter is written in.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/27/te ... z2XQvzgdvf
You know the defense is grasping at straws when part of there case is admitting that he's a "creepy-ass" cracker. That doesn't do a lot for me in going towards Not Guilty.
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
Well said. Very well said.
Even if I was in Zimmerman's shoes, I wouldve just taken the beating and tried to escape. Well, actually, I would've stayed in my car or not stalked the kid in the first place.
For all the people defending Zimmerman, would you have done the same if you were in his shoes? Follow the kid in your car, going out of your way, then following him on foot in the dark in the rain?
Thank you again vant. Also well said. I like your lawyerly approach. I also see the holes in each sides stories, that is why this case is so fascinating. I really think it could go either way.
exactly. to me this case basically boils down to who threw the 1st punch. legally everything before that moment is irrelevant. if Martin hit Zimmerman 1st, irregardless of Zimmerman's prior actions, then Zimmerman's claim of self defense is valid.
and let me say I am only speaking to what I believe the legality of these things are. I think Zimmerman is basically a piece of shit but it doesn't mean he is guilty of murder.
Yup. In no way am I 'supporting" Zimmerman. I just think there are a lot of things to take into account in this case, and as much as I think Zimmerman is a piece of shit, I also think Trayvon was not the innocent smiley faced little kid we are lead to believe from the outdated photos the media keeps showing us. Based on the text messages that leaked a couple of weeks ago, Trayvon saw himself as a thug and had a couple of run-ins with the law (and was suspended from high school) prior to the shooting.
Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
I say this politely, but that couldn't be more incorrect.
He was told by a non-emergency dispatcher to stop following him. You're right, he was free to continue to do so (which is probably why he's not also charged with say, obstructing legal process or something, right?).
But that fact, that he didn't stop, whether in violation of a police's order or not listening to someone not in a position to make orders, is extremely critical when assessing a self-defense claim.
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
2024-08-31 Wrigley 2
2024-09-15 Fenway 1
2024-09-27 Ohana 1
2024-09-29 Ohana 2
Nothing you said in response to my post refutes anything I said. I did not reference his self-defense claim at all.
Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
Nothing you said in response to my post refutes anything I said. I did not reference his self-defense claim at all.[/quote]
Here's the point: you've implied that because the person who said to George Zimmerman was a non-emergency dispatcher and not a police officer, then George could "legally" continue to follow Martin. That may be true, but it's irrelevant when considering self-defense. To prove self-defense, you don't have to prove that someone was doing something in violation of an order or a law etc. Instead, you have to prove that the person acted reasonably to prevent an imminent bodily attack (that's MN's law at least; I haven't looked at FL's, but I'll wager it's similar). In this case, whether Zimmerman was told to stop by a cop or a firemen or a donkey is irrelevant when considering whether his actions constitute self-defense.
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
2024-08-31 Wrigley 2
2024-09-15 Fenway 1
2024-09-27 Ohana 1
2024-09-29 Ohana 2
A concerned citizen keeps a sharp eye out for suspicious characters and calls the the police.
Zimmerman did exactly that.
Self-defense is one part of this case. A part which, again, I am not talking about. The media is trying to portray this part of the story as if Zimmerman was told to stand down and he defied an order. That is not at all what happened. Again....I am not defending ANY of his actions. I'm just sick of how the media loves to manipulate and distort the facts to play with your emotions. See: NBC editing of the audio tapes of George's phone call.
Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
When I read about a rape victim who stalked their attacker through the streets before the attack I will let you know.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
agree with you. and the other part of the story that get's lost is that Zimmerman was out there as a representative of a neighborhood watch group. he was out there to look for suspicious individuals. and found one.
is he a murderer? maybe, but I think with the evidence we know of at this point it is very hard to convict on that. lesser charges are more warranted in my opinion.
The issue of whether or not George Zimmerman is a "victim" is currently being debated.
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
2024-08-31 Wrigley 2
2024-09-15 Fenway 1
2024-09-27 Ohana 1
2024-09-29 Ohana 2
1) That is not an accurate depiction of Zimmerman's actions and 2) "getting your head smashed into concrete" after strapping on your gun, getting in your car, stalking a guy down the street after being told by authorities to stop does not equal someone getting raped.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."