Oh look! a post laced with emotion and assumptions...
I love your convincing "key words" 1. Wanna be cop. 2. following = intimidation.
I am thankful your not part or the Jury. Again, where is your evidence he followed him and intimidated him, what evidence do you have the zimmerman attacked martin first?
What EVIDENCE do you have the Prove Zimmer DIDN"T act in self defense. This is the point of the trail. The state need to PROVE that zimmer didn't act in self defense. They can't, they change their story so many times that they are leaving everything up to assumptions.
He will walk and will sue the state for all of personal information leaked (ssn) and lies/misinformation told.
he did not act in self defense. he pursued the victim. he confronted the victim. fight ensued. he said martin reached for the gun, which was behind zimmerman, who, if he was on his back with martin's knees in his armpits, mount position as he says, martin could not have reached for the gun.
this is like me going into a bar knowing i am strapped, initiating a fight and then shooting someone when they beat me up. how can he claim self defense when he followed martin and put himself in that position? fact is, zimmerman stays in the car, as directed, there is no trial because martin is not dead. zimmerman caused all of this.
he is not going to walk. he is going to jail.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
I believe Zimmerman is guilty. I believe his actions led to the death of another human being and that his self-defense claim does not hold water.
I also believe he will walk.
I tend to agree with you.
I forget -- does the jury need to be unanimous for manslaughter convictions? Vant?
Also, when does Zimmerman's book come out "How I killed a kid by shooting him in the heart for punching my nose too hard."
I think the book comes out around the same time my wife's does " How I killed a stranger by shooting him in the heart for attacking me with intent to rape me, but I only suffered ripped clothing"
I believe Zimmerman is guilty. I believe his actions led to the death of another human being and that his self-defense claim does not hold water.
I also believe he will walk.
I tend to agree with you.
I forget -- does the jury need to be unanimous for manslaughter convictions? Vant?
Also, when does Zimmerman's book come out "How I killed a kid by shooting him in the heart for punching my nose too hard."
I think the book comes out around the same time my wife's does " How I killed a stranger by shooting him in the heart for attacking me with intent to rape me, but I only suffered ripped clothing"
I believe Zimmerman is guilty. I believe his actions led to the death of another human being and that his self-defense claim does not hold water.
I also believe he will walk.
I think you have it backwards...
4 min thing is huge. TM would've been able to get home by then. Instead he waited around for GZ.
But yeah..... Its Zimmerman's actions that led to his death,
I believe Zimmerman is guilty. I believe his actions led to the death of another human being and that his self-defense claim does not hold water.
I also believe he will walk.
I think you have it backwards...
4 min thing is huge. TM would've been able to get home by then. Instead he waited around for GZ.
But yeah..... Its Zimmerman's actions that led to his death,
Because when being followed by a strange person we should all proceed directly home and show that person where we live? I don't think so.
I believe Zimmerman is guilty. I believe his actions led to the death of another human being and that his self-defense claim does not hold water.
I also believe he will walk.
I think you have it backwards...
4 min thing is huge. TM would've been able to get home by then. Instead he waited around for GZ.
But yeah..... Its Zimmerman's actions that led to his death,
Because when being followed by a strange person we should all proceed directly home and show that person where we live? I don't think so.
Oh Look! More assumptions...
So what are you saying happened then?
I have found that this case is IMPOSSIBLE to debate with people. People who are Team Zimmerman was a wannabe cop will not be convinced he was really a misunderstood concerned citizen, whose number one priority was protecting his neighborhood.
Vice Versa Zimmerman supporters really just spout out word for word what Zimmerman, Hannity, etc have been saying about the case and they buy his story 100%.
I am in the first camp because I think he's been proven to be a liar both in terms of this story and in the aftermath. He also had the boy who cried wolf thing going against him with all his unfounded 911 calls in the lead up to this case. I like to think I'm a concerned citizen too, but I've called 911 ONE time in my life and never for suspicious teenagers.
And lastly if we shot every teenager that was acting like a thug or behaving suspiciously...we'd have very few teenagers left on this planet. Which to some wouldn't be a bad thing...
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 have found that this case is IMPOSSIBLE to debate with people. People who are Team Zimmerman was a wannabe cop will not be convinced he was really a misunderstood concerned citizen, whose number one priority was protecting his neighborhood.
Vice Versa Zimmerman supporters really just spout out word for word what Zimmerman, Hannity, etc have been saying about the case and they buy his story 100%.
I am in the first camp because I think he's been proven to be a liar both in terms of this story and in the aftermath. He also had the boy who cried wolf thing going against him with all his unfounded 911 calls in the lead up to this case. I like to think I'm a concerned citizen too, but I've called 911 ONE time in my life and never for suspicious teenagers.
And lastly if we shot every teenager that was acting like a thug or behaving suspiciously...we'd have very few teenagers left on this planet. Which to some wouldn't be a bad thing...
Oh great... more assumptions.
Can you use any actual evidence that supports your position.
I have found that this case is IMPOSSIBLE to debate with people. People who are Team Zimmerman was a wannabe cop will not be convinced he was really a misunderstood concerned citizen, whose number one priority was protecting his neighborhood.
Vice Versa Zimmerman supporters really just spout out word for word what Zimmerman, Hannity, etc have been saying about the case and they buy his story 100%.
I am in the first camp because I think he's been proven to be a liar both in terms of this story and in the aftermath. He also had the boy who cried wolf thing going against him with all his unfounded 911 calls in the lead up to this case. I like to think I'm a concerned citizen too, but I've called 911 ONE time in my life and never for suspicious teenagers.
And lastly if we shot every teenager that was acting like a thug or behaving suspiciously...we'd have very few teenagers left on this planet. Which to some wouldn't be a bad thing...
Oh great... more assumptions.
Can you use any actual evidence that supports your position.
Bro...my first sentence in my post is you can't debate this case with people. You and I are so locked in to our positions I'd have better luck at peace in the middle east. The main thing I don't buy is his life was ever in danger. In MY OPINION which is all I can go off on since I was not there...Mr. Zimmerman could have pushed Martin off of him...Ran to his car... and called the cops again to report an assualt. Had Martin trailed him back to his car and then he got shot, then I'd support Mr. Zimmerman despite his stupidity for getting out of the car which I never would have done.
The Prosector brought up 4 hours worth of Zimmerman lies yesterday in his closing remarks. How his story has changed numerous times, how one second Martin is walking hurridly away from him and then he catches himself and says he was walking normially etc etc. Then Zimmerman was caught lying about his finances post arrest. I just think the man is a liar and you are asking me to take a liar at his word.
I don't buy his story...you do. Mr. Zimmerman hopes he has 12 people like you on his jury.
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 have found that this case is IMPOSSIBLE to debate with people. People who are Team Zimmerman was a wannabe cop will not be convinced he was really a misunderstood concerned citizen, whose number one priority was protecting his neighborhood.
Vice Versa Zimmerman supporters really just spout out word for word what Zimmerman, Hannity, etc have been saying about the case and they buy his story 100%.
I am in the first camp because I think he's been proven to be a liar both in terms of this story and in the aftermath. He also had the boy who cried wolf thing going against him with all his unfounded 911 calls in the lead up to this case. I like to think I'm a concerned citizen too, but I've called 911 ONE time in my life and never for suspicious teenagers.
And lastly if we shot every teenager that was acting like a thug or behaving suspiciously...we'd have very few teenagers left on this planet. Which to some wouldn't be a bad thing...
Oh great... more assumptions.
Can you use any actual evidence that supports your position.
Assumption - Teenage was shot for behaving suspiciously.
Assumption - Because you have called 911 once in your life means that Zimmerman shouldn't or that somehow makes him someone looking for trouble or looking to kill someone.
Because when being followed by a strange person we should all proceed directly home and show that person where we live? I don't think so.
A legitimate concern, but what would you honestly do in that situation? Go home and call the police? Go somewhere else and call the police? Keep walking and call the police? All of this, of course, is acknowledging you never know how you'll actually react in a fight-or-flight situation until it happens.
Where did Zimmerman keep his gun? I have doubt about how Zimmerman grabbed his gun. I know he said he shimmied away exposing the gun but the prosecution made a good point about how Martin's legs would have hid it.
And the prosecution did a good job making Zimmerman seem like a bad dude.
I changed my oppinion; he could definitely be convicted.
Because when being followed by a strange person we should all proceed directly home and show that person where we live? I don't think so.
A legitimate concern, but what would you honestly do in that situation? Go home and call the police? Go somewhere else and call the police? Keep walking and call the police? All of this, of course, is acknowledging you never know how you'll actually react in a fight-or-flight situation until it happens.
Exactly. Who can say what the right response is, or how any of us when put in the position would have reacted? Just because Martin could have made it home does not mean going home was the logical or smart thing to do.
The Prosector brought up 4 hours worth of Zimmerman lies yesterday in his closing remarks. How his story has changed numerous times, how one second Martin is walking hurridly away from him and then he catches himself and says he was walking normially etc etc. Then Zimmerman was caught lying about his finances post arrest. I just think the man is a liar and you are asking me to take a liar at his word.
I don't buy his story...you do. Mr. Zimmerman hopes he has 12 people like you on his jury.
WOW! the prosecution brought up 4 hours worth of Zimmerman lying... Thats great, but thats not their JOB.
Their job is to Prove that Zimmerman didn't act in self-defense. Which they didn't and can't, which is why they are appealing on emotion and character assassination.
Let me remind you about the facts on Martin that were withheld from court:
1. Twitter picture smoking weed
2. Twitter pictures of him holding a gun (which was illegally obtainted - see texts)
3. Got suspended from school for fighting
4. Text messages about fighting and buying guns
This is the conduct of the person who attacked zimmerman, yet you think because be lied about finances that he's the aggressor?
So in your opinion:
Zimmerman lying about his finances = He didn't act in self defense? Prove it with evidence.
Are you even watching the trial? 6 women make up the jury not 12
Because when being followed by a strange person we should all proceed directly home and show that person where we live? I don't think so.
A legitimate concern, but what would you honestly do in that situation? Go home and call the police? Go somewhere else and call the police? Keep walking and call the police? All of this, of course, is acknowledging you never know how you'll actually react in a fight-or-flight situation until it happens.
Exactly. Who can say what the right response is, or how any of us when put in the position would have reacted? Just because Martin could have made it home does not mean going home was the logical or smart thing to do.
Martin's home was a football field away from where he was. There is no "could have made it" home. If he wanted to he would have. Fact is he had 4 minutes, this wasn't an "instant" flight or flight reaction to the situation, this was 4 minutes of thought about what he was going to do, and he chose to attack Zimmerman. Which seems to fit his character (suspended from school for fights, buying guns illegally, drug user).
How many arrests have Zimmermans's 911 calls led too? Including Martin I believe it's a fat 0!!! So I think that is relevant in the Boy Who Cried Wolf Theory...
This opinion piece (notice how I highlight that...I could never work for Fox News) sums up my feelings a lot better than I can: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/pos ... vant-past/
George Zimmerman’s relevant past
By Jonathan Capehart, Updated: May 28, 2013
George Zimmerman arriving for a December court hearing. (Reuters)
When George Zimmerman followed Trayvon Martin the night of Feb. 26, 2012, he ignored an admonition not to do so from the police dispatcher. The request for his arrest, written by the lead detective, noted that Zimmerman’s killing of Trayvon could have been avoided if he’d remained in his vehicle or identified himself “as a concerned citizen.” Just what in Zimmerman’s past might have led him to take these actions and kill an unarmed teenager with a gunshot to the chest is relevant in this case.
What is not relevant is Trayvon’s past. And Judge Debra Nelson made that clear today when she denied several motions by Zimmerman attorney Mark O’Mara to introduce the 17-year-old’s suspension from school, past marijuana use and his participation in fights. There’s a possibility that such evidence could make it to trial, but by releasing all the information last week, O’Mara ensured that everyone, including potential jurors, knows what lurked in his client’s victim’s past. But thanks to Florida’s incredible sunshine laws, we know a few relevant things about Zimmerman.
In July 2005, he was arrested for “resisting officer with violence.” The neighborhood watch volunteer who wanted to be a cop got into a scuffle with cops who were questioning a friend for alleged underage drinking. The charges were reduced and then waived after he entered an alcohol education program. Then in August 2005, Zimmerman’s former fiance sought a restraining order against him because of domestic violence. Zimmerman sought a restraining order against her in return. Both were granted. Meanwhile, over the course of eight years, Zimmerman made at least 46 calls to the Sanford (Fla.) Police Department reporting suspicious activity involving black males.
We also know that Witness No. 9 accused Zimmerman of molesting her when they were children. The relative’s revelation is appalling but irrelevant. What most folks don’t know is that Witness No. 9 made an explosive allegation against her cousin. “I know George. And I know that he does not like black people,” she told a Sanford police officer during a telephone call in which she pleaded for anonymity. “He would start something. He’s a very confrontational person. It’s in his blood. Let’s just say that. I don’t want this poor kid and his family to just be overlooked.” At the end of the call, Witness No. 9 urged the officer to “get character reports from other people and see if he’s ever said anything about black people, about being racist or anything like that because I guarantee you there’s somebody out there who will say it.”
That phone call was significant because it was placed two days after Zimmerman killed Trayvon and a couple of weeks before the case drew national attention. Witness No. 9 wasn’t seeking attention. “I’m a mom,” she told police. “I can’t stand seeing that some kid got shot and killed over a stupid fight, especially one that my [redacted] … because I know who he is.”
George Zimmerman is the one who stands accused of second-degree murder. He, not Trayvon Martin, is the one on trial starting June 10. And who Zimmerman is more relevant to the proceedings than who Trayvon was.
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!!!)
Martin's home was a football field away from where he was. There is no "could have made it" home. If he wanted to he would have. Fact is he had 4 minutes, this wasn't an "instant" flight or flight reaction to the situation, this was 4 minutes of thought about what he was going to do, and he chose to attack Zimmerman. Which seems to fit his character (suspended from school for fights, buying guns illegally, drug user).
Because when being followed by a strange person we should all proceed directly home and show that person where we live? I don't think so.
A legitimate concern, but what would you honestly do in that situation? Go home and call the police? Go somewhere else and call the police? Keep walking and call the police? All of this, of course, is acknowledging you never know how you'll actually react in a fight-or-flight situation until it happens.
Exactly. Who can say what the right response is, or how any of us when put in the position would have reacted? Just because Martin could have made it home does not mean going home was the logical or smart thing to do.
That's why I'm asking you what you think you might do. Also, with the benefit of a clear head, what you think the best thing to do is.
I think I probably would head to my destination and call the police. The best thing to do might be to keep walking and call the police. Unless there is somewhere that isn't a residence and relatively populated, although that doesn't sound like that was an option in this situation.
Exactly. Who can say what the right response is, or how any of us when put in the position would have reacted? Just because Martin could have made it home does not mean going home was the logical or smart thing to do.
That's why I'm asking you what you think you might do. Also, with the benefit of a clear head, what you think the best thing to do is.
I think I probably would head to my destination and call the police. The best thing to do might be to keep walking and call the police. Unless there is somewhere that isn't a residence and relatively populated, although that doesn't sound like that was an option in this situation.
Well, speaking as a 37 year old white man living in a wealthy area, I would probably call the police. When I was 17 and living in Framingham? I don't know.
Martin's home was a football field away from where he was. There is no "could have made it" home. If he wanted to he would have. Fact is he had 4 minutes, this wasn't an "instant" flight or flight reaction to the situation, this was 4 minutes of thought about what he was going to do, and he chose to attack Zimmerman. Which seems to fit his character (suspended from school for fights, buying guns illegally, drug user).
Who is making assumptions now?
Wheres the assumptions
Martins home was a football field away (100 Yds) - Fact
He had 4 minutes - Fact
Martin was suspended from school for fighting,buying guns, using drugs - Fact
The only assumptions I made was that he chose to attack Zimmerman, which is the States job to PROVE that it didn't happen that way. Do you know how our justice system works?
Its innocent until proven guilty. What evidence was provided by the state that discredits zimmerman/witness accounts?
Well, speaking as a 37 year old white man living in a wealthy area, I would probably call the police. When I was 17 and living in Framingham? I don't know.
Yeah, also a good point. Although I don't think it's unreasonable for people to suggest that engaging someone in that situation is likely your worst option. Closest personal comparison I have is a group of friends and I being followed by a larger group in downtown Springfield. We were in our early twenties and I can tell you that none of us entertained the notion of engaging them. We headed toward a busier intersection and they wound up rolling up on us after starting to shout at us for a block. We were able to talk through what was a misunderstanding, but our one buddy who decided running for it was a good idea caught some lumps.
Well, speaking as a 37 year old white man living in a wealthy area, I would probably call the police. When I was 17 and living in Framingham? I don't know.
Yeah, also a good point. Although I don't think it's unreasonable for people to suggest that engaging someone in that situation is likely your worst option. Closest personal comparison I have is a group of friends and I being followed by a larger group in downtown Springfield. We were in our early twenties and I can tell you that none of us entertained the notion of engaging them. We headed toward a busier intersection and they wound up rolling up on us after starting to shout at us for a block. We were able to talk through what was a misunderstanding, but our one buddy who decided running for it was a good idea caught some lumps.
Yeah, I don't disagree that engagement is probably not the best idea. But would a 17 year old agree? In the spur of the moment like that I can understand why he may have approached Zimmerman.
Western Mass can be like a different world. When I was in college I worked as a Pharmacy Tech in Holyoke. Growing up in Framingham prepared me not at all for some of the things I saw there, which was shocking. You and your buddies made the right call for sure.
Another important element that i'm surprised no one is talking about here is whether or not it was NECESSARY for Zimmerman to kill Trayvon to get out of the situation he was in. Was the amount of force Zimmerman used necessary?
Comments
this is like me going into a bar knowing i am strapped, initiating a fight and then shooting someone when they beat me up. how can he claim self defense when he followed martin and put himself in that position? fact is, zimmerman stays in the car, as directed, there is no trial because martin is not dead. zimmerman caused all of this.
he is not going to walk. he is going to jail.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I also believe he will walk.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
I tend to agree with you.
I forget -- does the jury need to be unanimous for manslaughter convictions? Vant?
Also, when does Zimmerman's book come out "How I killed a kid by shooting him in the heart for punching my nose too hard."
4 min thing is huge. TM would've been able to get home by then. Instead he waited around for GZ.
But yeah..... Its Zimmerman's actions that led to his death,
Because when being followed by a strange person we should all proceed directly home and show that person where we live? I don't think so.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
So what are you saying happened then?
Vice Versa Zimmerman supporters really just spout out word for word what Zimmerman, Hannity, etc have been saying about the case and they buy his story 100%.
I am in the first camp because I think he's been proven to be a liar both in terms of this story and in the aftermath. He also had the boy who cried wolf thing going against him with all his unfounded 911 calls in the lead up to this case. I like to think I'm a concerned citizen too, but I've called 911 ONE time in my life and never for suspicious teenagers.
And lastly if we shot every teenager that was acting like a thug or behaving suspiciously...we'd have very few teenagers left on this planet. Which to some wouldn't be a bad thing...
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!!!)
Can you use any actual evidence that supports your position.
And what part of my statement is an assumption?
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Bro...my first sentence in my post is you can't debate this case with people. You and I are so locked in to our positions I'd have better luck at peace in the middle east. The main thing I don't buy is his life was ever in danger. In MY OPINION which is all I can go off on since I was not there...Mr. Zimmerman could have pushed Martin off of him...Ran to his car... and called the cops again to report an assualt. Had Martin trailed him back to his car and then he got shot, then I'd support Mr. Zimmerman despite his stupidity for getting out of the car which I never would have done.
The Prosector brought up 4 hours worth of Zimmerman lies yesterday in his closing remarks. How his story has changed numerous times, how one second Martin is walking hurridly away from him and then he catches himself and says he was walking normially etc etc. Then Zimmerman was caught lying about his finances post arrest. I just think the man is a liar and you are asking me to take a liar at his word.
I don't buy his story...you do. Mr. Zimmerman hopes he has 12 people like you on his jury.
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!!!)
Assumption - Because you have called 911 once in your life means that Zimmerman shouldn't or that somehow makes him someone looking for trouble or looking to kill someone.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
A legitimate concern, but what would you honestly do in that situation? Go home and call the police? Go somewhere else and call the police? Keep walking and call the police? All of this, of course, is acknowledging you never know how you'll actually react in a fight-or-flight situation until it happens.
And the prosecution did a good job making Zimmerman seem like a bad dude.
I changed my oppinion; he could definitely be convicted.
Exactly. Who can say what the right response is, or how any of us when put in the position would have reacted? Just because Martin could have made it home does not mean going home was the logical or smart thing to do.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Their job is to Prove that Zimmerman didn't act in self-defense. Which they didn't and can't, which is why they are appealing on emotion and character assassination.
Let me remind you about the facts on Martin that were withheld from court:
1. Twitter picture smoking weed
2. Twitter pictures of him holding a gun (which was illegally obtainted - see texts)
3. Got suspended from school for fighting
4. Text messages about fighting and buying guns
This is the conduct of the person who attacked zimmerman, yet you think because be lied about finances that he's the aggressor?
So in your opinion:
Zimmerman lying about his finances = He didn't act in self defense? Prove it with evidence.
Are you even watching the trial? 6 women make up the jury not 12
What actions were those? Evidence please, not assumptions...
This opinion piece (notice how I highlight that...I could never work for Fox News) sums up my feelings a lot better than I can:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/pos ... vant-past/
George Zimmerman’s relevant past
By Jonathan Capehart, Updated: May 28, 2013
George Zimmerman arriving for a December court hearing. (Reuters)
When George Zimmerman followed Trayvon Martin the night of Feb. 26, 2012, he ignored an admonition not to do so from the police dispatcher. The request for his arrest, written by the lead detective, noted that Zimmerman’s killing of Trayvon could have been avoided if he’d remained in his vehicle or identified himself “as a concerned citizen.” Just what in Zimmerman’s past might have led him to take these actions and kill an unarmed teenager with a gunshot to the chest is relevant in this case.
What is not relevant is Trayvon’s past. And Judge Debra Nelson made that clear today when she denied several motions by Zimmerman attorney Mark O’Mara to introduce the 17-year-old’s suspension from school, past marijuana use and his participation in fights. There’s a possibility that such evidence could make it to trial, but by releasing all the information last week, O’Mara ensured that everyone, including potential jurors, knows what lurked in his client’s victim’s past. But thanks to Florida’s incredible sunshine laws, we know a few relevant things about Zimmerman.
In July 2005, he was arrested for “resisting officer with violence.” The neighborhood watch volunteer who wanted to be a cop got into a scuffle with cops who were questioning a friend for alleged underage drinking. The charges were reduced and then waived after he entered an alcohol education program. Then in August 2005, Zimmerman’s former fiance sought a restraining order against him because of domestic violence. Zimmerman sought a restraining order against her in return. Both were granted. Meanwhile, over the course of eight years, Zimmerman made at least 46 calls to the Sanford (Fla.) Police Department reporting suspicious activity involving black males.
We also know that Witness No. 9 accused Zimmerman of molesting her when they were children. The relative’s revelation is appalling but irrelevant. What most folks don’t know is that Witness No. 9 made an explosive allegation against her cousin. “I know George. And I know that he does not like black people,” she told a Sanford police officer during a telephone call in which she pleaded for anonymity. “He would start something. He’s a very confrontational person. It’s in his blood. Let’s just say that. I don’t want this poor kid and his family to just be overlooked.” At the end of the call, Witness No. 9 urged the officer to “get character reports from other people and see if he’s ever said anything about black people, about being racist or anything like that because I guarantee you there’s somebody out there who will say it.”
That phone call was significant because it was placed two days after Zimmerman killed Trayvon and a couple of weeks before the case drew national attention. Witness No. 9 wasn’t seeking attention. “I’m a mom,” she told police. “I can’t stand seeing that some kid got shot and killed over a stupid fight, especially one that my [redacted] … because I know who he is.”
George Zimmerman is the one who stands accused of second-degree murder. He, not Trayvon Martin, is the one on trial starting June 10. And who Zimmerman is more relevant to the proceedings than who Trayvon was.
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!!!)
Who is making assumptions now?
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
That's why I'm asking you what you think you might do. Also, with the benefit of a clear head, what you think the best thing to do is.
I think I probably would head to my destination and call the police. The best thing to do might be to keep walking and call the police. Unless there is somewhere that isn't a residence and relatively populated, although that doesn't sound like that was an option in this situation.
Well, speaking as a 37 year old white man living in a wealthy area, I would probably call the police. When I was 17 and living in Framingham? I don't know.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
he will get convicted of manslaughter, and he will go to jail.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Martins home was a football field away (100 Yds) - Fact
He had 4 minutes - Fact
Martin was suspended from school for fighting,buying guns, using drugs - Fact
The only assumptions I made was that he chose to attack Zimmerman, which is the States job to PROVE that it didn't happen that way. Do you know how our justice system works?
Its innocent until proven guilty. What evidence was provided by the state that discredits zimmerman/witness accounts?
the forensics show that it did not happen that way.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Yeah, also a good point. Although I don't think it's unreasonable for people to suggest that engaging someone in that situation is likely your worst option. Closest personal comparison I have is a group of friends and I being followed by a larger group in downtown Springfield. We were in our early twenties and I can tell you that none of us entertained the notion of engaging them. We headed toward a busier intersection and they wound up rolling up on us after starting to shout at us for a block. We were able to talk through what was a misunderstanding, but our one buddy who decided running for it was a good idea caught some lumps.
Yeah, I don't disagree that engagement is probably not the best idea. But would a 17 year old agree? In the spur of the moment like that I can understand why he may have approached Zimmerman.
Western Mass can be like a different world. When I was in college I worked as a Pharmacy Tech in Holyoke. Growing up in Framingham prepared me not at all for some of the things I saw there, which was shocking. You and your buddies made the right call for sure.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Was the amount of force Zimmerman used necessary?
It's right here in the jury instructions:
http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/news ... ions_1.pdf