Trayvon Martin

BinFrog

vant0037 wrote:

pjhawks wrote:

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.

Godfather.

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.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/27/te ... z2XQvzgdvf

Its Evolution Baby

Godfather. wrote:

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.



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.

MotoDC

Hard to believe it's been over a year already since this all went down.

JonnyPistachio

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

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?

JonnyPistachio

vant0037 wrote:

pjhawks wrote:

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.

pjhawks

BinFrog wrote:

vant0037 wrote:

pjhawks wrote:

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.

BinFrog

pjhawks wrote:

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.

vant0037

BinFrog wrote:

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.

BinFrog

vant0037 wrote:

BinFrog wrote:

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.

vant0037

BinFrog wrote:

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.

Blockhead

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

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.

BinFrog

vant0037 wrote:

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.

Blockhead

vant0037 wrote:

BinFrog wrote:

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?

JimmyV

Blockhead wrote:

vant0037 wrote:

BinFrog wrote:

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.

Blockhead

JimmyV wrote:

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?

Blockhead

JimmyV wrote:

When I read about a rape victim who stalked their attacker through the streets before the attack I will let you know.

So your saying women don't approach men?

pjhawks

BinFrog wrote:

vant0037 wrote:

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.

vant0037

Blockhead wrote:

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.

JimmyV

Blockhead wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

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.