George Zimmerman Trial

[AUMed 0]

Look, neither you nor me really know what happened. I'm not understanding what makes you so cocksure that your take on this is correct.

That is correct. No one really knows what happened in the final minutes of that encounter but what IS known leads me, and others, to the conclusion that Zimmerman instigated this "incident" (see: crime) when he knowingly and purposefully carried a weapon to confront a stranger against police orders. Blaming TM for not "running home" and causing his own death is as irresponsible as blaming young women for being raped due to dressing scantily or drinking alcohol.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

That is correct. No one really knows what happened in the final minutes of that encounter but what IS known leads me, and others, to the conclusion that Zimmerman instigated this "incident" (see: crime) when he knowingly and purposefully carried a weapon to confront a stranger against police orders.

He didn't purposefully carry the weapon to confront a stranger. He was carrying the weapon on him because he regularly does so (he has a concealed carry permit). He was on his way to Target when he saw Trayvon. You're conflating two things to make the situation look more sinister and intentional than it was.

And there was no "police order." There was a dispatcher that told him they didn't "need him to do that" (follow Trayvon). While I agree that Zimmerman should have stopped following him (he contends he did because he lost Trayvon and was at that point trying to find a more specific address to give to police), that's not the same as an "order" to stop following.

Blaming TM for not "running home" and causing his own death is as irresponsible as blaming young women for being raped due to dressing scantily or drinking alcohol.

No one is "blaming" TM, but this case doesn't hinge on whether Zimmerman was armed. Nor does it even hinge on the fact that he got out of his truck. What this case (charging someone with murder or even manslaughter) hinges on is who initiated the confrontation and who initiated the physical altercation. If Zimmerman started a fight and then used deadly force once he was getting his ass kicked, then he deserves to be convicted. If TM started the fight and was beating the crap out of Zimmerman to the point where he feared for his life, then it is reasonable for Zimmerman to use potentially deadly force to save himself. There's even a third option...even if TM started the fight, if there was a point where GZ could have gotten away or stepped back and drawn his weapon to get TM to back off and decided to jump straight to shooting instead, then GZ could be culpable.

[alexava 6,973]

Look, neither you nor me really know what happened. I'm not understanding what makes you so cocksure that your take on this is correct.

That is correct. No one really knows what happened in the final minutes of that encounter but what IS known leads me, and others, to the conclusion that Zimmerman instigated this "incident" (see: crime) when he knowingly and purposefully carried a weapon to confront a stranger against police orders. Blaming TM for not "running home" and causing his own death is as irresponsible as blaming young women for being raped due to dressing scantily or drinking alcohol.

here we go with the police orders that didn't happen again.

[Wareagletd 0]

Is this trial almost over yet?

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Probably wraps up middle to end of this week.

[alexava 6,973]

13000 murders a year in this country and this gets all the attention. whether found guilty or not GZ will not be able to live normally. he will probably be in hiding. it might be better off for him if he is found guilty.

[homersapien 11,440]

I find it interesting that views on this case seem to follow political philosophies. Those with a more liberal view seem to think that GZ should be found guilty of manslaughter and those with a more conservative view seem to think GZ should not be found guilty. (alexava is an exception to this). I don't see why this case should follow party lines. Could someone explain it for me?

me too. I keep waiting for the paula deen thread to start just to test your theory farther.

I consider my perspective on individual accountability to be quite conservative.

I do too. I have little tolerance for crime. But I do give the benefit of the doubt to a man who didn't break a law and found himself in a position to defend himself from an attack and beating. Following a person does not give that person the right to beat the hell out of you.

"Following a person" doesn't give you the right to shoot them if they do decide to respond.

Especially when you are armed and they aren't.

If all you're doing is following them and they are beating your head into the concrete to the point where you fear for your life, I think you do have the right to use deadly force. The question becomes, is this an altercation you initiated or did they attack you merely for following them?

That's the perfect recipe for vigilantism. Conceal and gun and troll for trouble.

Anyone who puts on a gun has an obligation to avoid trouble IMO, not seek it.

[homersapien 11,440]

I'm just saying, according to the story we know GZ was walking past where TM was and didn't apparently see him. TM decided to confront him and not just ask him why he's following him but initiate the physical aggression by punching GZ.

If there's some witness that can tell me different (that GZ wasn't walking away, started the physical confrontation, etc.) I'm not sure what charge you could fit within "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Says the shooter, who is the only one left alive.

[homersapien 11,440]

If GZ didn't want to confront TM then why continue to follow him and why get out of the car?

Well, there's the stated reason for getting out of the car. And he didn't want to lose his whereabouts so hopefully when the police arrived they'd be able to get the guy. I'm not sure how you see this as "wanting a confrontation." If he wanted a confrontation, he could have jumped out with his gun drawn the first second he saw the kid.

Well, except for the important fact that TM was not a criminal or even a suspected criminal. He was a 17 year old kid walking home.

GZ had no warrant for pursuing him like he was a fugitive. That was all in GZ's head. You are trying to turn the victim into the perpetrator. All based on GZ's fantasy.

[homersapien 11,440]

Why say, "they always get away"?

Because he felt like the people who had done the recent break-ins in the area do seem to "always get away" and he thought it was about to happen again?

Right, it was just a general statement that had nothing to do with TM. GZ probably wasn't even thinking about TM when he said it. It was just a random thought that popped into his head. :-\ :-\

[TitanTiger 20,510]

If GZ didn't want to confront TM then why continue to follow him and why get out of the car?

Well, there's the stated reason for getting out of the car. And he didn't want to lose his whereabouts so hopefully when the police arrived they'd be able to get the guy. I'm not sure how you see this as "wanting a confrontation." If he wanted a confrontation, he could have jumped out with his gun drawn the first second he saw the kid.

Well, except for the important fact that TM was not a criminal or even a suspected criminal. He was a 17 year old kid walking home.

Something GZ had no way of knowing for sure. There'd been a lot of break-ins in the area and where he says he first saw TM was right next to one of the units that had been broken into before, not on the sidewalk, but on the grass next to it.

GZ had no warrant for pursuing him like he was a fugitive. That was all in GZ's head. You are trying to turn the victim into the perpetrator. All based on GZ's fantasy.

I'm not trying to do anything. I'm just saying that thinking TM was suspicious isn't a crime. Even following him isn't. And while you call GZ's version a "fantasy", you have nothing even approaching proof of such a claim. The situation sucks, but there's nothing that we actually KNOW to be true that proves GZ "wanted a confrontation."

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Why say, "they always get away"?

Because he felt like the people who had done the recent break-ins in the area do seem to "always get away" and he thought it was about to happen again?

Right, it was just a general statement that had nothing to do with TM. GZ probably wasn't even thinking about TM when he said it. It was just a random thought that popped into his head. :-\ :-\

No, there had been recent break-ins and the perps did always seem to get away in GZ's mind. Now he was seeing someone else he thought was acting weird and loitering around that he didn't recognize. So he thought it was about to happen again.

[homersapien 11,440]

Look, neither you nor me really know what happened. I'm not understanding what makes you so cocksure that your take on this is correct.

That is correct. No one really knows what happened in the final minutes of that encounter but what IS known leads me, and others, to the conclusion that Zimmerman instigated this "incident" (see: crime) when he knowingly and purposefully carried a weapon to confront a stranger against police orders. Blaming TM for not "running home" and causing his own death is as irresponsible as blaming young women for being raped due to dressing scantily or drinking alcohol.

here we go with the police orders that didn't happen again.

Here we go with the making of a distinction of terminology without a difference.

"We don't need you to do that"

If a cop or a dispatcher tells you that, you really think it's OK to ignore it?

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Just as some background info, it doesn't appear that Zimmerman was just anti-black or always sided with police over young black kids:

In late 2010 and early 2011 George Zimmerman, the Hispanic Sanford, Fla., man who shot and killed 17-year-old black teen Trayvon Martin, publicly demanded discipline in a race-related beating case for at least two of the police officers who cleared him after the Feb. 26 altercation, according to records obtained by The Daily Caller.

In a letter to Seminole County NAACP president Turner Clayton, a member of the Zimmerman family wrote that George was one of “very few” in Sanford who publicly condemned the “beating of the black homeless man Sherman Ware on Dec. 4, 2010, by the son of a Sanford police officer,” who is white.

TheDC has confirmed the identity of the Zimmerman family member who wrote the letter but is withholding that person’s specific identity out of concern for the family’s safety.

On Dec. 4, 2010, Justin Collison, the son of Sanford Police Department Lt. Chris Collison, was involved in a bar fight at The Wet Spot bar in Sanford. During the fight, which moved from indoors to outdoors, the younger Collison struck Ware.

Ware suffered a concussion, and paramedics took him to the hospital shortly after police arrived on the scene. Collison was not arrested or charged, even though an onlooker had video evidence of his actions.

No arrest was made and no action taken for weeks. Documents and emails now show police officers and officials from the office of the State Attorney operated with extreme caution because Collison’s father was a high-ranking law enforcement officer.

In the final days of 2010, an Orlando television station aired the

of Justin Collison beating Ware. Collison turned himself in six days later, on Jan. 3, 2011. He agreed to pay for Ware’s medical bills and make donations to nonprofit organizations, including the NAACP.

After Justin Collison surrendered himself to authorities, the Sanford Police Department struggled to hold its officials accountable. A lengthy investigation conducted by the Seminole County Sheriff’s Office concluded that the police officials involved did not offer Justin Collison “preferential treatment.”

Still, according to members of the Zimmerman family, George printed and distributed copies of fliers on bright fluorescent-colored paper demanding that the community “hold accountable” officers responsible for any misconduct. TheDC has obtained a copy of one of those fliers.

“Do you know the individual that stepped up when no one else in the black community would?” the Zimmerman family member asked in the letter to the NAACP’s Clayton.

“Do you know who spent tireless hours putting fliers on the cars of persons parked in the churches of the black community? Do you know who waited for the church‐goers to get out of church so that he could hand them fliers in an attempt to organize the black community against this horrible miscarriage of justice? Do you know who helped organize the City Hall meeting on January 8th, 2011 at Sanford City Hall??”

“That person was GEORGE ZIMMERMAN,” the letter insisted. “Ironic isn’t it?”

Every Sunday, according to his family, Zimmerman would stroll through Sanford’s black neighborhoods handing out the fliers demanding justice for Sherman Ware, and calling for the police to hold their own officials accountable. Zimmerman would also place the fliers on people’s cars outside churches.

“I challenge you to stand together and to have our voices heard, and to hold accountable all of those officers, and officials whom let this atrocious attack pass unpunished until the media revealed it,” one of the fliers reads in part. “This animal could have attacked anyone of us, our children or loved ones in his alcohol fueled rage.”

The officers whom Zimmerman targeted for accountability in the Sherman Ware incident were all cleared by the Seminole County Sheriff’s investigation, despite Zimmerman’s repeated accusations that police gave kid-glove treatment to a white officer’s son who beat a defenseless, homeless black man.

But 14 months later, at least two of the same officers investigated the shooting death of Trayvon Martin — and cleared Zimmerman — even though his voice was the loudest calling for their punishment in the Ware case.

One of those officers was Timothy Smith. According to a police incident report from the scene of the Feb. 26 shooting, Officer Smith handcuffed Zimmerman and transported him to the police station. Another was Sergeant Anthony Raimondo, who was on scene with Smith and other local officers.

At least one liberal media outlet — the self-described African-American news outlet NewsOne — has framed the story in a different light.

On March 19, NewsOne argued that the Sherman Ware incident illustrates a pattern of mistreatment of black victims by the Sanford Police Department.

”They [sanford police] have a history of NOT arresting offenders who assault black men,” the article’s author declared.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/04/zimmerman-demanded-discipline-in-2010-race-related-beating-for-officers-who-investigated-martin-shooting/

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Look, neither you nor me really know what happened. I'm not understanding what makes you so cocksure that your take on this is correct.

That is correct. No one really knows what happened in the final minutes of that encounter but what IS known leads me, and others, to the conclusion that Zimmerman instigated this "incident" (see: crime) when he knowingly and purposefully carried a weapon to confront a stranger against police orders. Blaming TM for not "running home" and causing his own death is as irresponsible as blaming young women for being raped due to dressing scantily or drinking alcohol.

here we go with the police orders that didn't happen again.

Here we go with the making of a distinction of terminology without a difference.

"We don't need you to do that"

If a cop or a dispatcher tells you that, you really think it's OK to ignore it?

Then one would think it would be a slam dunk to charge him with violating a direct order from police. Have you seen such a charge or even seen that it applies here?

[homersapien 11,440]

If GZ didn't want to confront TM then why continue to follow him and why get out of the car?

Well, there's the stated reason for getting out of the car. And he didn't want to lose his whereabouts so hopefully when the police arrived they'd be able to get the guy. I'm not sure how you see this as "wanting a confrontation." If he wanted a confrontation, he could have jumped out with his gun drawn the first second he saw the kid.

Well, except for the important fact that TM was not a criminal or even a suspected criminal. He was a 17 year old kid walking home.

Something GZ had no way of knowing for sure. There'd been a lot of break-ins in the area and where he says he first saw TM was right next to one of the units that had been broken into before, not on the sidewalk, but on the grass next to it.

Of course not. But then, it wasn't GZ's responsibility or business to know "for sure". He is not an LEO.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

If GZ didn't want to confront TM then why continue to follow him and why get out of the car?

Well, there's the stated reason for getting out of the car. And he didn't want to lose his whereabouts so hopefully when the police arrived they'd be able to get the guy. I'm not sure how you see this as "wanting a confrontation." If he wanted a confrontation, he could have jumped out with his gun drawn the first second he saw the kid.

Well, except for the important fact that TM was not a criminal or even a suspected criminal. He was a 17 year old kid walking home.

Something GZ had no way of knowing for sure. There'd been a lot of break-ins in the area and where he says he first saw TM was right next to one of the units that had been broken into before, not on the sidewalk, but on the grass next to it.

Of course not. But then, it wasn't GZ's responsibility or business to know "for sure". He is not an LEO.

He was the neighborhood watch leader. It is his business to pay attention to people he doesn't recognize if he thinks they are acting suspiciously in the neighborhood.

[homersapien 11,440]

[GZ had no warrant for pursuing him like he was a fugitive. That was all in GZ's head. You are trying to turn the victim into the perpetrator. All based on GZ's fantasy.

I'm not trying to do anything. I'm just saying that thinking TM was suspicious isn't a crime. Even following him isn't. And while you call GZ's version a "fantasy", you have nothing even approaching proof of such a claim. The situation sucks, but there's nothing that we actually KNOW to be true that proves GZ "wanted a confrontation."

Well walking into a bank is not a crime either, at least until you shoot someone.

GZ's fantasy was assuming TM was a criminal. Do you really expect him to tell a story that would hold himself accountable. Yes, I think his story is BS, but (as I have said many times) his guilt (of manslaughter) was established when he got out of his car.

[homersapien 11,440]

If GZ didn't want to confront TM then why continue to follow him and why get out of the car?

Well, there's the stated reason for getting out of the car. And he didn't want to lose his whereabouts so hopefully when the police arrived they'd be able to get the guy. I'm not sure how you see this as "wanting a confrontation." If he wanted a confrontation, he could have jumped out with his gun drawn the first second he saw the kid.

Well, except for the important fact that TM was not a criminal or even a suspected criminal. He was a 17 year old kid walking home.

Something GZ had no way of knowing for sure. There'd been a lot of break-ins in the area and where he says he first saw TM was right next to one of the units that had been broken into before, not on the sidewalk, but on the grass next to it.

Of course not. But then, it wasn't GZ's responsibility or business to know "for sure". He is not an LEO.

He was the neighborhood watch leader. It is his business to pay attention to people he doesn't recognize if he thinks they are acting suspiciously in the neighborhood.

But it's not his business to ensure they don't get away, much less shoot them. His "job" was done when he talked to the dispatcher.

[telling tiger 156]

Repeatedly stating GZ is neighborhood watch leader isn't exactly helping his case. He broke almost every guideline of every neighborhood watch in America. His responsibility as neighborhood watch ended with his call to 911. http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-14/news/os-trayvon-martin-beth-kassab-031512-20120314_1_orlando-police-block-captains-zimmerman

[homersapien 11,440]

Look, neither you nor me really know what happened. I'm not understanding what makes you so cocksure that your take on this is correct.

That is correct. No one really knows what happened in the final minutes of that encounter but what IS known leads me, and others, to the conclusion that Zimmerman instigated this "incident" (see: crime) when he knowingly and purposefully carried a weapon to confront a stranger against police orders. Blaming TM for not "running home" and causing his own death is as irresponsible as blaming young women for being raped due to dressing scantily or drinking alcohol.

here we go with the police orders that didn't happen again.

Here we go with the making of a distinction of terminology without a difference.

"We don't need you to do that"

If a cop or a dispatcher tells you that, you really think it's OK to ignore it?

Then one would think it would be a slam dunk to charge him with violating a direct order from police. Have you seen such a charge or even seen that it applies here?

So you think he was justified in simply ignoring it?

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Repeatedly stating GZ is neighborhood watch leader isn't exactly helping his case. He broke almost every guideline of every neighborhood watch in America. His responsibility as neighborhood watch ended with his call to 911. http://articles.orla...tains-zimmerman

But I keep being told that it wasn't his responsibility at all to worry about Trayvon Martin...that even finding him suspicious was some sort of devious act on this part.

And while I agree that he should have left it at the 911 call, there is nothing illegal about following him or getting out of the vehicle. Unwise? Sure. Dangerous? Yes. But that mere act isn't enough to say a man should be guilty of murder or manslaughter. What happens after that matters.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Look, neither you nor me really know what happened. I'm not understanding what makes you so cocksure that your take on this is correct.

That is correct. No one really knows what happened in the final minutes of that encounter but what IS known leads me, and others, to the conclusion that Zimmerman instigated this "incident" (see: crime) when he knowingly and purposefully carried a weapon to confront a stranger against police orders. Blaming TM for not "running home" and causing his own death is as irresponsible as blaming young women for being raped due to dressing scantily or drinking alcohol.

here we go with the police orders that didn't happen again.

Here we go with the making of a distinction of terminology without a difference.

"We don't need you to do that"

If a cop or a dispatcher tells you that, you really think it's OK to ignore it?

Then one would think it would be a slam dunk to charge him with violating a direct order from police. Have you seen such a charge or even seen that it applies here?

So you think he was justified in simply ignoring it?

I think he should have heeded it. That would have been the wise course of action. But that doesn't mean it's a "distinction without a difference."

[TitanTiger 20,510]

If GZ didn't want to confront TM then why continue to follow him and why get out of the car?

Well, there's the stated reason for getting out of the car. And he didn't want to lose his whereabouts so hopefully when the police arrived they'd be able to get the guy. I'm not sure how you see this as "wanting a confrontation." If he wanted a confrontation, he could have jumped out with his gun drawn the first second he saw the kid.

Well, except for the important fact that TM was not a criminal or even a suspected criminal. He was a 17 year old kid walking home.

Something GZ had no way of knowing for sure. There'd been a lot of break-ins in the area and where he says he first saw TM was right next to one of the units that had been broken into before, not on the sidewalk, but on the grass next to it.

Of course not. But then, it wasn't GZ's responsibility or business to know "for sure". He is not an LEO.

He was the neighborhood watch leader. It is his business to pay attention to people he doesn't recognize if he thinks they are acting suspiciously in the neighborhood.

But it's not his business to ensure they don't get away, much less shoot them. His "job" was done when he talked to the dispatcher.

True. But trying to keep track of him or getting out to give police a more specific address to meet him at still doesn't rise to the level of manslaughter or murder. And there is zilch to show he set out to shoot the kid. According to his own testimony and that of at least a few others, Martin was on top of him and had the upper hand. Zimmerman's injuries indicate that his story of Martin bashing his head into the concrete is true. All that matters at that point is:

1. Who started the confrontation? Did GZ initiate a fight, then shot TM when he was getting his ass kicked? If so, then he has some culpability in it ending in TM being killed. If on the other hand TM initiated the confrontation and fight then...

2. DId Zimmerman reasonably believe that his life was in danger, either from having his head slammed into the sidewalk or from TM attempting to grab his gun? If TM started the confrontation AND #2 is true, then Zimmerman simply can't be charged with something as serious as manslaughter. I'm not sure what if anything you do charge him with, but this would not rise to that level.

[homersapien 11,440]

Look, neither you nor me really know what happened. I'm not understanding what makes you so cocksure that your take on this is correct.

That is correct. No one really knows what happened in the final minutes of that encounter but what IS known leads me, and others, to the conclusion that Zimmerman instigated this "incident" (see: crime) when he knowingly and purposefully carried a weapon to confront a stranger against police orders. Blaming TM for not "running home" and causing his own death is as irresponsible as blaming young women for being raped due to dressing scantily or drinking alcohol.

here we go with the police orders that didn't happen again.

Here we go with the making of a distinction of terminology without a difference.

"We don't need you to do that"

If a cop or a dispatcher tells you that, you really think it's OK to ignore it?

Then one would think it would be a slam dunk to charge him with violating a direct order from police. Have you seen such a charge or even seen that it applies here?

So you think he was justified in simply ignoring it?

I think he should have heeded it. That would have been the wise course of action. But that doesn't mean it's a "distinction without a difference."

No, that's exactly why it's a distinction without a difference and why the terminology is irrelevant.