George Zimmerman Trial

[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.

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....

It does after you shoot the innocent, unarmed person you are tracking.

[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."

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

Either the word "distinction" or "difference" is giving you trouble.

The dispatcher has zero authority and Zimmerman had no reason to believe that he/she did. That advice has all the expectation that it must be obeyed as it would if one of the neighbors told him "they (the police) don't need you to do that."

[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....

It does after you shoot the innocent, unarmed person you are tracking.

No, because what happens after that is what matters according to the law. The law does not deem the act of following a person or getting out of your vehicle to be unlawful. Therefore the fact that someone ended up shot is not contingent. What homersapien thinks the law should be is irrelevant.

[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.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.

I agree if he was concerned, he should have called 911. It is not his job, not his place and no one died and left him police officer. I doubt either side of these legal teams have proven anything to anyone. IMO, it will be a decision from the jury based on anything but prosecution or defense. Also, imo, prosecution is screwed on this, never seen one weaker. The county taxpayers need a refund for salary paid.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Frankly, given the known evidence, I don't think any prosecutor could have had a great shot at convicting him of murder or manslaughter. If there's another lesser charge, perhaps.

[telling tiger 156]

Given the opportunity to see another case presented, I'm not so sure about that. It is simply opinion. If a victims family could request a retrial on the basis of incompetent representation in prosecution, I don't think a judge in the country would deny it after seeing this crew. Essentially the defense has to show up. It isn't because of the power of their irrefutable defense. The entire situation has been a cluster from start to now.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

What opportunities do you think the prosecution has left on the table that would have swung the tide in their favor? What evidence that would have dismantled the defense narrative did they fail to bring to light? What I see is a case that has a lot of suspicion, a lot of "fishiness", but little in the way of good evidence that could convict a person.

[telling tiger 156]

I'm not stating that any more evidence could've been brought to light. I am stating even given the case they had, they likely have clerks in their office, or better hope they do, that could have presented it more effectively. I wouldn't hire them to retrieve my dog from the pound. Burden is on the prosecution, to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt yada,yada. These guys have barely proven they can carry their morning coffee into court.

[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.

Either the word "distinction" or "difference" is giving you trouble.

The dispatcher has zero authority and Zimmerman had no reason to believe that he/she did. That advice has all the expectation that it must be obeyed as it would if one of the neighbors told him "they (the police) don't need you to do that."

So you actually do believe he was perfectly justified in ignoring it.

[WarEagle1983 2,185]

I'm not stating that any more evidence could've been brought to light. I am stating even given the case they had, they likely have clerks in their office, or better hope they do, that could have presented it more effectively. I wouldn't hire them to retrieve my dog from the pound. Burden is on the prosecution, to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt yada,yada. These guys have barely proven they can carry their morning coffee into court.

Agree to a certain degree. They haven't done a good job at presenting the case well. They've missed some key points and not asking the right questions. Even if the case was presented better i don't think they could get a murder 2 conviction but they should certainly be able to get a manslaughter conviction but the state's lawyers are simply not doing a good job so it doesn't look good that they'll get a conviction on manslaughter. I hope they can at least do that because it would be a shame. TM's family lawyers could've presented this case better than what the state has done.

[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."

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

Either the word "distinction" or "difference" is giving you trouble.

The dispatcher has zero authority and Zimmerman had no reason to believe that he/she did. That advice has all the expectation that it must be obeyed as it would if one of the neighbors told him "they (the police) don't need you to do that."

So you actually do believe he was perfectly justified in ignoring it.

"Justified?" No. I just don't think ignoring it makes him automatically culpable for anything and everything that happens afterward. Neither does the law.

[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.

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....

It does after you shoot the innocent, unarmed person you are tracking.

No, because what happens after that is what matters according to the law. The law does not deem the act of following a person or getting out of your vehicle to be unlawful. Therefore the fact that someone ended up shot is not contingent. What homersapien thinks the law should be is irrelevant.

BS

The law doesn't require the jury to accept the self-justifying testimony of the shooter. And there is nothing about my interpretation of GZ's accountability - which is based on uncontested facts - that is inconsistent with the law.

[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.

Either the word "distinction" or "difference" is giving you trouble.

The dispatcher has zero authority and Zimmerman had no reason to believe that he/she did. That advice has all the expectation that it must be obeyed as it would if one of the neighbors told him "they (the police) don't need you to do that."

So you actually do believe he was perfectly justified in ignoring it.

"Justified?" No. I just don't think ignoring it makes him automatically culpable for anything and everything that happens afterward. Neither does the law.

Yeah right. It's TM's fault he got himself shot.

[telling tiger 156]

The law does require proof refuting a defenses' contention and you best not be counting on that one to occur. You may be right, he may be culpable, no one has proven it. I did a little research on degrees of manslaughter in Florida. While involuntary may sound like something not suited, it offers the best prosecution hope and I wouldn't place my money on it. They have just not met the burden of proof.

[SLAG-91 1,483]

For what it's worth, TM's toxicology report will be entered into evidence now.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

BS

The law doesn't require the jury to accept the self-justifying testimony of the shooter. And there is nothing about my interpretation of GZ's accountability - which is based on uncontested facts - that is inconsistent with the law.

I never asserted they had to accept it. But what they so have to do is have real evidence that his testimony is false beyond a reasonable doubt. As it stands everything I said is absolutely true:

"The law does not deem the act of following a person or getting out of your vehicle to be unlawful. Therefore the fact that someone ended up shot is not contingent."

You can, call it BS, stamp your feet and have a hissy about it all you want but it won't change the truth of what I said.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Yeah right. It's TM's fault he got himself shot.

Something else no one is asserting. Saying that failing to heed a non-order from someone with no authority doesn't make him culpable does not therefore mean that It's TM's fault. Do you always only think in binary terms?

[WarEagle1983 2,185]

For what it's worth, TM's toxicology report will be entered into evidence now.

I think the prosecution could flip this witness if they start actually doing their job b/c the THC doesn't make a person aggressive and depending on how much was in his system it may not be a factor at all. Since the defense gets to enter in TM's toxicology report i think the state should argue to enter in GZ's arrest record.

[homersapien 11,440]

Yeah right. It's TM's fault he got himself shot.

Something else no one is asserting. Saying that failing to heed a non-order from someone with no authority doesn't make him culpable does not therefore mean that It's TM's fault. Do you always only think in binary terms?

Every argument you have made in support of Zimmerman is based on the (reactive) behavior of the victim. That is effectively blaming the victim for his own shooting.

Do you always have this sort of trouble identifying the essential elements of a case - or a problem?

Do you always have such difficulty understanding your own arguments?

[alexava 6,973]

It could boost gz's credibility as to his telling the dispatcher that something is wrong with tm, "he is on drugs or something", maybe.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Yeah right. It's TM's fault he got himself shot.

Something else no one is asserting. Saying that failing to heed a non-order from someone with no authority doesn't make him culpable does not therefore mean that It's TM's fault. Do you always only think in binary terms?

Every argument you have made in support of Zimmerman is based on the (reactive) behavior of the victim. That is effectively blaming the victim for his own shooting.

Do you always have this sort of trouble identifying the essential elements of a case - or a problem?

Do you always have such difficulty understanding your own arguments?

[homersapien 11,440]

BS

The law doesn't require the jury to accept the self-justifying testimony of the shooter. And there is nothing about my interpretation of GZ's accountability - which is based on uncontested facts - that is inconsistent with the law.

I never asserted they had to accept it. But what they so have to do is have real evidence that his testimony is false beyond a reasonable doubt. As it stands everything I said is absolutely true:

"The law does not deem the act of following a person or getting out of your vehicle to be unlawful. Therefore the fact that someone ended up shot is not contingent."

You can, call it BS, stamp your feet and have a hissy about it all you want but it won't change the truth of what I said.

No, what you said was: "What homersapien thinks the law should be is irrelevant."

That is a totally irrelevant assertion that has no bearing whatsoever on my position. In other words, it's Bull s***.

You can portray me as "stamping my feet" and having a "hissy" for simply calling your BS for what it is, but it doesn't change the fact.

[telling tiger 156]

Him using weed, explains the Skittles. That is about its' only connection. Walking while high on pot? Really? lol. TM is to be considered a victim, how are the myriad of people in this country's history who have been murdered while intoxicated any less mitigating? lol.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Yeah right. It's TM's fault he got himself shot.

Something else no one is asserting. Saying that failing to heed a non-order from someone with no authority doesn't make him culpable does not therefore mean that It's TM's fault. Do you always only think in binary terms?

Every argument you have made in support of Zimmerman is based on the (reactive) behavior of the victim. That is effectively blaming the victim for his own shooting.

I've done nothing of the sort.

Do you always have this sort of trouble identifying the essential elements of a case - or a problem?

Do you always have such difficulty understanding your own arguments?

I understand full well the essential elements if the case. I just disagree with what YOU deem to be those elements. And I gather so does the law.

I also fully understand my own arguments. Deciphering the tortured versions of them you come with is another matter.

[homersapien 11,440]

Yeah right. It's TM's fault he got himself shot.

Something else no one is asserting. Saying that failing to heed a non-order from someone with no authority doesn't make him culpable does not therefore mean that It's TM's fault. Do you always only think in binary terms?

Every argument you have made in support of Zimmerman is based on the (reactive) behavior of the victim. That is effectively blaming the victim for his own shooting.

I've done nothing of the sort.

Do you always have this sort of trouble identifying the essential elements of a case - or a problem?

Do you always have such difficulty understanding your own arguments?

I understand full well the essential elements if the case. I just disagree with what YOU deem to be those elements. And I gather so does the law.

I also fully understand my own arguments. Deciphering the tortured versions of them you come with is another matter.

The law doesn't determine the essential elements of this case, the jury does. Regardless the law should always be applied in the context of the facts of the case, which is exactly what I am doing.

Discounting secondary actions such as TM's reaction to being stalked, especially when it is based on the one-sided, self-serving testimony of the shooter is most definitely within the spirit and application of the law. So the statement that I base my opinion on an erroneous interpretation of the law is simply wrong.

Now, please show me an example of where I have "tortured" any of your opinions. Maybe I can rephrase my interpretation in a way you can better understand.