George Zimmerman Trial

[tgr4lfe 220]

and Trayvon was a saint

well, he didn't kill anyone. Just bought some Skittles-- that bothers you somehow?

You are killing me with the "innocent skittle buyer" routine. Team you up with Homer's "he exited the car, he must live behind bars", Johnny Cochran style tag line, and the two of you are a Prosecution Dream Team!

Yeah, and it kills me how you guys ignore my post about how unbelievable GZ is and Big Bird immediately finds it necessary to demean a dead kid-- and that's what you jump on.

I understand why you don't want to deal with facts, but the fact that you find it necessary to cast a dead kid as the bad guy is truly pathetic.

All he said was the kid wasn't a saint. Are you saying he was?

Whether you like it or not, even if GZ is hiding something it doesn't change the idea that he most likely could have easily avoided his death. His actions are a part of what resulted in his death. That's the point I was making. I'm not sorry if it bothered you.

I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm okay with the verdict rendered, whatever it may be. I do think Trayvon's death is a shame, I just don't claim to know where all the blame lies as you do.

The "just buying skittles" routine shows how unopen you are to realistic thought on this matter. Cry me a river of skittles.

Whether he was a saint is irrelevant. Whether GZ was lying about why he got out of the car is very relevant. That simple logic escapes you in this case because of your bias and closemindedness.

*double freaking snicker*

Tex, you are far too close to the trees on this one. I don't claim to know what GZ or TM's motives or actions were. For, all we know GZ is a big liar or perhaps he is telling the story the way he remembers it to the best of his ability. Eye witnesses are usually the worst kind and I'm certain that becomes worse when that eye witness just went through a massively traumatic event while doing his witnessing.

Of course you're so unbiased you know for a 100% fact that GZ is lying. *you guessed it, snicker* Kudos to your impartiality. Give yourself another pat on the back O saintly one. I watched my first 5 minutes of the trial today and I'm guessing you did to as it was the prosecution playing the "he's lying card", because it's all they've got from what I understand. Looks like you bought it fully and who knows, maybe he did lie some. I don't deny that possibility. However, it is also very possible he is being very up front with his recollection of the events. I can understand someones testimony (in the tapes) being a little shaky after an event like this.

Of course GZ is a lying bloody murderer and TM is a completely innocent Skittle Buyer in your mind, so please forgive my closemindedness.

I've never understood why some folks were so eager to swallow the claim that he got out off his car to determine where he was when the neighborhood only had three streets so I'm glad the prosecutor stressed that point. The evidence for a self defense claim rests on GZ's credibility. He's lied a ton. That's a big deal to any reasonable person who hasn't already excused his actions.

Sorry, but that's not enough for me. I'm one of those people who pay very little attention to street signs within my own neighborhood. I live out in the county now and can't name all the roads that pass near my home, and I've lived here for more than 10 years now. I can't name many side streets at all from old addresses. I consider myself of above average intelligence, but I am definitely biased on this one, lol.

But hey, if the prosecutor makes the claim that GZ is lying without any proof it must be true.

You're not the neighborhood watch captain in a three street enclave.

Touche'. Maybe GZ has lied a bit here and there, i don't know and no rock solid proof has been presented. Still don't see murder 2. Even if he is an overzealous NW pursuer it takes two to tango here. Like I said, I can live with whatever verdict is presented. I do think that that TM is more than an innocent Skittles Buyer as well and that is important whether you want to admit it or not.

.

I think manslaughter, if anything. Do you think TM was engaged in criminality when targeted by GZ?

I don't know. Is attacking someone simply because they are following you while posing no direct threat a criminal offense?

Following you with a loaded gun because they think you're someone they may need to shoot? Of course, the question you frame is GZ's story-- but we know TM ran from him to get away, GZ pursued him. So TM did a 180 in strategy? Why?

Or TM ran from GZ b/c he was up to scouting houses? Then when he saw GZ was on the phone and talking to police, he doubled back on him to attack him? Why did he come back to confront GZ who by all accounts had his weapon CONCEALED under his shirt in an inside the pants holster, not openly displayed as some try to portray it.

[tgr4lfe 220]

If GZ did not have a firearm with him that night, what would the likely outcome have been?

If he still reported and got out of his truck, then Trayvon Martin would likely go to jail for assault.

So Trayvon has no right to defend himself from a stranger following him at night?

technically, no. Following someone is not a crime.

Well, at least he would still be alive.

you could say the same if TM had just gone home

Correct, Bird. A huge part of this case for me is that TM ran off in the direction of the residence where he was staying, but chose not to go home. Instead he waited in a dark area between townhomes. Why would he do that? Paired with GZ's phone call with dispatch where he stated that he did not know where TM was, this indicates to me that TM planned on engaging GZ. Not the other way around.

Yeah, he probably wore a hoodie and acted suspicious in order to lure Zimmerman out of his car. :-\

Your problem is that you're hung up on GZ getting out of his car. Perhaps a bigger problem is that you're ignoring a lot of important facts of this case. LIsten to GZ's call to dispatch. He says TM ran off and he doesn't know where he is. Answer these questions:

1. How do you follow someone when you don't know where they are?

2. GM can be heard telling dispatch that TM ran off. In the walk through that took place the very next day, GZ points to the direction TM ran to. It was in the direction of TM's house. If TM didn't wait in the dark for GZ to pass by, if it was instead that GZ was following TM, why didn't the altercation happen in front of TM's house?

3. A fight is taking place. One person can be heard screaming for help. Of the two people involved in the fight, one person has a broken nose, bruises on the sides of his head, days later has black eyes from the incident, has 2 centimeter gashes on the back of his head... The other person has no injuries other than on his knuckes. Tell me who is more likely to have been screaming for help?

Most people discussing this case have had their opinions evolve as the evidence is presented. You made up your mind without considering any of the facts and appear to be defending your stance no matter what. You appear to know nothing about this case.

BINGO!!

[AUGradinTX 0]

Zimmerman is a liar. That's clear. No credibility.

Had no idea what street he was on. How could he? There were three of them! And he only lived there 4 years. And was neighborhood watch captain.

I don't ever remember street names. Never have been able to. Guess I'm a liar without credibility, too...

[AUGradinTX 0]

and Trayvon was a saint

well, he didn't kill anyone. Just bought some Skittles-- that bothers you somehow?

You are killing me with the "innocent skittle buyer" routine. Team you up with Homer's "he exited the car, he must live behind bars", Johnny Cochran style tag line, and the two of you are a Prosecution Dream Team!

Yeah, and it kills me how you guys ignore my post about how unbelievable GZ is and Big Bird immediately finds it necessary to demean a dead kid-- and that's what you jump on.

I understand why you don't want to deal with facts, but the fact that you find it necessary to cast a dead kid as the bad guy is truly pathetic.

All he said was the kid wasn't a saint. Are you saying he was?

Whether you like it or not, even if GZ is hiding something it doesn't change the idea that he most likely could have easily avoided his death. His actions are a part of what resulted in his death. That's the point I was making. I'm not sorry if it bothered you.

I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm okay with the verdict rendered, whatever it may be. I do think Trayvon's death is a shame, I just don't claim to know where all the blame lies as you do.

The "just buying skittles" routine shows how unopen you are to realistic thought on this matter. Cry me a river of skittles.

Whether he was a saint is irrelevant. Whether GZ was lying about why he got out of the car is very relevant. That simple logic escapes you in this case because of your bias and closemindedness.

*double freaking snicker*

Tex, you are far too close to the trees on this one. I don't claim to know what GZ or TM's motives or actions were. For, all we know GZ is a big liar or perhaps he is telling the story the way he remembers it to the best of his ability. Eye witnesses are usually the worst kind and I'm certain that becomes worse when that eye witness just went through a massively traumatic event while doing his witnessing.

Of course you're so unbiased you know for a 100% fact that GZ is lying. *you guessed it, snicker* Kudos to your impartiality. Give yourself another pat on the back O saintly one. I watched my first 5 minutes of the trial today and I'm guessing you did to as it was the prosecution playing the "he's lying card", because it's all they've got from what I understand. Looks like you bought it fully and who knows, maybe he did lie some. I don't deny that possibility. However, it is also very possible he is being very up front with his recollection of the events. I can understand someones testimony (in the tapes) being a little shaky after an event like this.

Of course GZ is a lying bloody murderer and TM is a completely innocent Skittle Buyer in your mind, so please forgive my closemindedness.

I've never understood why some folks were so eager to swallow the claim that he got out off his car to determine where he was when the neighborhood only had three streets so I'm glad the prosecutor stressed that point. The evidence for a self defense claim rests on GZ's credibility. He's lied a ton. That's a big deal to any reasonable person who hasn't already excused his actions.

List the lies he's told.

[tgr4lfe 220]

Zimmerman is a liar. That's clear. No credibility.

Had no idea what street he was on. How could he? There were three of them! And he only lived there 4 years. And was neighborhood watch captain.

I don't ever remember street names. Never have been able to. Guess I'm a liar without credibility, too...

Heck, I've been in public safety for over 15 years and have seen police officers, who know the streets like the back of their hand, not be able to tell where they are b/c they are in middle of chase or just got through with one. The stress of the moment hit him or he just doesn't know them or he was lying, but if he was lying that is extraordinary lie since he told it to dispatch in "heat of moment" and in re-enactment with detectives. As an experienced investigator, I didn't see anything that would indicate GZ was lying.

[homersapien 11,451]

If GZ did not have a firearm with him that night, what would the likely outcome have been?

If he still reported and got out of his truck, then Trayvon Martin would likely go to jail for assault.

So Trayvon has no right to defend himself from a stranger following him at night?

Why would someone need to defend themselves due to being followed? It is disturbing and appalling that you would feel this way.

Oh get real. It's night. A stranger has been stalking him in his car, then gets out of his car and starts following him. Many people would feel threatened by that.

This kid was walking home minding his own business, and now he's the predator?

Your 'logic" is amusing.

1. It's not okay for GZ to follow who he feels is a suspicious character in his own neighborhood simply because he is legally carrying a handgun.

2. It's okay for someone to attack someone and beat them down because they are following them, yet posing no direct threat.

3. *snicker*

This is what makes the PF entertaining, some people who can rationalize ANYTHING to convince themselves they are "right".

You're "he is guilty because he got out of the vehicle" idea is so ridiculous it is surprising that you ever have the nerve to mock others.

One thing for certain, if Trayvon did initiate the conflict, he gets low scores for bringing his fists to a gun fight.

I'm not mocking anyone. I am contrasting my opinion with theirs and giving reasons for mine. So there's no reason to be an A-hole unless that bothers you. The circumstances I described are enough to frighten anyone, legal or not. If you find that amusing, imagine your wife or one of your kids is such a situation.

Your last sentence reveals how much actual thought you've put into this.

[AUGradinTX 0]

Zimmerman is a liar. That's clear. No credibility.

Had no idea what street he was on. How could he? There were three of them! And he only lived there 4 years. And was neighborhood watch captain.

I don't ever remember street names. Never have been able to. Guess I'm a liar without credibility, too...

Heck, I've been in public safety for over 15 years and have seen police officers, who know the streets like the back of their hand, not be able to tell where they are b/c they are in middle of chase or just got through with one. The stress of the moment hit him or he just doesn't know them or he was lying, but if he was lying that is extraordinary lie since he told it to dispatch in "heat of moment" and in re-enactment with detectives. As an experienced investigator, I didn't see anything that would indicate GZ was lying.

The lead investigator said, under oath, that he believes GZ is telling the truth. That is huge in my mind. Nobody knows more about this case than he does.

[homersapien 11,451]

If GZ did not have a firearm with him that night, what would the likely outcome have been?

If he still reported and got out of his truck, then Trayvon Martin would likely go to jail for assault.

So Trayvon has no right to defend himself from a stranger following him at night?

Why would someone need to defend themselves due to being followed? It is disturbing and appalling that you would feel this way.

Oh get real. It's night. A stranger has been stalking him in his car, then gets out of his car and starts following him. Many people would feel threatened by that.

This kid was walking home minding his own business, and now he's the predator?

but those many you refer to would most likely run to safety, not wait in the dark

Maybe so. But using Trayvon's reaction doesn't justify transferring the ultimate responsibility for the incident to him alone.

Had they both been unarmed, I would see it a little differently. Had Trayon beat Zimmerman to death (unlikely IMO) he would be at least equally responsible. But I seriously doubt Zimmerman would have gotten out of his car in the first place, which is important part of my point.

If you have the right to arm yourself with deadly force then you need to be held accountable for any use of that force, especially against an unarmed man. If he had simply acted as if he was unarmed, he probably wouldn't have been so aggressive. But he didn't. He is a wanna-be cop and felt the gun gave him the latitude to be more aggressive. Zimmerman's deliberate actions makes him accountable for the outcome, which was a death of an innocent person.

[homersapien 11,451]

If GZ did not have a firearm with him that night, what would the likely outcome have been?

If he still reported and got out of his truck, then Trayvon Martin would likely go to jail for assault.

So Trayvon has no right to defend himself from a stranger following him at night?

Why would someone need to defend themselves due to being followed? It is disturbing and appalling that you would feel this way.

Oh get real. It's night. A stranger has been stalking him in his car, then gets out of his car and starts following him. Many people would feel threatened by that.

This kid was walking home minding his own business, and now he's the predator?

As the evidence indicates to me, yes, he is. Someone who feels threatened would leave the scene when given the opportunity. TM had that opportunity and didn't. He chose to stay. Ask yourself why he would do that if he felt threatened.

Maybe he was pissed about being followed and felt he could take the guy following him. Maybe he was just pissed in general and took it out on the guy who was following him. Don't know, don't care.

All anyone knows for sure is that Zimmerman was following him first in a car, then on foot (ignoring a request from the dispatcher not to) for no justifiable reason. Maybe Trayvon did act inappropriately. Maybe Trayvon did throw the first punch. But to excuse Zimmerman for his decisions that led directly to that moment is simply not right.

Trayvon was minding his own business. This would not have happened if Zimmerman had been minding his. This incident started with Zimmerman, not Trayvon. That has got to count for something. If you are going to carry a gun, it can't be OK to actively look for trouble and then claim self-defense when it happens.

Thinking that GZ's actions before the altercation adds culpability to GZ is flat out wrong. TM instigated the "contact" and is just as culpable in the whole ordeal. The moral compass of whether he should or shouldn't have followed TM is a personal choice. Morally I don't think there is anything wrong with following watching a suspicious person in my neighborhood. I'm not gonna engage unless they give me reason, I.e. become a threat to me or others. GZ wasn't looking for trouble, IMO, but trying deter it. It is beyond absurd to say that a person can't claim self defense when they fear for their life just b/c they are legally carrying a firearm.

No it's not. It is flat out correct.

You are just trying to rationalize (armed) stupidity.

[homersapien 11,451]

and Trayvon was a saint

Not relevant. He was unarmed and innocent.

[homersapien 11,451]

and Trayvon was a saint

well, he didn't kill anyone. Just bought some Skittles-- that bothers you somehow?

And I suppose that you have proof that he would not have killed Zimmerman if Zimmerman had not protected himself?

Seriously? :-\

[homersapien 11,451]

and Trayvon was a saint

well, he didn't kill anyone. Just bought some Skittles-- that bothers you somehow?

You are killing me with the "innocent skittle buyer" routine. Team you up with Homer's "he exited the car, he must live behind bars", Johnny Cochran style tag line, and the two of you are a Prosecution Dream Team!

Then die and go away already.

Are you seriously trying to argue that Trayvon's character or history is justification for shooting him?

And your last sentence infers a racial component to your thinking, which I suppose is at least consistent with the premise that Trayvon's past should be a consideration. Zimmerman was clearly "profiling" him.

[homersapien 11,451]

Had a question: Why do all news agencies keep showing this picture of TM and portraying him as some skinny little young kid that looks like an elementary school picture? Everything I have heard and seen show otherwise. Sorry if this has been discussed-got to the thread late and am not about to go through 50 pages.

Because it pushes their agenda?

I'm not certain why they are avoiding the realistic recent "thug" looking picture. I suppose it is because they "know" he was that innocent looking schoolboy craving some Skittles.

"Thug"? What is it about that picture that makes him look like a "thug"? Is it because he isn't smiling?

Do all the unsmiling, individual pictures of our football team reveal "thugs"? After all, they do look pretty tough.

Taken as a whole, your comments could easily be construed as revealing (hopefully) latent racism.

[homersapien 11,451]

I don't buy the hide and attack claim of Zimmerman. I don't think TM changed his strategy. Maybe he hid hoping GZ would leave him alone. He told his friend on the phone he thought he lost him. Maybe he didn't want the strange guy following him to know where he lived. I think GZ got out of his car looking for TM and found him.

If GZ did go looking for TM and found him and then TM attacked him out of irrational fear causing GZ to defend himself in fear of his life would that be a crime by GZ?

Because GZ was packing and he shot TM, absolutely. It would at least be manslaughter.

[homersapien 11,451]

What if TM really WAS casing the neighborhood, and wasn't merely on his way home, after buying skittles ?

We may never know.

AND, he has smoked pot at some point in the past. AND he was wearing a hoodie. AND his picture does looks like a "thug".

It's all starting to add up isn't it? :-\

[homersapien 11,451]

Pay for it, big ( HA!!!!!!!!) man, other people do. http://www.lexisnexi...en-us/home.page

Pathetic. Gen. Lee had more left than that when he surrendered.

You are right , you are pathetic. That is the largest legal doc access point in use. It has over 45,000 sources of billions and billions of pages. It uses subscriber links. I use it, among other things, for IP law and protection. The marketing and management thereof. Someone is clueless alright , captain know nothing. You. Take an extra Aricept with your early bird special, this mornings dosage didn't do much for you.

And with all that info you still can't offer one shred of evidence that instructions to the jury have to be read in any particular order. You are much better at dodging and slinging insults.

Sorry to break in your private spat, but I think TT's point was the format of jury instructions is standardized in Fl and many other states. This in response to the inference that a particular order was used for this particular trial. At least that's the way I read it.

[tiger88 934]

If GZ did not have a firearm with him that night, what would the likely outcome have been?

If he still reported and got out of his truck, then Trayvon Martin would likely go to jail for assault.

So Trayvon has no right to defend himself from a stranger following him at night?

Why would someone need to defend themselves due to being followed? It is disturbing and appalling that you would feel this way.

Oh get real. It's night. A stranger has been stalking him in his car, then gets out of his car and starts following him. Many people would feel threatened by that.

This kid was walking home minding his own business, and now he's the predator?

Your 'logic" is amusing.

1. It's not okay for GZ to follow who he feels is a suspicious character in his own neighborhood simply because he is legally carrying a handgun.

2. It's okay for someone to attack someone and beat them down because they are following them, yet posing no direct threat.

3. *snicker*

This is what makes the PF entertaining, some people who can rationalize ANYTHING to convince themselves they are "right".

You're "he is guilty because he got out of the vehicle" idea is so ridiculous it is surprising that you ever have the nerve to mock others.

One thing for certain, if Trayvon did initiate the conflict, he gets low scores for bringing his fists to a gun fight.

I'm not mocking anyone. I am contrasting my opinion with theirs and giving reasons for mine. So there's no reason to be an A-hole unless that bothers you. The circumstances I described are enough to frighten anyone, legal or not. If you find that amusing, imagine your wife or one of your kids is such a situation.

Your last sentence reveals how much actual thought you've put into this.

You often mock others opinions, that's what I was referring to. Your "guilty due to exiting car" logic is among the dumbest material ever posted here. It is amusing that you would ever mock others on any thread when posting content like that.

Afa as the A-hole claim all I did was point out how ridiculous I felt your opinion was as you often do to others. It's amusing that would offend someone who usually wears his behind on his shoulders. I guess you get a widdle thenthitive thometimes.

No need to respew your argument to me. I've read it thoroughly and disagree strongly with a lot of it. You are obviously going to condemn everything GZ did and condone everything TM did regardless of any argument presented.

[tiger88 934]

I don't buy the hide and attack claim of Zimmerman. I don't think TM changed his strategy. Maybe he hid hoping GZ would leave him alone. He told his friend on the phone he thought he lost him. Maybe he didn't want the strange guy following him to know where he lived. I think GZ got out of his car looking for TM and found him.

If GZ did go looking for TM and found him and then TM attacked him out of irrational fear causing GZ to defend himself in fear of his life would that be a crime by GZ?

Because GZ was packing and he shot TM, absolutely. It would at least be manslaughter.

Okay, so using your "logic" presented above anytime an armed person shoots someone it is a criminal offense of manslaughter. Thanks for validating your irrationality on this subject once again.

[tiger88 934]

and Trayvon was a saint

well, he didn't kill anyone. Just bought some Skittles-- that bothers you somehow?

You are killing me with the "innocent skittle buyer" routine. Team you up with Homer's "he exited the car, he must live behind bars", Johnny Cochran style tag line, and the two of you are a Prosecution Dream Team!

Then die and go away already.

Are you seriously trying to argue that Trayvon's character or history is justification for shooting him?

And your last sentence infers a racial component to your thinking, which I suppose is at least consistent with the premise that Trayvon's past should be a consideration. Zimmerman was clearly "profiling" him.

Your thoughts here are ludicrous, and your conclusions afa my thoughts are way off.

Saying that I am indicating Trayvon's past is grounds for shooting him is ridiculous on your part. My point is that it took two to tango that night. I don't believe that GZ had the intent to track and kill him. I believe that TM did some things that brought about his own demise that he EASILY could have avoided. To continuously refer to him as some kind of innocent little Skittle Buyer is beyond amusing and weakens someones argument that they think they are strengthening.

Afa as you playing the race card on my last sentence, that is unfounded. The only possible reason to do that is I mentioned Johnny Cochran and the mention had nothing to do with his race. I'm not sure why you would think it did.

[AUGradinTX 0]

I'm still curious about these lies that a few people are saying GZ told. Can someone please inform me? Not saying it didn't happen, but from what I know of the case, GZ gave five statements and all of them are consistant. I can't just take your word for it, I need to see it for myself before accepting it.

[tiger88 934]

Had a question: Why do all news agencies keep showing this picture of TM and portraying him as some skinny little young kid that looks like an elementary school picture? Everything I have heard and seen show otherwise. Sorry if this has been discussed-got to the thread late and am not about to go through 50 pages.

Because it pushes their agenda?

I'm not certain why they are avoiding the realistic recent "thug" looking picture. I suppose it is because they "know" he was that innocent looking schoolboy craving some Skittles.

"Thug"? What is it about that picture that makes him look like a "thug"? Is it because he isn't smiling?

Do all the unsmiling, individual pictures of our football team reveal "thugs"? After all, they do look pretty tough.

Taken as a whole, your comments could easily be construed as revealing (hopefully) latent racism.

You don't catch much do you? I used the quotes for a reason. I wouldn't necessarily say he looks like a thug in the picture but he definitely looks a lot more like one than he does in his baby pics they used.

It's a combination of his demeanor which looks unfriendly, the pose he is in, and the face and neck tattoos.

If you could bleach him white and give him blue eyes and a wavy blond hairdo I would say the same thing.

I am not a racist and I honestly don't think words can express how little your opinion on that matter means to me.

[tiger88 934]

I'm still curious about these lies that a few people are saying GZ told. Can someone please inform me? Not saying it didn't happen, but from what I know of the case, GZ gave five statements and all of them are consistant. I can't just take your word for it, I need to see it for myself before accepting it.

I believe they are referring to 100% gut feelings they have and are expecting us to believe them as well so we can be openminded like them. Lol.

[alexava 6,973]

I think GZ will be better off with a guilty on manslaughter verdict. Serve maybe 2 years and the chaos will have subsided. If he is acquitted, he will have to hide. I do think its not guilty though.

[AUGradinTX 0]

I'm still curious about these lies that a few people are saying GZ told. Can someone please inform me? Not saying it didn't happen, but from what I know of the case, GZ gave five statements and all of them are consistant. I can't just take your word for it, I need to see it for myself before accepting it.

I believe they are referring to 100% gut feelings they have and are expecting us to believe them as well so we can be openminded like them. Lol.

i have followed the case and the only thing I can think of related to this would be minor details that the lead investigator testified was normal; he then went on to say that he believes GZ is telling the truth. So, someone needs to pony up some evidence of him telling lies or can it.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Not what the mod told me and I'll ask him when he logs on. TRUST ME, my mistake in bringing him into it.

I guess your mystery mod never signed on. So I am left with you posting a falsehood about me on the board. I'll help you out. Calling all mods....if any of you have sent me a PM, even this year let alone recently, telling me to cool it as telling tiger has said, please so state here.