George Zimmerman Trial

[WarEagle1983 2,185]

Interesting how you feel the need to defend her from a simple observation. Quite "suspicious."

You need to dial it back a notch. I'm not defending her, I'm merely pointing out the holes in one of your assertions and asking for specifics on the other. If asking you to explain your assertions is "suspicious" you have a very low bar for it.

She hates the media and even testified her newspaper is used for her bird's cage but yet is the fist wanting to capitalize from all of this via the media...yeah that's not contradictory at all.

As I said, writing a book is not a contradictory stance to disliking the media. You're stretching the definition of what most people refer to as "the media" to make this an issue.

A Cooper: It came down to the final seconds when George feared for his life?

Juror responded: Exactly.....

GZ defense never argued Stand your Ground, they argued a traditional self defense. There was a small mention of "stand your ground" in the jury instructions, but she based her decision on something the defense did not even argue.

If that was the critical moment for her, that actually fits self-defense and "Stand your Ground." It's not one or the other. I actually think the critical moment came before that...at the moment the situation became a physical confrontation. If Zimmerman initiated the physical confrontation, then he is responsible for having to use deadly force later and deserved to be convicted. If on the other hand you believe that Trayvon decided to jump him and threw the first punch then things change.

But regardless, I don't think "contradiction" is the word you're looking for here.

She mixed up a couple witnesses and their testimonies.

She told Anderson Cooper that the reason she didn't believe Rachel Jeantel's testimony due to the timing of the phone calls was such that if what Rachel said was true, that is, that she heard Trayvon interacting with GZ ("Why you following me for?") that the police dispatch that GZ was on the phone with would have also heard that and he didn't.

But then the contradictory offering - she then goes on to elaborate (because Anderson asked her to clarify) that GZ had hung up 2 minutes before Trayvon and Rachel had ended their call, therefore the police dispatch should have heard the interaction between GZ and Trayvon. She wants two things that are mutually exclusive to be true, and because they aren't she doesn't believe Rachel's testimony. She thinks police dispatch should have heard the interaction. But, she admits that GZ hung up with dispatch 2 MINUTES before Trayvon and Rachel hung up.

Could you point out the timestamp on the video so I can go back and watch that? I don't remember the specifics of this exchange.

That's not what she said in her jury selection. Might want to go back and watch video on that. People will find excuses for a juror contradicting herself on a couple key statements but will blame the dead kid. Interesting. Just said her interview was insightful and it certainly was.

You're the one making the assertion. If you have something to point out, do so. It's not my job to go hunting through jury selection video to bolster your contentions.

As I said, getting a book deal and hating the "media" are not contradictory.

Look, if there's any "defending" of her from my end it's simply that I feel like these jurors had a very difficult job with this case and it doesn't appear they took the job at all lightly. They wrestled with the evidence and the charges and the applicable law and did what they felt they had to do within those boundaries. I wouldn't have wanted to trade places with them for all the tea in China.

Well in order to not go on assumptions and opinions i think it would be important to recall what the juror actually stated which is what i did. The laws she applied where not the laws that applied to the case nor the instructions of the judge. She stated herself they were a bit confused regarding the laws and legal terms as it applied to the case. Who knows if she was able to understand all that was presented. It was just an observation from her interview that you seemed to defend her statements but yet not have the information or facts from the interview to support it. I'm sure it was very hard for her and some other jurors but why make it harder on themselves by going public and writing a book 48 hours after if it was so hard though? Just seemed a bit suspect and questionable as well as a few other of her comments. Overall as initially stated her interview was insightful.

[WarEagle1983 2,185]

You and TT can spin all you want if it makes you feel good. It's quite amusing. The only points i've ever made pertain to seeing things from a different point of view that related to the evidence that certainly could've occurred that was simply ignored for whatever reason.

This is the thing that your overemotionalism is causing you to not get. None of this makes me feel good. I didn't want any particular verdict because frankly I don't know for sure what happened. So I don't need to, nor have I, been "spinning" anything. Given the evidence at trial, this case was a hard one for the prosecution and it was a hard one for the jurors to parse through and figure out what to do. I think they did the best they could with what they were given and in a situation where the burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defense, this is a reasonable verdict.

It's not a satisfying one because I think most people feel it was avoidable and there's a 17-year old dead.

Never stated that you took a side. I'm not over emotional at all. The verdict is what it is and nothing can change that. I just found her statements very interesting and had questions in regards to her thinking process and evaluation from all possible point of views that could've occured with what was presented. Agree that it was a very hard case. I found information on all sides regarding the interviews they gave as interesting; that was basically it. However, a larger issue was made out of doing so.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Never stated that you took a side. I'm not over emotional at all. The verdict is what it is and nothing can change that. I just found her statements very interesting and had questions in regards to her thinking process and evaluation from all possible point of views that could've occured with what was presented. Agree that it was a very hard case. I found information on all sides regarding the interviews they gave as interesting; that was basically it. However, a larger issue was made out of doing so.

When you say things like this...

Interesting how you feel the need to defend her from a simple observation. Quite "suspicious."

People will find excuses for a juror contradicting herself ...

You and TT can spin all you want if it makes you feel good.

...then saying I wasn't taking a side rings a little hollow. You were clearly responding emotionally and attributing some sort of motive to why I (and AUGradinTX) was pointing out the things I was pointing out.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Probably the best writeup on this I've seen.

You Are Not Trayvon Martin

His death wasn’t about race, guns, or your pet issue. It was about misjudgment and overreaction—exactly what we’re doing now to the verdict.

By William Saletan

Posted Monday, July 15, 2013, at 5:15 PM

Trayvon Martin is dead, George Zimmerman has been acquitted, and millions of people are outraged. Some politicians are demanding a second prosecution of Zimmerman, this time for hate crimes. Others are blaming the tragedy on “Stand Your Ground” laws, which they insist must be repealed. Many who saw the case as proof of racism in the criminal justice system see the verdict as further confirmation. Everywhere you look, people feel vindicated in their bitter assumptions. They want action.

But that’s how Martin ended up dead. It’s how Zimmerman ended up with a bulletproof vest he might have to wear for the rest of his life. It’s how activists and the media embarrassed themselves with bogus reports. The problem at the core of this case wasn’t race or guns. The problem was assumption, misperception, and overreaction. And that cycle hasn’t ended with the verdict. It has escalated.

I almost joined the frenzy. Yesterday I was going to write that Zimmerman pursued Martin against police instructions and illustrated the perils of racial profiling. But I hadn’t followed the case in detail. So I sat down and watched the

: nearly

of

in which the prosecution and defense went

through the

as it had been hashed out at the trial. Based on what I learned from the videos, I did some further reading.

It turned out I had been wrong about many things. The initial portrait of Zimmerman as a racist wasn’t just exaggerated. It was completely unsubstantiated. It’s a case study in how the same kind of bias that causes racism can cause unwarranted allegations of racism. Some of the people Zimmerman had reported as suspicious were black men, so he was a racist. Members of his family seemed racist, so he was a racist. Everybody knew he was a racist, so his recorded words were misheard as racial slurs, proving again that he was a racist.

The 911 dispatcher who spoke to Zimmerman on the fatal night didn’t tell him to stay in his car. Zimmerman said he was following a suspicious person, and the dispatcher told him, "We don't need you to do that." Chief prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda conceded in his closing argument that these words were ambiguous. De la Rionda also acknowledged, based on witness and forensic evidence, that both men “were scraping and rolling and fighting out there.” He pointed out that the wounds, blood evidence, and DNA didn’t match Zimmerman’s story of being thoroughly restrained and pummeled throughout the fight. But the evidence didn’t fit the portrait of Martin as a sweet-tempered child, either. And the notion that Zimmerman hunted down Martin to accost him made no sense. Zimmerman knew the police were on the way. They arrived only a minute or so after the gunshot. The fight happened in a public area surrounded by townhouses at close range. It was hardly the place or time to start shooting.

That doesn’t make Zimmerman a hero. It just makes him a reckless fool instead of a murderer. In a

, his lawyer, Mark O’Mara, claimed that “the evidence supported that George Zimmerman did nothing wrong,” that “the jury decided that he acted properly in self-defense,” and that Zimmerman “was never guilty of anything except protecting himself in self-defense. I’m glad that the jury saw it that way.” That’s complete BS. The only thing the jury decided was that there was reasonable doubt as to whether Zimmerman had committed second-degree murder or manslaughter.

Zimmerman is guilty, morally if not legally, of precipitating the confrontation that led to Martin’s death. He did many things wrong. Mistake No. 1 was inferring that Martin was a burglar. In his 911 call, Zimmerman cited Martin’s behavior. “It’s raining, and he’s just walking around” looking at houses, Zimmerman said. He warned the dispatcher, “He’s got his hand in his waistband.” He described Martin’s race and clothing only after the dispatcher asked about them. Whatever its basis, the inference was false.

Mistake No. 2 was pursuing Martin on foot. Zimmerman had already done what the neighborhood watch rules advised: He had called the police. They would have arrived, questioned Martin, and ascertained that he was innocent. Instead, Zimmerman, packing a concealed firearm, got out and started walking after Martin. Zimmerman’s initial story, that he was trying to check the name of the street, was so laughable that his attorneys abandoned it. He was afraid Martin would get away. So he followed Martin, hoping to update the cops.

Mistake No. 3 was Zimmerman’s utter failure to imagine how his behavior looked to Martin. You’re a black kid walking home from a convenience store with Skittles and a fruit drink. Some dude in a car is watching and trailing you. God knows what he wants. You run away. He gets out of the car and follows you. What are you supposed to do? In Zimmerman’s initial interrogation, the police expressed surprise that he hadn’t identified himself to Martin as a neighborhood watch volunteer. They suggested that Martin might have been alarmed when Zimmerman reached for an object that Zimmerman, but not Martin, knew was a phone. Zimmerman seemed baffled. He was so convinced of Martin’s criminal intent that he hadn’t considered how Martin, if he were innocent, would perceive his stalker.

Martin, meanwhile, was profiling Zimmerman. On his phone, he told a friend he was being followed by a “creepy-ass cracker.” The friend—who later testified that this phrase meant pervert—advised Martin, “You better run.” She reported, as Zimmerman did, that Martin challenged Zimmerman, demanding to know why he was being hassled. If Zimmerman’s phobic misreading of Martin was the first wrong turn that led to their fatal struggle, Martin’s phobic misreading of Zimmerman may have been the second.

In court, evidence and scrutiny have exposed these difficult, complicated truths. But outside the court, ideologues are ignoring them. They’re oversimplifying a tragedy that was caused by oversimplification. Martin has become Emmett Till. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is using the verdict to attack Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, which wasn’t invoked in this case. The grievance industrial complex is pushing the Department of Justice to prosecute Zimmerman for bias-motivated killing, based on evidence that didn’t even support a conviction for unpremeditated killing. Zimmerman’s lawyers have teamed up with members of the Congressional Black Caucus, inadvertently, to promote the false message that Zimmerman’s acquittal means our society thinks everything he did was OK.

It wasn’t OK. It was stupid and dangerous. It led to the unnecessary death of an innocent young man. It happened because two people—their minds clouded by stereotypes that went well beyond race—assumed the worst about one another and acted in haste. If you want to prevent the next Trayvon Martin tragedy, learn from their mistakes. Don’t paint the world in black and white. Don’t declare the whole justice system racist, or blame every gun death on guns, or confuse acquittal with vindication. And the next time you see somebody who looks like a punk or a pervert, hold your fire.

http://www.slate.com...rreactions.html

[WarEagle1983 2,185]

Probably the best writeup on this I've seen.

You Are Not Trayvon Martin

His death wasn’t about race, guns, or your pet issue. It was about misjudgment and overreaction—exactly what we’re doing now to the verdict.

By William Saletan

Posted Monday, July 15, 2013, at 5:15 PM

Trayvon Martin is dead, George Zimmerman has been acquitted, and millions of people are outraged. Some politicians are demanding a second prosecution of Zimmerman, this time for hate crimes. Others are blaming the tragedy on “Stand Your Ground” laws, which they insist must be repealed. Many who saw the case as proof of racism in the criminal justice system see the verdict as further confirmation. Everywhere you look, people feel vindicated in their bitter assumptions. They want action.

But that’s how Martin ended up dead. It’s how Zimmerman ended up with a bulletproof vest he might have to wear for the rest of his life. It’s how activists and the media embarrassed themselves with bogus reports. The problem at the core of this case wasn’t race or guns. The problem was assumption, misperception, and overreaction. And that cycle hasn’t ended with the verdict. It has escalated.

I almost joined the frenzy. Yesterday I was going to write that Zimmerman pursued Martin against police instructions and illustrated the perils of racial profiling. But I hadn’t followed the case in detail. So I sat down and watched the

: nearly

of

in which the prosecution and defense went

through the

as it had been hashed out at the trial. Based on what I learned from the videos, I did some further reading.

It turned out I had been wrong about many things. The initial portrait of Zimmerman as a racist wasn’t just exaggerated. It was completely unsubstantiated. It’s a case study in how the same kind of bias that causes racism can cause unwarranted allegations of racism. Some of the people Zimmerman had reported as suspicious were black men, so he was a racist. Members of his family seemed racist, so he was a racist. Everybody knew he was a racist, so his recorded words were misheard as racial slurs, proving again that he was a racist.

The 911 dispatcher who spoke to Zimmerman on the fatal night didn’t tell him to stay in his car. Zimmerman said he was following a suspicious person, and the dispatcher told him, "We don't need you to do that." Chief prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda conceded in his closing argument that these words were ambiguous. De la Rionda also acknowledged, based on witness and forensic evidence, that both men “were scraping and rolling and fighting out there.” He pointed out that the wounds, blood evidence, and DNA didn’t match Zimmerman’s story of being thoroughly restrained and pummeled throughout the fight. But the evidence didn’t fit the portrait of Martin as a sweet-tempered child, either. And the notion that Zimmerman hunted down Martin to accost him made no sense. Zimmerman knew the police were on the way. They arrived only a minute or so after the gunshot. The fight happened in a public area surrounded by townhouses at close range. It was hardly the place or time to start shooting.

That doesn’t make Zimmerman a hero. It just makes him a reckless fool instead of a murderer. In a

, his lawyer, Mark O’Mara, claimed that “the evidence supported that George Zimmerman did nothing wrong,” that “the jury decided that he acted properly in self-defense,” and that Zimmerman “was never guilty of anything except protecting himself in self-defense. I’m glad that the jury saw it that way.” That’s complete BS. The only thing the jury decided was that there was reasonable doubt as to whether Zimmerman had committed second-degree murder or manslaughter.

Zimmerman is guilty, morally if not legally, of precipitating the confrontation that led to Martin’s death. He did many things wrong. Mistake No. 1 was inferring that Martin was a burglar. In his 911 call, Zimmerman cited Martin’s behavior. “It’s raining, and he’s just walking around” looking at houses, Zimmerman said. He warned the dispatcher, “He’s got his hand in his waistband.” He described Martin’s race and clothing only after the dispatcher asked about them. Whatever its basis, the inference was false.

Mistake No. 2 was pursuing Martin on foot. Zimmerman had already done what the neighborhood watch rules advised: He had called the police. They would have arrived, questioned Martin, and ascertained that he was innocent. Instead, Zimmerman, packing a concealed firearm, got out and started walking after Martin. Zimmerman’s initial story, that he was trying to check the name of the street, was so laughable that his attorneys abandoned it. He was afraid Martin would get away. So he followed Martin, hoping to update the cops.

Mistake No. 3 was Zimmerman’s utter failure to imagine how his behavior looked to Martin. You’re a black kid walking home from a convenience store with Skittles and a fruit drink. Some dude in a car is watching and trailing you. God knows what he wants. You run away. He gets out of the car and follows you. What are you supposed to do? In Zimmerman’s initial interrogation, the police expressed surprise that he hadn’t identified himself to Martin as a neighborhood watch volunteer. They suggested that Martin might have been alarmed when Zimmerman reached for an object that Zimmerman, but not Martin, knew was a phone. Zimmerman seemed baffled. He was so convinced of Martin’s criminal intent that he hadn’t considered how Martin, if he were innocent, would perceive his stalker.

Martin, meanwhile, was profiling Zimmerman. On his phone, he told a friend he was being followed by a “creepy-ass cracker.” The friend—who later testified that this phrase meant pervert—advised Martin, “You better run.” She reported, as Zimmerman did, that Martin challenged Zimmerman, demanding to know why he was being hassled. If Zimmerman’s phobic misreading of Martin was the first wrong turn that led to their fatal struggle, Martin’s phobic misreading of Zimmerman may have been the second.

In court, evidence and scrutiny have exposed these difficult, complicated truths. But outside the court, ideologues are ignoring them. They’re oversimplifying a tragedy that was caused by oversimplification. Martin has become Emmett Till. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is using the verdict to attack Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, which wasn’t invoked in this case. The grievance industrial complex is pushing the Department of Justice to prosecute Zimmerman for bias-motivated killing, based on evidence that didn’t even support a conviction for unpremeditated killing. Zimmerman’s lawyers have teamed up with members of the Congressional Black Caucus, inadvertently, to promote the false message that Zimmerman’s acquittal means our society thinks everything he did was OK.

It wasn’t OK. It was stupid and dangerous. It led to the unnecessary death of an innocent young man. It happened because two people—their minds clouded by stereotypes that went well beyond race—assumed the worst about one another and acted in haste. If you want to prevent the next Trayvon Martin tragedy, learn from their mistakes. Don’t paint the world in black and white. Don’t declare the whole justice system racist, or blame every gun death on guns, or confuse acquittal with vindication. And the next time you see somebody who looks like a punk or a pervert, hold your fire.

http://www.slate.com...rreactions.html

No offense but I watched the trial so don't really care to read any articles that have opinions not based on what was presented that support "their" opinions or assumptions that promote their own agenda. Bottom line is there were some key facts that we just don't know and may never know. I just found it interesting from the juror's interview that all sides of the spectrum didn't seem to be in consideration from how she based her decision and the fact she didn't fully understand how she was basing her decision. That's it.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

I watched the trail so don't really care to read any articles that have opinions not based on what was presented that support "their" opinions or assumptions. Bottom line is there were some key facts that we just don't know and may never know. I just found it interesting from the jurors interview that all sides of the spectrum didn't seem to be in consideration from how she based her decision and the fact she didn't fully understand how she was basing her decision. That's it.

If you'd actually read it before commenting and looking foolish, you would see that he watched over 7 hours of the trial and did extensive background research on the things he saw and heard. This wasn't just someone popping off with their opinions or just cherry picking the parts that supported their assumptions. In fact, the watching of the trial and the research he did actually caused him to drop or revise his assumptions.

But again...you only know that sort of thing when you read THEN figure out what your take on it is.

[homersapien 11,393]

You and TT can spin all you want if it makes you feel good. It's quite amusing. The only points i've ever made pertain to seeing things from a different point of view that related to the evidence that certainly could've occurred that was simply ignored for whatever reason.

This is the thing that your overemotionalism is causing you to not get. None of this makes me feel good. I didn't want any particular verdict because frankly I don't know for sure what happened. So I don't need to, nor have I, been "spinning" anything. Given the evidence at trial, this case was a hard one for the prosecution and it was a hard one for the jurors to parse through and figure out what to do. I think they did the best they could with what they were given and in a situation where the burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defense, this is a reasonable verdict.

It's not a satisfying one because I think most people feel it was avoidable and there's a 17-year old dead.

Exactly. And here is where the process, including the law, failed.

There is no accountability for Zimmerman's decision to ignore the advice provided by the dispatcher and get out of his car. He was assuming the role of a LEO and Trayvon would be alive today had he not taken it upon himself to pursue him.

To simply ignore what came before and start with the actual physical confrontation is insane. There was no reason for Zimmerman to be there, period. You can argue that there is no law against what Zimmerman did (follow TM) but if so, then the law is at fault. People who are making that argument are letting the law determine the morality of what Zimmerman did by starting the whole thing. The law should reflect our morality, it shouldn't determine what is moral.

Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter. He pursued Trayvon. Trayvon did not pursue him. To hold Trayvon accountable for the physical altercation after Zimmerman stalked him is crazy. Trayvon had the right to defend himself. I could easily see myself -as a 17 year old - acting exactly as Trayvon did. Zimmerman shouldn't get a pass because Trayvon didn't do the most sensible thing.

And I think this "fearing for his life" is BS. It presumes Trayvon had the intention of beating him to death which is hardly likely. And his wounds were trivial. He may have been losing a fight, but that didn't justify shooting Trayvon.

Another fault in the law is the fact that Zimmerman did not have to take the stand. If the final results depend on his story, and his story alone, he should be subject to cross examination.

While I don't think this was about race per se', I can fully appreciate the passion generated by the lack of justice reflected in the outcome. Zimmerman armed himself, stalked a 17 year old boy and wound up killing him. His action are what led to this tragedy, not Trayvon's.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Yes, I know that you think the second he got out of the truck he should have been jailed. I'm not rehashing that with you. I simply disagree that it rises to the level of criminal culpability. There's nothing to be gained by going down this road with you again.

[cole256 17,084]

I read the article....I'm the only person that has a problem that gz LIED to the police and said they he got out the car to check a street sign? A neighborhood watch that doesn't know the neighborhood? If you done nothing wrong why lie? Isn't lying to the police against the law? If he lied about that what else is he lying about?

[homersapien 11,393]

Yes, I know that you think the second he got out of the truck he should have been jailed. I'm not rehashing that with you. I simply disagree that it rises to the level of criminal culpability. There's nothing to be gained by going down this road with you again.

Please don't misrepresent my argument. I never said getting out of his truck was an arrestible offense. It simply establishes Zimmerman's ultimate responsibility for what happened.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Yes, I know that you think the second he got out of the truck he should have been jailed. I'm not rehashing that with you. I simply disagree that it rises to the level of criminal culpability. There's nothing to be gained by going down this road with you again.

Please don't misrepresent my argument. I never said getting out of his truck was an arrestible offense. It simply establishes Zimmerman's ultimate responsibility for what happened.

I was being sarcastic.

But yes, I know you believe that's where his responsibility for whatever happened henceforth started. I simply disagree.

[tiger88 934]

It's such a laughable idea it's hard not to use a little sarcasm when referencing it.

[homersapien 11,393]

It's such a laughable idea it's hard not to use a little sarcasm when referencing it.

It's exactly the same "laughable" idea that was presented in the Slate write up referenced by Titan. (And I agree with Titan it was a good analysis.)

Taking responsibility for your own actions is hardly a "laughable" proposition. In fact, I consider it to be a very conservative value.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

I read the article....I'm the only person that has a problem that gz LIED to the police and said they he got out the car to check a street sign? A neighborhood watch that doesn't know the neighborhood? If you done nothing wrong why lie? Isn't lying to the police against the law? If he lied about that what else is he lying about?

What he specifically said was that he got out to look for a street sign because the way the neighborhood is, he didn't know exactly where to tell them he was. So not finding a street sign he went looking for an address on one of the units to give them.

[WarEagle1983 2,185]

I watched the trail so don't really care to read any articles that have opinions not based on what was presented that support "their" opinions or assumptions. Bottom line is there were some key facts that we just don't know and may never know. I just found it interesting from the jurors interview that all sides of the spectrum didn't seem to be in consideration from how she based her decision and the fact she didn't fully understand how she was basing her decision. That's it.

If you'd actually read it before commenting and looking foolish, you would see that he watched over 7 hours of the trial and did extensive background research on the things he saw and heard. This wasn't just someone popping off with their opinions or just cherry picking the parts that supported their assumptions. In fact, the watching of the trial and the research he did actually caused him to drop or revise his assumptions.

But again...you only know that sort of thing when you read THEN figure out what your take on it is.

Watching 7 hours doesn't equal watching the entire trial from start to finish which i certainly did. He's basing his article on 7 Hours which equals to a day in a half of the total trial. Apparently he didn't know that the trial started most days at 8:30 AM and didn't end until 6:00 pm on most days that went over 3 weeks. Therefore, where is the rest of his video watching to base his arguments and assumptions from? So how does that make me look foolish if i watched everyday and every person that testified and he's basing his article on 7 hours and not knowing what his "extensive" research was composed of?

I read his bias article the other day like many TM and GZ bias articles. I didn't base my final opinion on the fact that i thought GZ was racist. I didn't think he was and have stated that. The author essentially blamed TM for profiling GZ regarding TM's "creepy" comment which doesn't make much sense to me. GZ is following TM and didn't choose to announce his presence and kept following him and he's not allowed to profile him? What exactly was TM suppose to think about GZ or do? Go give GZ some candy and fruit juice? It's interesting how blame gets shifted when the author clearly pointed out at least 3 reasons why GZ was in the wrong but because TM profiled GZ as creepy....they both are presumed to be in the wrong for what occurred. Insult all you wish. It's just all interesting to me.

[alexava 6,973]

83, are you retired? Not being intrusive but that is a lot of trial watching.

[WarEagle1983 2,185]

83, are you retired? Not being intrusive but that is a lot of trial watching.

I work from home as well as operate a small part time business from home.

[cole256 17,084]

I read the article....I'm the only person that has a problem that gz LIED to the police and said they he got out the car to check a street sign? A neighborhood watch that doesn't know the neighborhood? If you done nothing wrong why lie? Isn't lying to the police against the law? If he lied about that what else is he lying about?

What he specifically said was that he got out to look for a street sign because the way the neighborhood is, he didn't know exactly where to tell them he was. So not finding a street sign he went looking for an address on one of the units to give them.

So then that part of the article is wrong?

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Watching 7 hours doesn't equal watching the entire trial from start to finish which i certainly did. He's basing his article on 7 Hours which equals to a day in a half of the total trial. Apparently he didn't know that the trial started most days at 8:30 AM and didn't end until 6:00 pm on most days that went over 3 weeks. Therefore, where is the rest of his video watching to base his arguments and assumptions from? So how does that make me look foolish if i watched everyday and every person that testified and he's basing his article on 7 hours and not knowing what his "extensive" research was composed of?

He didn't just watch some random 7 hour block of the trial. He watched the entire closing arguments from both sides which meticulously went back through all the evidence. Then based on that, he did some further digging on some things, some of which he pointed out and provided links for.

It makes you look foolish when you just say "I don't want to read it" and jump to a conclusion. His opinion wasn't just some hastily drawn up thing. It was an educated opinion, even if he didn't sit around watching every minute of the trial.

I read his bias article the other day like many TM and GZ bias articles.

Every article that comes to a different conclusion than yours is not "biased."

I didn't base my final opinion on the fact that i thought GZ was racist. I didn't think he was and have stated that. The author essentially blamed TM for profiling GZ regarding TM's "creepy" comment which doesn't make much sense to me. GZ is following TM and didn't choose to announce his presence and kept following him and he's not allowed to profile him? What exactly was TM suppose to think about GZ or do? Go give GZ some candy and fruit juice? It's interesting how blame gets shifted when the author clearly pointed out at least 3 reasons why GZ was in the wrong but because TM profiled GZ as creepy....they both are presumed to be in the wrong for what occurred. Insult all you wish. It's just all interesting to me.

The author felt there was plenty of blame to go around. To read it only in the manner you are doing is the real definition of "biased."

[TitanTiger 20,499]

I read the article....I'm the only person that has a problem that gz LIED to the police and said they he got out the car to check a street sign? A neighborhood watch that doesn't know the neighborhood? If you done nothing wrong why lie? Isn't lying to the police against the law? If he lied about that what else is he lying about?

What he specifically said was that he got out to look for a street sign because the way the neighborhood is, he didn't know exactly where to tell them he was. So not finding a street sign he went looking for an address on one of the units to give them.

So then that part of the article is wrong?

Lacking in detail. "Looking for a street sign" was the initial reason. If you've seen the video where Zimmerman gives a walk through of what happened and where he was, he points the more detailed account out...he got out to look for a street sign, didn't see one (because that road is odd and curves without changing the street name, so there is no street sign on that corner), and proceeded to walk down the cut-through sidewalk to the other side to get a specific address on a road that he knew the name of.

[WarEagle1983 2,185]

Watching 7 hours doesn't equal watching the entire trial from start to finish which i certainly did. He's basing his article on 7 Hours which equals to a day in a half of the total trial. Apparently he didn't know that the trial started most days at 8:30 AM and didn't end until 6:00 pm on most days that went over 3 weeks. Therefore, where is the rest of his video watching to base his arguments and assumptions from? So how does that make me look foolish if i watched everyday and every person that testified and he's basing his article on 7 hours and not knowing what his "extensive" research was composed of?

He didn't just watch some random 7 hour block of the trial. He watched the entire closing arguments from both sides which meticulously went back through all the evidence. Then based on that, he did some further digging on some things, some of which he pointed out and provided links for.

It makes you look foolish when you just say "I don't want to read it" and jump to a conclusion. His opinion wasn't just some hastily drawn up thing. It was an educated opinion, even if he didn't sit around watching every minute of the trial.

I read his bias article the other day like many TM and GZ bias articles.

Every article that comes to a different conclusion than yours is not "biased."

I didn't base my final opinion on the fact that i thought GZ was racist. I didn't think he was and have stated that. The author essentially blamed TM for profiling GZ regarding TM's "creepy" comment which doesn't make much sense to me. GZ is following TM and didn't choose to announce his presence and kept following him and he's not allowed to profile him? What exactly was TM suppose to think about GZ or do? Go give GZ some candy and fruit juice? It's interesting how blame gets shifted when the author clearly pointed out at least 3 reasons why GZ was in the wrong but because TM profiled GZ as creepy....they both are presumed to be in the wrong for what occurred. Insult all you wish. It's just all interesting to me.

The author felt there was plenty of blame to go around. To read it only in the manner you are doing is the real definition of "biased."

Which means he didn't watch the trial to form a solid argument. Closing arguments..that's it? lol. Getting 2 - 3 hours from hours and hours of testimony is not credible. He went through a summarization that ignored specific small details the jury and others that have watched from the start to be knowledgeable enough to present certain conclusions. That's the problem with many articles regarding the trial. If a reporter was not watching or covering the trial each day or on a regular basis they are not very credible in their analysis as reporters who did so. Sure it was nicely written but it doesn't carry much weight for me. How he based his blame to TM doesn't make any sense or logic which is why i posed the questions i did pertaining to his article.

Beyond stating TM called GZ as a "creepy......." guy, he failed to address exactly how that blame resulted in his death. He didn't state what TM should've done which is why I asked was he expecting TM go up to GZ and offer him some candy. What's wrong with asking someone why are you following me? I'm sure anyone would want to inquire why a person who has clearly been following them; then they suddenly appear where you are which was according to Rachel J's testimony.

[AUGradinTX 0]

Juror 37 clearly didn't even have an understanding as to what she was issuing a verdict on in addition to important legal terms as she stated. She was discussing SYG..not a defense arguement that was presented. Your statements are assumptions just like my opinions. There was never any evidence to show 1). Who was screaming and 2) Who started the fight. Your assumptions are that since GZ had some minor injuries that TM started the fight but how is it not possible that GZ couldn't have started it and got his azz beat in the process? Bottom line is we don't know and the jury didn't either so their decision wasn't based on if GZ was telling the truth it was based on not enough evidence. Not guilty is not the same as innocent.

No one saw the altercation from start to finish; only bits and pieces. I'm sorry if can't understand my short had phone texting; maybe you can get a teenager to break it down for you. You and TT can spin all you want if it makes you feel good. It's quite amusing. The only points i've ever made pertain to seeing things from a different point of view that related to the evidence that certainly could've occurred that was simply ignored for whatever reason.

Nobody is spinning anything. It's deductive logic. There was evidence. Yes, it was circumstantial, but when you have three or four pieces of circumstantial evidence it then becomes corroborating evidence that supports one inference over the other. There was no circumstantial evidence suggesting it was TM's voice on the recording.

There was circumstantial evidence suggesting either could have started the fight. I just believe there was more supporting GZ's claim.

[AUGradinTX 0]

Yes, I know that you think the second he got out of the truck he should have been jailed. I'm not rehashing that with you. I simply disagree that it rises to the level of criminal culpability. There's nothing to be gained by going down this road with you again.

Please don't misrepresent my argument. I never said getting out of his truck was an arrestible offense. It simply establishes Zimmerman's ultimate responsibility for what happened.

Then that would be a wrongful death claim in civil court.

[WarEagle1983 2,185]

Juror 37 clearly didn't even have an understanding as to what she was issuing a verdict on in addition to important legal terms as she stated. She was discussing SYG..not a defense arguement that was presented. Your statements are assumptions just like my opinions. There was never any evidence to show 1). Who was screaming and 2) Who started the fight. Your assumptions are that since GZ had some minor injuries that TM started the fight but how is it not possible that GZ couldn't have started it and got his azz beat in the process? Bottom line is we don't know and the jury didn't either so their decision wasn't based on if GZ was telling the truth it was based on not enough evidence. Not guilty is not the same as innocent.

No one saw the altercation from start to finish; only bits and pieces. I'm sorry if can't understand my short had phone texting; maybe you can get a teenager to break it down for you. You and TT can spin all you want if it makes you feel good. It's quite amusing. The only points i've ever made pertain to seeing things from a different point of view that related to the evidence that certainly could've occurred that was simply ignored for whatever reason.

Nobody is spinning anything. It's deductive logic. There was evidence. Yes, it was circumstantial, but when you have three or four pieces of circumstantial evidence it then becomes corroborating evidence that supports one inference over the other. There was no circumstantial evidence suggesting it was TM's voice on the recording.

There was circumstantial evidence suggesting either could have started the fight. I just believe there was more supporting GZ's claim.

Key word: circumstantial which means not direct evidence to come to a conclusion that clearly tells the story which is why the verdict was not guilty. Again "your" belief..doesn't mean it's actual truth just like what i believe what i do but nothing to support which version is the actual truth. I respect everyone's point of view that's unpopular point but i based nothing off what i "feel" but rather how i saw the trial and interpreted the evidence not feelings.

[cptau 169]

The prosecution's main witness is now explaining that TM thought GZ was a gay rapist? That was her warning to TM on the phone that night and why she thinks he confronted GZ...

Based on this TM was using "Stand-Your-Ground" and GZ was using "self-defense"?