WarEagle1983 2,185 Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 I have never seen a case that did not have inconsistencies. Things happen fast. You remember, forget, reremember, misremember, the you have thousands of people punch holes in your story. Some want the truth, some some have already decided the truth for you and attempt to make you a liar. I think the main script has been fairly steady. True but there is a difference btw changing a word usage and telling a different story of a number of times. If it's the truth it doesn't change much...yes the words you use may but the meat of the story shouldn't and there is evidence that it has certainly changed according to GZ but we shall see if that will be enough in the jury's mind. Sad situation all around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexava 6,973 Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 I have never seen a case that did not have inconsistencies. Things happen fast. You remember, forget, reremember, misremember, the you have thousands of people punch holes in your story. Some want the truth, some some have already decided the truth for you and attempt to make you a liar. I think the main script has been fairly steadyt. True but there is a difference btw changing a word usage and telling a different story of a number of times. If it's the truth it doesn't change much...yes the words you use may but the meat of the story shouldn't and there is evidence that it has certainly changed according to GZ but we shall see if that will be enough in the jury's mind. Sad situation all around. very sad indeed. Putting a man away for decades who just might have been defending himself would also be sad. There will be zero winners either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarEagle1983 2,185 Posted July 3, 2013 Share Posted July 3, 2013 I have never seen a case that did not have inconsistencies. Things happen fast. You remember, forget, reremember, misremember, the you have thousands of people punch holes in your story. Some want the truth, some some have already decided the truth for you and attempt to make you a liar. I think the main script has been fairly steadyt. True but there is a difference btw changing a word usage and telling a different story of a number of times. If it's the truth it doesn't change much...yes the words you use may but the meat of the story shouldn't and there is evidence that it has certainly changed according to GZ but we shall see if that will be enough in the jury's mind. Sad situation all around. very sad indeed. Putting a man away for decades who just might have been defending himself would also be sad. There will be zero winners either way. I don't buy he should be set free b/c he should be accountable but i just don't agree with Murder 2 b/c i have not seen the evidence that supports that charge; but a lesser charge...yes. If that's the case he'd be looking at about 5-7 years if that since FL likes having criminals roam free..but at least GZ is alive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
augolf1716 21,202 Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 Well I hate to say it but now I am getting a little nervous of riots starting when early in the week I did not. Like I said early I live 10 miles from the courthouse. and I'm getting the feeling of some uneasiness like I did in Overtown in the Miami riots hopefully not near as bad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarEagle1983 2,185 Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 Well I hate to say it but now I am getting a little nervous of riots starting when early in the week I did not. Like I said early I live 10 miles from the courthouse. and I'm getting the feeling of some uneasiness like I did in Overtown in the Miami riots hopefully not near as bad I certainly hope that doesn't happen golf. I think he should be held accountable to an extent but whatever the verdict is...that's what people will have to accept. There is no need to go to jail, steal, and/or hurt others because that will not make the situation any better or change it if it plays out that way. It's like i tell people about the Casey Anthony (which i watched and followed as well)...she may not pay on earth but there is a ruler of all rulers that's higher than any judge and jury so if GZ did do wrong in regards to TM and doesn't pay on earth he still will have to be accountable. Be safe and your first priority is to protect your family! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToomersRevenge 284 Posted July 4, 2013 Author Share Posted July 4, 2013 Well if it's anything like the other riots they'll make a big statement for civil rights by stealing TV's and shoes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexava 6,973 Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 Well I hate to say it but now I am getting a little nervous of riots starting when early in the week I did not. Like I said early I live 10 miles from the courthouse. and I'm getting the feeling of some uneasiness like I did in Overtown in the Miami riots hopefully not near as bad get all the milk and bread you need and barricade yourself inside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,125 Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 Well if it's anything like the other riots they'll make a big statement for civil rights by stealing TV's and shoes. And beer. Don't think they'll miss a chance to stock up on all the free beer they can grab too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgr4lfe 220 Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 I have never seen a case that did not have inconsistencies. Things happen fast. You remember, forget, reremember, misremember, the you have thousands of people punch holes in your story. Some want the truth, some some have already decided the truth for you and attempt to make you a liar. I think the main script has been fairly steadyt. True but there is a difference btw changing a word usage and telling a different story of a number of times. If it's the truth it doesn't change much...yes the words you use may but the meat of the story shouldn't and there is evidence that it has certainly changed according to GZ but we shall see if that will be enough in the jury's mind. Sad situation all around. very sad indeed. Putting a man away for decades who just might have been defending himself would also be sad. There will be zero winners either way. I don't buy he should be set free b/c he should be accountable but i just don't agree with Murder 2 b/c i have not seen the evidence that supports that charge; but a lesser charge...yes. If that's the case he'd be looking at about 5-7 years if that since FL likes having criminals roam free..but at least GZ is alive. From what I've read and seen, GZ has pretty much stuck with the same story even providing interviews when he could/should have asked for an attorney. After an incident like this, details of the incident are often difficult for involved parties to recall and may take time to piece things together. Part of PTSD. So, part of GZ's apparent inconsistencies may be pieces of memories coming back together over time?? If there was no intent to cause harm, which I doubt that GZ "went after" TM, in that regards. Purely my opinion based on hearing what I've heard from trial, I think TM double backed/hid to ambush GZ and made the confrontation and/or GZ saw this and then made a confrontation that went from verbal argument to physical, which is supported by witnesses and TM got the better of GZ getting on top of him MMA style. I believe that GZ had his gun in an inside the pants holster, which TM probably would have never seen until they were on the ground fighting. I believe during this fight that there was testimony of TM kneeing or reaching for the gun when he saw it on his waist. I think words were said indicating to GZ that TM was going to use the weapon against GZ and GZ was able to get to the weapon. To those clammering about concealed carry permits, it is a constitutional right granted by states licensing individuals to carry a firearm if they choose. Me choosing to carry a weapon doesn't mean that I HAVE to backdown or retreat IF something happens. If there is suspicious activity in my neighborhood I will probably go out to 'investigate' as police are being called b/c I want to get the best description/info possible to relay to police. I think prosecutors gave in from pressure to press charges and are going through the motion and letting testimony prove what they likely knew ahead of time. I mean the guy that saw TM on top of GZ for a short amount of time, but not landing blows just hands moving toward the head, is not the type witness a prosecutor puts up there open to questions from the defense, that witness did MORE good for the defense than helped the prosecutor. The friend of TM just came across as an idiot, who had inconsistencies in her testimony that the defense took a day before they questioned. I think she was discredited more than she helped the prosecutions case. IF the prosecution can prove premeditation, which they can't, then they would get Murder 2 conviction, but other than that they've got to be able to prove recklessness or negligence for lesser involuntary manslaughter, negligent homicide, etc. I'm not sure they will even be able to do that or IF that is even on the table as lesser charge. Oh, and him just following TM around is not enough. GZ did NOT stalk TM, staling involves repeated acts over a length of time. I think there will be some rioting when he is found not guilty of Murder 2. Not sure what the jury has been instructed in that regards, but it will be interesting to see how it finishes. I think GZ was justified in using self defense, myself. Absolutely nothing wrong with him following TM or anyone else around the neighborhood, that is not illegal, GZ had legal right to be there, by all accounts GZ did not instigate the contact, and GZ by all accounts did not draw his weapon on TM prior to the fist fight. I think if that was the case that TM would have said that to the person he was on the phone with, the black female, whose name I don't know and there would have been other words being yelled at that time that would have attracted attention of neighbors who would have possibly seen it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,385 Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 Armed "wanna-be" cop stalks unarmed teenager on his own initiative. Innocent, unarmed teenager shot and killed. Everything else is just a recitation of the wanna-be cop's story or a feeble attempt to mitigate the fundamental truth.. GZ is not guilty of murder 2, but he is sure as hell guilty of manslaughter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarEagle1983 2,185 Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 I have never seen a case that did not have inconsistencies. Things happen fast. You remember, forget, reremember, misremember, the you have thousands of people punch holes in your story. Some want the truth, some some have already decided the truth for you and attempt to make you a liar. I think the main script has been fairly steadyt. True but there is a difference btw changing a word usage and telling a different story of a number of times. If it's the truth it doesn't change much...yes the words you use may but the meat of the story shouldn't and there is evidence that it has certainly changed according to GZ but we shall see if that will be enough in the jury's mind. Sad situation all around. very sad indeed. Putting a man away for decades who just might have been defending himself would also be sad. There will be zero winners either way. I don't buy he should be set free b/c he should be accountable but i just don't agree with Murder 2 b/c i have not seen the evidence that supports that charge; but a lesser charge...yes. If that's the case he'd be looking at about 5-7 years if that since FL likes having criminals roam free..but at least GZ is alive. From what I've read and seen, GZ has pretty much stuck with the same story even providing interviews when he could/should have asked for an attorney. After an incident like this, details of the incident are often difficult for involved parties to recall and may take time to piece things together. Part of PTSD. So, part of GZ's apparent inconsistencies may be pieces of memories coming back together over time?? If there was no intent to cause harm, which I doubt that GZ "went after" TM, in that regards. Purely my opinion based on hearing what I've heard from trial, I think TM double backed/hid to ambush GZ and made the confrontation and/or GZ saw this and then made a confrontation that went from verbal argument to physical, which is supported by witnesses and TM got the better of GZ getting on top of him MMA style. I believe that GZ had his gun in an inside the pants holster, which TM probably would have never seen until they were on the ground fighting. I believe during this fight that there was testimony of TM kneeing or reaching for the gun when he saw it on his waist. I think words were said indicating to GZ that TM was going to use the weapon against GZ and GZ was able to get to the weapon. To those clammering about concealed carry permits, it is a constitutional right granted by states licensing individuals to carry a firearm if they choose. Me choosing to carry a weapon doesn't mean that I HAVE to backdown or retreat IF something happens. If there is suspicious activity in my neighborhood I will probably go out to 'investigate' as police are being called b/c I want to get the best description/info possible to relay to police. I think prosecutors gave in from pressure to press charges and are going through the motion and letting testimony prove what they likely knew ahead of time. I mean the guy that saw TM on top of GZ for a short amount of time, but not landing blows just hands moving toward the head, is not the type witness a prosecutor puts up there open to questions from the defense, that witness did MORE good for the defense than helped the prosecutor. The friend of TM just came across as an idiot, who had inconsistencies in her testimony that the defense took a day before they questioned. I think she was discredited more than she helped the prosecutions case. IF the prosecution can prove premeditation, which they can't, then they would get Murder 2 conviction, but other than that they've got to be able to prove recklessness or negligence for lesser involuntary manslaughter, negligent homicide, etc. I'm not sure they will even be able to do that or IF that is even on the table as lesser charge. Oh, and him just following TM around is not enough. GZ did NOT stalk TM, staling involves repeated acts over a length of time. I think there will be some rioting when he is found not guilty of Murder 2. Not sure what the jury has been instructed in that regards, but it will be interesting to see how it finishes. I think GZ was justified in using self defense, myself. Absolutely nothing wrong with him following TM or anyone else around the neighborhood, that is not illegal, GZ had legal right to be there, by all accounts GZ did not instigate the contact, and GZ by all accounts did not draw his weapon on TM prior to the fist fight. I think if that was the case that TM would have said that to the person he was on the phone with, the black female, whose name I don't know and there would have been other words being yelled at that time that would have attracted attention of neighbors who would have possibly seen it. I don't by any PSTD. Excuse. His story has changed and important parts as to if it's self defense or not has changed. I've listened to each one he has told...key information has changed. No making excuses for that. Even his best friend testified to a different version of the story. One of them may be true but when you're telling 2 and 3 different versions than they all should be questioned. He clearly has told different versions while TM's friends gets blasted by the media b/c she's not some well educated and well to do girl. GZ isn't some hero like some make him out to be. He wasn't stopping a crime from occuring but yet he's made out to be the victim while a child is dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarEagle1983 2,185 Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 Armed "wanna-be" cop stalks unarmed teenager on his own initiative. Innocent, unarmed teenager shot and killed. Everything else is just a recitation of the wanna-be cop's story or a feeble attempt to mitigate the fundamental truth.. GZ is not guilty of murder 2, but he is sure as hell guilty of manslaughter. +1 I wonder if this happend to my son or daughter no way in h3ll i'd be so quick to let GZ. People should try putting themselves in TM's parents shoes...then i wonder how many would be so quick to say GZ was right after having a least 2 chances to make a better decision...he was the adult in this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,498 Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 Armed "wanna-be" cop stalks unarmed teenager on his own initiative. Innocent, unarmed teenager shot and killed. Everything else is just a recitation of the wanna-be cop's story or a feeble attempt to mitigate the fundamental truth.. GZ is not guilty of murder 2, but he is sure as hell guilty of manslaughter. The problem is, the details of what happens in between actually matters with regard to the law. And unfortunately, no one has any eyewitness testimony to contradict the wanna-be cop's story. As upsetting as that is, we don't (or shouldn't) convict people based on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,947 Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 Armed "wanna-be" cop stalks unarmed teenager on his own initiative. Innocent, unarmed teenager shot and killed. Everything else is just a recitation of the wanna-be cop's story or a feeble attempt to mitigate the fundamental truth.. GZ is not guilty of murder 2, but he is sure as hell guilty of manslaughter. The problem is, the details of what happens in between actually matters with regard to the law. And unfortunately, no one has any eyewitness testimony to contradict the wanna-be cop's story. As upsetting as that is, we don't (or shouldn't) convict people based on that. But if the story is inconsistent or otherwise lacks credibility, the jury can reject it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexava 6,973 Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 Reasonable doubt. There is plenty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,498 Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 Armed "wanna-be" cop stalks unarmed teenager on his own initiative. Innocent, unarmed teenager shot and killed. Everything else is just a recitation of the wanna-be cop's story or a feeble attempt to mitigate the fundamental truth.. GZ is not guilty of murder 2, but he is sure as hell guilty of manslaughter. The problem is, the details of what happens in between actually matters with regard to the law. And unfortunately, no one has any eyewitness testimony to contradict the wanna-be cop's story. As upsetting as that is, we don't (or shouldn't) convict people based on that. But if the story is inconsistent or otherwise lacks credibility, the jury can reject it. That's true. I just don't think I've seen enough from the prosecution's side to tip the scales that way. My only point was, you can't distill it down to homer's brief points and act like all else is of little matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexava 6,973 Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 Armed "wanna-be" cop stalks unarmed teenager on his own initiative. Innocent, unarmed teenager shot and killed. Everything else is just a recitation of the wanna-be cop's story or a feeble attempt to mitigate the fundamental truth.. GZ is not guilty of murder 2, but he is sure as hell guilty of manslaughter. The problem is, the details of what happens in between actually matters with regard to the law. And unfortunately, no one has any eyewitness testimony to contradict the wanna-be cop's story. As upsetting as that is, we don't (or shouldn't) convict people based on that. But if the story is inconsistent or otherwise lacks credibility, the jury can reject it. That's true. I just don't think I've seen enough from the prosecution's side to tip the scales that way. My only point was, you can't distill it down to homer's brief points and act like all else is of little matter. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grumps 3,704 Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 Armed "wanna-be" cop stalks unarmed teenager on his own initiative. Innocent, unarmed teenager shot and killed. Everything else is just a recitation of the wanna-be cop's story or a feeble attempt to mitigate the fundamental truth.. GZ is not guilty of murder 2, but he is sure as hell guilty of manslaughter. +1 I wonder if this happend to my son or daughter no way in h3ll i'd be so quick to let GZ. People should try putting themselves in TM's parents shoes...then i wonder how many would be so quick to say GZ was right after having a least 2 chances to make a better decision...he was the adult in this. I am pretty sure that the jury is supposed to look at the facts of the case and not look at this from TM's parents' shoes. Like it or not this case (and all others) should be about the law. I agree with Homer's philosophy about being accountable when you are carrying a weapon, but having a certain philosophy is completely irrelevant to what the law say. GZ should be tried on the law. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarEagle1983 2,185 Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 Armed "wanna-be" cop stalks unarmed teenager on his own initiative. Innocent, unarmed teenager shot and killed. Everything else is just a recitation of the wanna-be cop's story or a feeble attempt to mitigate the fundamental truth.. GZ is not guilty of murder 2, but he is sure as hell guilty of manslaughter. +1 I wonder if this happend to my son or daughter no way in h3ll i'd be so quick to let GZ. People should try putting themselves in TM's parents shoes...then i wonder how many would be so quick to say GZ was right after having a least 2 chances to make a better decision...he was the adult in this. I am pretty sure that the jury is supposed to look at the facts of the case and not look at this from TM's parents' shoes. Like it or not this case (and all others) should be about the law. I agree with Homer's philosophy about being accountable when you are carrying a weapon, but having a certain philosophy is completely irrelevant to what the law say. GZ should be tried on the law. Period. I agree and have said that but some who have commented have not followed the trial and heard and seen evidence. My opinion is based on what has been presented in court...not just about his parents. My point was that based on the evidence what parent wouldn't want to seek justice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grumps 3,704 Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 Armed "wanna-be" cop stalks unarmed teenager on his own initiative. Innocent, unarmed teenager shot and killed. Everything else is just a recitation of the wanna-be cop's story or a feeble attempt to mitigate the fundamental truth.. GZ is not guilty of murder 2, but he is sure as hell guilty of manslaughter. +1 I wonder if this happend to my son or daughter no way in h3ll i'd be so quick to let GZ. People should try putting themselves in TM's parents shoes...then i wonder how many would be so quick to say GZ was right after having a least 2 chances to make a better decision...he was the adult in this. I am pretty sure that the jury is supposed to look at the facts of the case and not look at this from TM's parents' shoes. Like it or not this case (and all others) should be about the law. I agree with Homer's philosophy about being accountable when you are carrying a weapon, but having a certain philosophy is completely irrelevant to what the law say. GZ should be tried on the law. Period. I agree and have said that but some who have commented have not followed the trial and heard and seen evidence. My opinion is based on what has been presented in court...not just about his parents. My point was that based on the evidence what parent wouldn't want to seek justice? I agree with you that any parent would want to seek justice. This still does not change the fact that the trial should be about following the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarEagle1983 2,185 Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 Armed "wanna-be" cop stalks unarmed teenager on his own initiative. Innocent, unarmed teenager shot and killed. Everything else is just a recitation of the wanna-be cop's story or a feeble attempt to mitigate the fundamental truth.. GZ is not guilty of murder 2, but he is sure as hell guilty of manslaughter. +1 I wonder if this happend to my son or daughter no way in h3ll i'd be so quick to let GZ. People should try putting themselves in TM's parents shoes...then i wonder how many would be so quick to say GZ was right after having a least 2 chances to make a better decision...he was the adult in this. I am pretty sure that the jury is supposed to look at the facts of the case and not look at this from TM's parents' shoes. Like it or not this case (and all others) should be about the law. I agree with Homer's philosophy about being accountable when you are carrying a weapon, but having a certain philosophy is completely irrelevant to what the law say. GZ should be tried on the law. Period. I agree and have said that but some who have commented have not followed the trial and heard and seen evidence. My opinion is based on what has been presented in court...not just about his parents. My point was that based on the evidence what parent wouldn't want to seek justice? I agree with you that any parent would want to seek justice. This still does not change the fact that the trial should be about following the law. Exactly...i've never stated or believed otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToomersRevenge 284 Posted July 5, 2013 Author Share Posted July 5, 2013 Armed "wanna-be" cop stalks unarmed teenager on his own initiative. Innocent, unarmed teenager shot and killed. Everything else is just a recitation of the wanna-be cop's story or a feeble attempt to mitigate the fundamental truth.. GZ is not guilty of murder 2, but he is sure as hell guilty of manslaughter. +1 I wonder if this happend to my son or daughter no way in h3ll i'd be so quick to let GZ. People should try putting themselves in TM's parents shoes...then i wonder how many would be so quick to say GZ was right after having a least 2 chances to make a better decision...he was the adult in this. I am pretty sure that the jury is supposed to look at the facts of the case and not look at this from TM's parents' shoes. Like it or not this case (and all others) should be about the law. I agree with Homer's philosophy about being accountable when you are carrying a weapon, but having a certain philosophy is completely irrelevant to what the law say. GZ should be tried on the law. Period. I agree and have said that but some who have commented have not followed the trial and heard and seen evidence. My opinion is based on what has been presented in court...not just about his parents. My point was that based on the evidence what parent wouldn't want to seek justice? Wanting justice is wanting justice, and has nothing to do with his parents. As someone who has covered this pretty well I haven't seen nearly enough to overwhelm reasonable doubt; and I don't believe the jury will either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarEagle1983 2,185 Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 Armed "wanna-be" cop stalks unarmed teenager on his own initiative. Innocent, unarmed teenager shot and killed. Everything else is just a recitation of the wanna-be cop's story or a feeble attempt to mitigate the fundamental truth.. GZ is not guilty of murder 2, but he is sure as hell guilty of manslaughter. +1 I wonder if this happend to my son or daughter no way in h3ll i'd be so quick to let GZ. People should try putting themselves in TM's parents shoes...then i wonder how many would be so quick to say GZ was right after having a least 2 chances to make a better decision...he was the adult in this. I am pretty sure that the jury is supposed to look at the facts of the case and not look at this from TM's parents' shoes. Like it or not this case (and all others) should be about the law. I agree with Homer's philosophy about being accountable when you are carrying a weapon, but having a certain philosophy is completely irrelevant to what the law say. GZ should be tried on the law. Period. I agree and have said that but some who have commented have not followed the trial and heard and seen evidence. My opinion is based on what has been presented in court...not just about his parents. My point was that based on the evidence what parent wouldn't want to seek justice? Wanting justice is wanting justice, and has nothing to do with his parents. As someone who has covered this pretty well I haven't seen nearly enough to overwhelm reasonable doubt; and I don't believe the jury will either. I have followed from start to finish as well. I respectfully disagree with murder2 but certainly manslaughter. We will see what the jury says b/c if they can find Casey Anthony not guilty...anything is possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,385 Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 Reasonable doubt. There is plenty. There is no reasonable doubt about the fact GZ shot TM. There is no reasonable doubt that TM was innocent and minding his own business until GZ showed up.. GZ is accountable for every action he took that led to the shooting and every thing he did was in his complete control. That's not necessarily murder, but his willful actions led to a needless death. That sounds at least like manslaughter to me. Had TM been your son, I bet you would understand this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,385 Posted July 5, 2013 Share Posted July 5, 2013 And I can only presume there will be a follow-up civil trial regardless of the outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.