George Zimmerman Trial

[TitanTiger 20,498]

Reasonable doubt. There is plenty.

There is no reasonable doubt about the fact GZ shot TM.

That wasn't in dispute.

There is no reasonable doubt that TM was innocent and minding his own business until GZ showed up..

Neither was this.

GZ is accountable for every action he took that led to the shooting and every thing he did was in his complete control.

This is.

That's not necessarily murder, but his willful actions led to a needless death. That sounds at least like manslaughter to me.

It's only a willful action that leads to a needless death if he was the one that initiated a physical confrontation. If all he did was follow the kid around some while calling police, then get out of his truck to find a specific address to give the cops a location, then as he was walking back to his truck got attacked, that's not manslaughter even if in the end he felt he had to use deadly force in self-defense

[TitanTiger 20,498]

And I can only presume there will be a follow-up civil trial regardless of the outcome.

And given that the standard of proof for a civil trial is less than a criminal one, there's a better than even chance he will be found liable. But civil liability does not automatically mean one is also criminally liable.

[homersapien 11,385]

You'll always have the last word Titan.

I have learned the hard way not to put much effort in trying to counter your arguments when you can make my post simply disappear without explanation. It's hardly a surprise to me you don't get the concept of accountability.

[TexasTiger 12,947]

Reasonable doubt. There is plenty.

There is no reasonable doubt about the fact GZ shot TM.

That wasn't in dispute.

There is no reasonable doubt that TM was innocent and minding his own business until GZ showed up..

Neither was this.

GZ is accountable for every action he took that led to the shooting and every thing he did was in his complete control.

This is.

That's not necessarily murder, but his willful actions led to a needless death. That sounds at least like manslaughter to me.

It's only a willful action that leads to a needless death if he was the one that initiated a physical confrontation. If all he did was follow the kid around some while calling police, then get out of his truck to find a specific address to give the cops a location, then as he was walking back to his truck got attacked, that's not manslaughter even if in the end he felt he had to use deadly force in self-defense

Wasn't he 300 ft from his car when the confrontation took place? Didn't the 911 dispatcher tell him not to follow? Wasn't he functioning in his role as a neighborhood watch captain?

[TitanTiger 20,498]

You'll always have the last word Titan.

I have learned the hard way not to put much effort in trying to counter your arguments when you can make my post simply disappear without explanation. It's hardly a surprise to me you don't get the concept of accountability.

Don't make excuses. If you had good answers, you'd offer them. You know full well why any post of yours was deleted as well as the fact that you're one of the extreme, extreme few that's had to have that done to a post in this forum.

And fully understand the notion of accountability. I also understand how it is interpreted in most jurisdictions in this country. Yours is a novel and extremely strict version that no jurisdiction I'm aware of holds to. Perhaps since you're so insistent upon it you could point out one somewhere that does.

Now, if you wish to attempt discussing the Zimmerman trial, have at it. If you'd simply like to slide in more whiny barbs about moderation, then that won't go well.

[TitanTiger 20,498]

Wasn't he 300 ft from his car when the confrontation took place? Didn't the 911 dispatcher tell him not to follow? Wasn't he functioning in his role as a neighborhood watch captain?

That is what I've been trying to ascertain (the distance thing). I know that the shooting took place about 280 ft. or so from his vehicle. Apparently there wasn't a street sign at that corner near where his car was parked so he was wandering near the buildings looking for a more specific address to give them. This is the part, if my questioning of it is correct, that I'd expect the prosecution to be attacking but thus far they haven't seemed to target that aspect of his story. So either they haven't gotten around to it or it's something that was explained already and isn't the big discrepancy I thought it was.

That said, if he was wandering trying to find an address, then was accosted by TM I would say that the lack of instigation by GZ and the circumstances he found himself in would be enough reasonable doubt to prevent convicting him.

As far as the other aspects...he initially was simply headed to Target according to his testimony then spotted TM acting "suspicious." He followed him for a bit then lost him and at some point (according to him) was just trying to tell the cops where to come when he was attacked.

And yes, the 911 operator said that they "didn't need him to do that" (follow TM). The question is, was he continuing to follow TM when the altercation happened or had he thought he lost him and was simply looking for a more specific address as he claims when TM attacked him from behind?

[ToomersRevenge 284]

Watching the lawyers in this trial is what makes me think that GZ has a good chance of getting off or getting a reduced sentence.

The prosecutor isn't attacking nearly as strong as he needs to be, especially with such a timid defense team. They're letting the trial get away from them; especially with regards to the star witness and the DNA expert. The only thing in their favor is the fact that the defense so far hasn't been hammering the questions they should to help GZ out either.

[telling tiger 156]

Both prosecution and defense are the weakest legal teams I've ever seen. How the hell they ended up at the same time and place, is beyond me.

[ToomersRevenge 284]

Watching this makes me think someone like Jose Martinez from the Jodi Arias trial would be having a field day.

Even as a legal layperson who just has a decent interest in this stuff, I know all of these guys are just very weak. The defense just stands up there and literally looks like they have no idea where they're going half of the time. Several times their line of questioning just gets shut down on a simple question that could be redirected and they have to take a minute to talk before coming back and going to some asinine point that doesn't do anything.

[TexasTiger 12,947]

Wasn't he 300 ft from his car when the confrontation took place? Didn't the 911 dispatcher tell him not to follow? Wasn't he functioning in his role as a neighborhood watch captain?

That is what I've been trying to ascertain (the distance thing). I know that the shooting took place about 280 ft. or so from his vehicle. Apparently there wasn't a street sign at that corner near where his car was parked so he was wandering near the buildings looking for a more specific address to give them. This is the part, if my questioning of it is correct, that I'd expect the prosecution to be attacking but thus far they haven't seemed to target that aspect of his story. So either they haven't gotten around to it or it's something that was explained already and isn't the big discrepancy I thought it was.

That said, if he was wandering trying to find an address, then was accosted by TM I would say that the lack of instigation by GZ and the circumstances he found himself in would be enough reasonable doubt to prevent convicting him.

As far as the other aspects...he initially was simply headed to Target according to his testimony then spotted TM acting "suspicious." He followed him for a bit then lost him and at some point (according to him) was just trying to tell the cops where to come when he was attacked.

And yes, the 911 operator said that they "didn't need him to do that" (follow TM). The question is, was he continuing to follow TM when the altercation happened or had he thought he lost him and was simply looking for a more specific address as he claims when TM attacked him from behind?

There was no need for him to provide an address:

http://phoebe53.wordpress.com/2012/03/26/zimmerman-911-call-transcript-trayvon-martin/

And he failed to really explain was what soooo suspicious about TM's behavior for him to conclude he was a criminal getting away with something.

[ToomersRevenge 284]

Wasn't he 300 ft from his car when the confrontation took place? Didn't the 911 dispatcher tell him not to follow? Wasn't he functioning in his role as a neighborhood watch captain?

That is what I've been trying to ascertain (the distance thing). I know that the shooting took place about 280 ft. or so from his vehicle. Apparently there wasn't a street sign at that corner near where his car was parked so he was wandering near the buildings looking for a more specific address to give them. This is the part, if my questioning of it is correct, that I'd expect the prosecution to be attacking but thus far they haven't seemed to target that aspect of his story. So either they haven't gotten around to it or it's something that was explained already and isn't the big discrepancy I thought it was.

That said, if he was wandering trying to find an address, then was accosted by TM I would say that the lack of instigation by GZ and the circumstances he found himself in would be enough reasonable doubt to prevent convicting him.

As far as the other aspects...he initially was simply headed to Target according to his testimony then spotted TM acting "suspicious." He followed him for a bit then lost him and at some point (according to him) was just trying to tell the cops where to come when he was attacked.

And yes, the 911 operator said that they "didn't need him to do that" (follow TM). The question is, was he continuing to follow TM when the altercation happened or had he thought he lost him and was simply looking for a more specific address as he claims when TM attacked him from behind?

There was no need for him to provide an address:

http://phoebe53.word...trayvon-martin/

And he failed to really explain was what soooo suspicious about TM's behavior for him to conclude he was a criminal getting away with something.

Driving while black....

[alexava 6,973]

He wasn't driving, he was supposedly walking very slowly in the rai n and not on the sidewalk but grass. No one can confirm or dispute this.

[TexasTiger 12,947]

He wasn't driving, he was supposedly walking very slowly in the rai n and not on the sidewalk but grass. No one can confirm or dispute this.

At the late hour of 7pm.

[ToomersRevenge 284]

He wasn't driving, he was supposedly walking very slowly in the rai n and not on the sidewalk but grass. No one can confirm or dispute this.

It was more of a joke about what makes black guys who get pulled over suspicious in the first place. For Trayvon I guess it would have been Walking While Black.

[TitanTiger 20,498]

There was no need for him to provide an address:

http://phoebe53.word...trayvon-martin/

And he failed to really explain was what soooo suspicious about TM's behavior for him to conclude he was a criminal getting away with something.

I think it was a factor of it being at night, didn't recognize him, raining, wearing a hoodie and that he didn't seem to be in any hurry to get out of the rain...stuff like that. As I've said, given the recent break-ins they'd had around there I don't fault Zimmerman for taking notice or even calling the cops. What I question is how long he chose to tail him and who confronted whom.

[TexasTiger 12,947]

There was no need for him to provide an address:

http://phoebe53.word...trayvon-martin/

And he failed to really explain was what soooo suspicious about TM's behavior for him to conclude he was a criminal getting away with something.

I think it was a factor of it being at night, didn't recognize him, raining, wearing a hoodie and that he didn't seem to be in any hurry to get out of the rain...stuff like that. As I've said, given the recent break-ins they'd had around there I don't fault Zimmerman for taking notice or even calling the cops. What I question is how long he chose to tail him and who confronted whom.

How many break ins occur at 7pm in the rain? I suspect any study will show they happen either during the day when people are at work and next, when people are asleep. There was nothing suspicious about what TM was doing. He was acting like a 15 year old.

[alexava 6,973]

Im not saying TM was at fault for the suspicion, but i dont fault GZ for being suspicious either. It all comes down to how the physical fight started.

[TitanTiger 20,498]

There was no need for him to provide an address:

http://phoebe53.word...trayvon-martin/

And he failed to really explain was what soooo suspicious about TM's behavior for him to conclude he was a criminal getting away with something.

I think it was a factor of it being at night, didn't recognize him, raining, wearing a hoodie and that he didn't seem to be in any hurry to get out of the rain...stuff like that. As I've said, given the recent break-ins they'd had around there I don't fault Zimmerman for taking notice or even calling the cops. What I question is how long he chose to tail him and who confronted whom.

How many break ins occur at 7pm in the rain? I suspect any study will show they happen either during the day when people are at work and next, when people are asleep. There was nothing suspicious about what TM was doing. He was acting like a 15 year old.

I'd say a break in could occur if the people weren't home.

But other than that, we're pretty much in agreement. I wouldn't have called but there's no harm in doing so. At least none that rises to the level of criminal culpability for what followed.

Regardless, it still comes down to how the fight started to me. Was GZ chasing him and the kid turned around finally and decided to put up a fight? Did GZ initiate the confrontation? Or was he doing what he said he was doing and was attacked from behind? I think therein lies the difference between manslaughter and simply being hypersensitive but acting in self defense.

[TexasTiger 12,947]

TM was minding his own business. Calling 911 wasn't really warranted, but by itself would have been harmless had GZ left it at that. He didn't . He played cop and killed a kid. He may luck out at trial, but he's clearly at fault.

[TitanTiger 20,498]

He played cop and killed a kid.

While this is my suspicion as well, I don't see that we have proof that this is what happened.

[TitanTiger 20,498]

Tex, if you haven't already, watch this:

A couple of things, if GZ's story is to be believed...

1. He describes TM has not really walking, but standing in the grassy area next to a condo that had had some recent break-ins. He also mentions that while GZ was still in his truck on the phone, TM (who had walked away), looped back and circled his truck before moving on down the sidewalk close to whether the shooting took place. If this is true, does this sound suspicious to you or just acting like a 15 year old

2. He mentions that he tried to describe where the clubhouse was but that he walked through that cut through to get a better address. He was walking back to his truck when he was (again, according to him) confronted and attacked by TM. That would explain the distance between the truck and where the shooting happened.

Now, if things happened as GZ is describing, do you think he did enough to warrant a conviction for manslaughter?

[TexasTiger 12,947]

Tex, if you haven't already, watch this:

A couple of things, if GZ's story is to be believed...

1. He describes TM has not really walking, but standing in the grassy area next to a condo that had had some recent break-ins. He also mentions that while GZ was still in his truck on the phone, TM (who had walked away), looped back and circled his truck before moving on down the sidewalk close to whether the shooting took place. If this is true, does this sound suspicious to you or just acting like a 15 year old

2. He mentions that he tried to describe where the clubhouse was but that he walked through that cut through to get a better address. He was walking back to his truck when he was (again, according to him) confronted and attacked by TM. That would explain the distance between the truck and where the shooting happened.

Now, if things happened as GZ is describing, do you think he did enough to warrant a conviction for manslaughter?

That's his story after he killed TM. It differs from what he told the 911 dispatcher.

TM is eating skittles and talking to his girlfriend. And, for no reason, he notices this guy following him. Who was acting suspicious in that scenario? When I put myself in both persons shoes, GZ is the one acting the most suspicious. Again, had GZ saw fit to call 911 and let the cops do their jobs, fine. No problem. If that resulted in TM being questioned, okay. But there was no crime that needed GZ's intervention. Call 911 and wait for the cops.

[alexava 6,973]

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.

of course I would feel differently. that is why his father is not on the jury. you would feel different if GZ was your son.

[homersapien 11,385]

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.

of course I would feel differently. that is why his father is not on the jury. you would feel different if GZ was your son.

Sorry, I was referring to empathy for that actual victim in this, not making a statement concerning the trial process.

Apparently you think Zimmerman is deserving of an equal amount of empathy than Trayvon. I disagree. Zimmerman has far more responsibility for what happened based on the simple indisputable facts listed above. His account of what happened does absolutely nothing to change that. Certainly his account doesn't change the basic truth about who was ultimately responsible.

This was not an accident. Everything flowed from a deliberate, conscious decision Zimmerman made. Even if his intent was misplaced, he is accountable for what happened.

[Grumps 3,704]

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.

of course I would feel differently. that is why his father is not on the jury. you would feel different if GZ was your son.

Sorry, I was referring to empathy for that actual victim in this, not making a statement concerning the trial process.

Apparently you think Zimmerman is deserving of an equal amount of empathy than Trayvon. I disagree. Zimmerman has far more responsibility for what happened based on the simple indisputable facts listed above. His account of what happened does absolutely nothing to change that. Certainly his account doesn't change the basic truth about who was ultimately responsible.

This was not an accident. Everything flowed from a deliberate, conscious decision Zimmerman made. Even if his intent was misplaced, he is accountable for what happened.

I find it interesting that some people cannot see the difference between the legal issues and the moral issues. Legally, if GZ did not shoot TM until he was being pummeled by him, then it does not matter that he got out of his vehicle. If TM had not been outside then he would not have been shot. If GZ had not gotten out of his vehicle then TM would not have been shot. Both actions are equally legal. To say the GZ is guilty because he got out of his vehicle is silly.