Jump to content

New Facebook Pages

Ford Mach E

Ford Thunder

  • Custom Search


Sign in to follow this  
GaryG

Your Opinion Of Zimerman Now?

Recommended Posts

I haven't changed my opinion of the man since I heard the story. Certainly, the "Stand Your Ground" defense is out the door now.

 

Gary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its hard to claim victim status if you are on top of someone inflicting bodily harm , then shot as a direct result.

Then again Florida juries had trouble convicting a mother who was out partying like a rock star while her child went missing then found dead (not a suicide ).

 

 

If Martin was shot and killed while on top of Zman and pounding him I would let him walk.

That does not mead Zman is a saint but Martin went from victim to assailant once he climbed on top of Zman and that was his fatal mistake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Medical evidence shows injury to the back of Zimmerman's head consistent with eyewitness accounts that Martin was on top at some point.

 

If I am armed, but tumbled to the pavement and an assailant/aggressor is on top of me and attempting to render me unconscious, or worse, I am likely going to defend myself with whatever weapon I can reach before I am left unconscious and my/any weapon used against me as I lay incapacitated.

 

Martin may have had equal "stand your ground" rights, but when he climbed on top of Zimmerman, he was doing more than standing his ground (i.e., not obligated to run away). And since he had a cellphone, why didn't he call 911 as most anti-gun advocates believe is the appropriate action to take?

 

 

Scenario,

 

Martin walking through neighborhood. Zimmerman sees stranger passing through and follows (black or not, as we are not going to get anywhere arguing that point).

At some point, they meet and confront each other.

In the mind of the gun-control advocates, Zimmerman should not have had a gun. (I have not heard there was any legal obstruction to his possessing a firearm on his person in public.)

Martin should have called 911. Zimmerman was supposed to ignore young strangers despite the history of the neighborhood's experiences with vandalism and thefts.

When the two confronted each other, at some point, it became physical.

  1. Does anyone think Martin had an obligation to stand there and call 911, if Zimmerman was the instigator of the attack?
  2. Does anyone think Martin had a right to use any/all weapons available, including Zimmerman's handgun, if Zimmerman was the instigator of the attack?
  3. Does anyone think Zimmerman had an obligation to tolerate being attacked and not use his weapon, if Martin was the instigator?
  4. Does anyone think Zimmerman had an obligation to call 911 when the confrontation became physical?
  5. Does anyone think, assuming the reports of Martin bashing Zimmerman's head into the concrete are accurate, Zimmerman had no right to use any/all weapons at hand to stop the attack that could have left him vulnerable to greater injury/death if he had been rendered unconscious?

I think there is no perfect answer to this problem. And laws and regulation have never ended tragedy.

 

Martin and Zimmerman are both victims of society. And as much as I think Martin should not have died, I also think Zimmerman had a right to make the decision to use deadly force. He just MAY have chosen it poorly.

Edited by FiredMotorCompany

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Soon as he left his vehicle he lost his ability to claim stand your ground. Sorry, but that changed to Martins right as soon as he felt he was being followed by Zimmerman.

 

Zimmerman thought he was doing something right based on his previous experience with neighborhood robberies and such. And he was legally allowed to own and operate the firearm. But if you read the neighborhood watch pamphlet/rules put out by his local PD, that he was an official part of, it clearly states you are not to pursue or interact with possible crimes in progress. Just report them to police.

 

Was he probably frustrated from the police response time in prior instances thus leading him to leave his car (albiet briefly) to try and follow Martin? Yea. I would be too. But whatever he did put himself on Martins radar and made him act defensive. Except Zimmerman knew the stand your ground law and had a gun. We don't know if Martin knew that but seeing as he wasn't from there it's probably leaning in his favor he wasn't aware. So when Martin saw the gun he probably thought it was going to be him or me. And you'd probably do the same thing he did to possibly eliminate that threat.

 

If anything Zimmerman should've announced that he was armed to Martin upon first encountering him at close range (if Martin was the acting aggressor) and then drawn his gun if he felt further threatened. But as anyone who's taken a firearms course knows you don't point it at anything you don't intend to shoot so he could've kept it pointed at the ground. Thus making any threatening action made by Martin a reason to exercise Zimmermans stand your ground right.

Edited by JScullin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Soon as he left his vehicle he lost his ability to claim stand your ground. Sorry, but that changed to Martins right as soon as he felt he was being followed by Zimmerman.

 

Zimmerman thought he was doing something right based on his previous experience with neighborhood robberies and such. And he was legally allowed to own and operate the firearm. But if you read the neighborhood watch pamphlet/rules put out by his local PD, that he was an official part of, it clearly states you are not to pursue or interact with possible crimes in progress. Just report them to police.

 

Was he probably frustrated from the police response time in prior instances thus leading him to leave his car (albiet briefly) to try and follow Martin? Yea. I would be too. But whatever he did put himself on Martins radar and made him act defensive. Except Zimmerman knew the stand your ground law and had a gun. We don't know if Martin knew that but seeing as he wasn't from there it's probably leaning in his favor he wasn't aware. So when Martin saw the gun he probably thought it was going to be him or me. And you'd probably do the same thing he did to possibly eliminate that threat.

 

If anything Zimmerman should've announced that he was armed to Martin upon first encountering him at close range (if Martin was the acting aggressor) and then drawn his gun if he felt further threatened. But as anyone who's taken a firearms course knows you don't point it at anything you don't intend to shoot so he could've kept it pointed at the ground. Thus making any threatening action made by Martin a reason to exercise Zimmermans stand your ground right.

Please upload a copy for review or link to it. Found it here. It has been pulled off the City of Sanford website.

 

I am curious if the pamphlet was a guideline (it is), not police directive. I don't doubt they could be guidelines, because other neighborhood watch members may only be elderly, less than physically fit or otherwise, simply eyes on the lookout for things out of place or unusual. Typical, as I would expect a PD to suggest.

 

Now, if there were lawful obligations prohibiting such actions by a watch member, then that makes it much more difficult to defend. However, I haven't heard any discussion on that in regard to the case, as I think that would almost be a "slam dunk" conviction.

 

After reading through the pamphlet, I saw numerous references to observing, recognizing, gathering information and similar suggestions. Is it unreasonable to expect someone to interact with a stranger while watching for unusual activity? It's very reasonable to only walk past and say, "Good evening" as a ploy to get close enough to identify and make note of the characteristics of such a person? Perhaps Zimmerman felt somewhat emboldened to do so because he was armed, but that is not illegal. And being armed, he might have believed he could approach Martin with confidence and determine if there was any reason to be concerned further.

 

How and why it became a physical confrontation is to be determined by the jury. What is known is, somethings are not easy to decide, even with 20/20 hindsight.

 

Whereas, Zimmerman was lawfully carrying a weapon, concealed or not, the issue of being a watch member is moot if he was exercising his "stand your ground" rights or otherwise lawfully defending himself when faced with a threat of deadly force while "freely" walking through his "OWN" neighborhood.

 

Are you going to argue you cannot carry a weapon while out walking within your own neighborhood, watch member or not?

Edited by FiredMotorCompany

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The lead witness lost any credibility when her written statement was not even written by her. She supposedly can not read or write well if at all.

She also does not see Martin's quote of "Creepy ass cracker" as a racial slur. If that does not show you her bias or pure stupidity I hope you live in her neighborhood because you have something in common.

 

She omitted details, later added details then changed details.

Make you wonder who wrote that letter......

 

 

http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-witness-read-letter-wrote-shooting/story?id=19504826#.Uc0IZvnU9jQ

 

Quote-

 

In a painfully embarrassing moment, Jeantel was forced to admit that she did not write a letter that was sent to Martin's mother describing what she allegedly heard on a phone call with Martin moments before he was shot. It came when West asked her to read the letter aloud in court. "Are you able to read that at all?" West asked.

Jeantel, head bowed, eyes averted whispered into the court microphone, "Some but not all. I don't read cursive."

It sent a hush through the packed courtroom.

She was unable to read any of the letter save for her name, date and the words "thank you."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If anything Zimmerman should've announced that he was armed to Martin upon first encountering him at close range (if Martin was the acting aggressor) and then drawn his gun if he felt further threatened. But as anyone who's taken a firearms course knows you don't point it at anything you don't intend to shoot so he could've kept it pointed at the ground. Thus making any threatening action made by Martin a reason to exercise Zimmermans stand your ground right.

 

Wrong.

Zman used his firearm correctly. If you pull it you use it, period.

If you do not need to fire leave it holstered.

 

Its stupid to announce or display a weapon because lots of times the weapon is lost and used against the original owner (several police officers are killed with their own weapon).

Also a civilian is under no obligation to announce or inform. If you think someone is going to yell "I am a black belt" "I have a gun" etc. then you are watching too many movies.

 

WAY too much focus on why it started instead of what happened.

If Martin was shot while on top of Zman he is not the assailant, NOT the victim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a simple question:

 

How is following someone you believe to be a crook in your community, ALL WHILE ON THE PHONE WITH 911 reporting said crook/the situation, deemed "looking for trouble"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please upload a copy for review or link to it. Found it here. It has been pulled off the City of Sanford website.

 

I am curious if the pamphlet was a guideline (it is), not police directive. I don't doubt they could be guidelines, because other neighborhood watch members may only be elderly, less than physically fit or otherwise, simply eyes on the lookout for things out of place or unusual. Typical, as I would expect a PD to suggest.

 

Now, if there were lawful obligations prohibiting such actions by a watch member, then that makes it much more difficult to defend. However, I haven't heard any discussion on that in regard to the case, as I think that would almost be a "slam dunk" conviction.

 

After reading through the pamphlet, I saw numerous references to observing, recognizing, gathering information and similar suggestions. Is it unreasonable to expect someone to interact with a stranger while watching for unusual activity? It's very reasonable to only walk past and say, "Good evening" as a ploy to get close enough to identify and make note of the characteristics of such a person? Perhaps Zimmerman felt somewhat emboldened to do so because he was armed, but that is not illegal. And being armed, he might have believed he could approach Martin with confidence and determine if there was any reason to be concerned further.

 

How and why it became a physical confrontation is to be determined by the jury. What is known is, somethings are not easy to decide, even with 20/20 hindsight.

 

Whereas, Zimmerman was lawfully carrying a weapon, concealed or not, the issue of being a watch member is moot if he was exercising his "stand your ground" rights or otherwise lawfully defending himself when faced with a threat of deadly force while "freely" walking through his "OWN" neighborhood.

 

Are you going to argue you cannot carry a weapon while out walking within your own neighborhood, watch member or not?

Upon reading the pamphlet I am drawn to the highlighted section saying...

 

Remember always that your responsibility is to report crime. Do not take any risks to prevent a crime or try to make an arrest. The responsibility for apprehending criminals belongs to the police department.

Zimmerman certainly did not follow that one did he?

 

The reality is that Martin does not die if Zimmerman had not been carrying and/or stayed in his vehicle. He got out of the vehicle and followed Martin and a confrontation resulted. At what point do you and other conservatives acknowledge that an armed man caused a confrontation with an unarmed man by not following WATCH protocols and then when he lost the upper hand shot the unarmed man.

 

When does common sense reign here? Fired, if you follow me and create a conflict, and I respond to such in defense of myself and get the upper hand, you are then allowed to shot me? That's bullshit. I have to either incapacitate you or keep kicking your ass till help arrives. What if I during the fight realize that you have a weapon? I can not then stop and attempt to flee, because doing so would make me vulnerable. I would have three choices; take the weapon away from you, render you unable to use the weapon or kill you in defense of myself. I hope to hear what his father has to say, because Zimmerman's father spoke of what he was told directly and that included Trayvon seeing the gun during the melee. If that's the case then Martin had every right to be pounding Zimmerman's head on the ground. He would only be using any weapon available to defend himself would he not? The answer to your question.

 

I do not believe that getting your ass beat enables you to shoot someone, especially when you created the situation by leaving your vehicle and following the other person till a confrontation occurs.

 

I don't believe that Zimmerman is guilty of murder, but his choices led to that boys death.

Edited by Langston Hughes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here is a simple question:

 

How is following someone you believe to be a crook in your community, ALL WHILE ON THE PHONE WITH 911 reporting said crook/the situation, deemed "looking for trouble"?

 

Here are some other simple questions?

 

What did Martin do to be considered a crook?

Why did he get out of his vehicle to follow Martin?

 

I do like how you frame your question although I wish you had a little more respect for the dead than to paint him as such. It's obvious that you feel some dislike of Martin, although for what I am not sure.

 

I had a situation the other day, where I unarmed as it were, was witness to an incident with 4 teenagers who were engaged in weaving in and out of traffic, cutting off cars both in the road and going through a drive thru, then yelling and screaming obscenities at the drivers, trying to draw them into an incident. I did not engage them, I called 9/11 gave my report and left. I gave as detailed a description as possible and then went to work. I have not received a call back so i'm going to assume that they were not caught.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here are some other simple questions?

 

What did Martin do to be considered a crook?

Why did he get out of his vehicle to follow Martin?

 

I do like how you frame your question although I wish you had a little more respect for the dead than to paint him as such. It's obvious that you feel some dislike of Martin, although for what I am not sure.

 

I had a situation the other day, where I unarmed as it were, was witness to an incident with 4 teenagers who were engaged in weaving in and out of traffic, cutting off cars both in the road and going through a drive thru, then yelling and screaming obscenities at the drivers, trying to draw them into an incident. I did not engage them, I called 9/11 gave my report and left. I gave as detailed a description as possible and then went to work. I have not received a call back so i'm going to assume that they were not caught.

 

Let's start with what cal50 said:

 

How is following someone you believe to be a crook in your community,

He did not say Martin was a crook, but rather, if Zimmerman thought Martin was a crook.....and it is up to Zimmerman to determine what he thought Martin did that made him suspicious.

 

Obviously, Zimmerman suspected Martin was out-of-the-norm for the community. Part of the program was for watch members to become familiar with the residents in the area. Time of day, behavior (looking over their shoulders, hiding in shadows, covering ones head with a hoodie when rain and wind were not a factor.......) are possible flags.

 

As to Zimmerman not following the program, where is there any statement that each watch member gives up their personal rights? They were guidelines, written in generalizations to minimize conflicts where some could try to assert too much power by assuming they were empowered as the police. But, nowhere did I see anything stating Zimmerman was banned by law from doing anything he did. Or banned from carrying his weapon as local law allows. It was just not recommended and I'll go so far as to say it was discouraged. But, never banned. And therefore, Zimmerman was within his rights to do everything he did, with the possible exception of firing his weapon. And that determination will be decided by the jury.

 

The prosecution is trying to paint Martin as this innocent young man who only wanted to drink his tea and eat Skittles. Can you accept the fact that such an innocent, peace loving, lawful young man could possibly not have answered Zimmerman with straight answers that were sensible and reasonable and could never have resulted in violence? Are you so ready to convict Zimmerman that reasonable doubt is not possible?

 

I have a hard time believing Zimmerman did more than ask a stranger why he was in the area and Martin answers were not conversationally adequate to be satisfying to Zimmerman. If Trayvon was living with his dad in the community, I'd expect a reasonable and peaceful young man would have stated where he was staying and who, to the satisfaction of a member of the Neighborhood Watch who is supposedly cognizant of the local residents. I may not be stating this clearly, but what attitudes were involved in the meeting that escalated the event to the level of physical violence? Perhaps there were TWO hotheads playing oneupsmanship.

 

I just can't imagine it otherwise. Perhaps the jury can find the truth. Or find Zimmerman innocent if they cannot find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let's start with what cal50 said:

 

He did not say Martin was a crook, but rather, if Zimmerman thought Martin was a crook.....and it is up to Zimmerman to determine what he thought Martin did that made him suspicious.

 

Obviously, Zimmerman suspected Martin was out-of-the-norm for the community. Part of the program was for watch members to become familiar with the residents in the area. Time of day, behavior (looking over their shoulders, hiding in shadows, covering ones head with a hoodie when rain and wind were not a factor.......) are possible flags.

 

As to Zimmerman not following the program, where is there any statement that each watch member gives up their personal rights? They were guidelines, written in generalizations to minimize conflicts where some could try to assert too much power by assuming they were empowered as the police. But, nowhere did I see anything stating Zimmerman was banned by law from doing anything he did. Or banned from carrying his weapon as local law allows. It was just not recommended and I'll go so far as to say it was discouraged. But, never banned. And therefore, Zimmerman was within his rights to do everything he did, with the possible exception of firing his weapon. And that determination will be decided by the jury.

 

The prosecution is trying to paint Martin as this innocent young man who only wanted to drink his tea and eat Skittles. Can you accept the fact that such an innocent, peace loving, lawful young man could possibly not have answered Zimmerman with straight answers that were sensible and reasonable and could never have resulted in violence? Are you so ready to convict Zimmerman that reasonable doubt is not possible?

 

I have a hard time believing Zimmerman did more than ask a stranger why he was in the area and Martin answers were not conversationally adequate to be satisfying to Zimmerman. If Trayvon was living with his dad in the community, I'd expect a reasonable and peaceful young man would have stated where he was staying and who, to the satisfaction of a member of the Neighborhood Watch who is supposedly cognizant of the local residents. I may not be stating this clearly, but what attitudes were involved in the meeting that escalated the event to the level of physical violence? Perhaps there were TWO hotheads playing oneupsmanship.

 

I just can't imagine it otherwise. Perhaps the jury can find the truth. Or find Zimmerman innocent if they cannot find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

 

 

I think you get it and for the resident dolt you quoted (respect for the dead)...... unless someone is claiming Zmans injuries are self inflicted I see an assailant / aggressor shot and killed for HIS assault on an armed man.

No, I do not feel sorry for the deceased in this instance. The kid made some bad life decisions in the past and this one ended up resulting in his death. All I see is the same liberal dumb-ass people trying to make it a racial event and most libs are buying into it hook line and sinker but that is par for race baiting, if its legit or not. The kicker is Martin himself made the comment as testified to by the star wittiness calling Zman “He looked like a creepy ass cracker.”

 

She (witness) does not consider that a racial slur ( from Martin)

(WOW)

I can clearly see who has a racial bias but everyone knows ONLY white people are racist.

 

She also omitted details, later added details and changed details. Dishonest and a clear racial bias on her part yet Zman is the racist?

She also can not read nor did she write the letter of details of the events.

 

http://www.inquisitr.com/818252/george-zimmerman-witness-cant-read-letter-in-court/

 

There is also some pretty weak credibility of the states witnesses thus far.

 

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/zimmerman-trial-day-end-of-day-analysis-video-of-states-witnesses/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
She also omitted details, later added details and changed details. Dishonest and a clear racial bias on her part yet Zman is the racist?

She also can not read nor did she write the letter of details of the events.

 

http://www.inquisitr.com/818252/george-zimmerman-witness-cant-read-letter-in-court/

 

There is also some pretty weak credibility of the states witnesses thus far.

 

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/zimmerman-trial-day-end-of-day-analysis-video-of-states-witnesses/

There should be an investigation of the high school where she is a "SENIOR".

I am certain federal education dollars have been misused and social "graduation" has been common in order to avoid holding back those who were unable to learn.

I wonder who signed off on her graduation testing and conspired to hand her a diploma she couldn't read ( cursive and old english fonts).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please upload a copy for review or link to it. Found it here. It has been pulled off the City of Sanford website.

 

I am curious if the pamphlet was a guideline (it is), not police directive. I don't doubt they could be guidelines, because other neighborhood watch members may only be elderly, less than physically fit or otherwise, simply eyes on the lookout for things out of place or unusual. Typical, as I would expect a PD to suggest.

 

Now, if there were lawful obligations prohibiting such actions by a watch member, then that makes it much more difficult to defend. However, I haven't heard any discussion on that in regard to the case, as I think that would almost be a "slam dunk" conviction.

 

After reading through the pamphlet, I saw numerous references to observing, recognizing, gathering information and similar suggestions. Is it unreasonable to expect someone to interact with a stranger while watching for unusual activity? It's very reasonable to only walk past and say, "Good evening" as a ploy to get close enough to identify and make note of the characteristics of such a person? Perhaps Zimmerman felt somewhat emboldened to do so because he was armed, but that is not illegal. And being armed, he might have believed he could approach Martin with confidence and determine if there was any reason to be concerned further.

 

Are you going to argue you cannot carry a weapon while out walking within your own neighborhood, watch member or not?

 

I'm not going to argue Zman's decision to carry while in his own neighborhood because he was legally allowed to do so. I have a class-a LTC myself so I can conceal carry if I want, but I don't. I don't even own a gun but wanted to get licensed because it's my right to do so. If I was in Zman's shoes and had prior run-in's with break-ins and other crap in my neighborhood I would probably also be carrying.

 

But I wouldn't use it as a reason to be overtly brave in situations I didn't need to involve myself in directly. The pamphlet isn't a police order, but it was written up by the local PD. And it says that if you are going to be a part of the neighborhood watch then here's how to handle the situation properly. Zman was frustrated that police response time was so slow when he made the comment that "...they always get away." based on his past experiences. And it can be argued that because he had a gun he felt he could pursue w/out fear of not having the upper hand to defend himself. We dont' know if Zman had to sign something to be a part of the watch. And that by signing it he agrees not to act like a cop/vigilante and follow the bullet points of the pamphlet.

 

He could've followed and kept gathering info while avoiding this situation from his truck is what this all comes down to IMO. He's not guilty of murder, and Martin isn't guilty of anything. But they both were a part of this perfect storm of the SYG law and neighborhood watch system coming together. At what point does the SYG law change over from Zman to Martin, and back & forth, based on all their actions leading up to the shooting?

 

Wrong.

Zman used his firearm correctly. If you pull it you use it, period.

If you do not need to fire leave it holstered.

 

Its stupid to announce or display a weapon because lots of times the weapon is lost and used against the original owner (several police officers are killed with their own weapon).

Also a civilian is under no obligation to announce or inform. If you think someone is going to yell "I am a black belt" "I have a gun" etc. then you are watching too many movies.

 

WAY too much focus on why it started instead of what happened.

If Martin was shot while on top of Zman he is not the assailant, NOT the victim.

 

As soon as Martin confronted him aggressively Zman should've identified himself as a neighborhood watchman. If Martin then started to fight with him then Zman should've positioned himself so he was between Martin and his gun to both assert control of the situation and try to possibly diffuse it by simply stating to keep back and that he was armed. I don't know if he had a holster or was just tucking it in a pocket/waistband. Only then would he draw down on Martin if he was truly felt he was a threat to him.

 

Hindsight is 20/20 in this situation, but if Zman was carrying a gun and using the SYG law as a defense reason then I would expect him to have taken self defense and firearm training classes to know how to handle a situation like this. Especially since he seems to have taken the neighborhood watch seriously in his area. Which is a good thing, don't get me wrong. But Zman comes off more on the side of vigilante than wanna-be cop based on how he handled the situation.

 

Too much focus on why it started? Zman was the reason why it started/escalated. Martin had every right to be where he was just as much as Zman did. But Zmans actions put into motion how the altercation played out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As best I can tell, both men contributed to the incident. If Zimmerman were dead, then TM would likely be on trial. Whether you believe he'd be more likely to be found guilty of murder probably depends on your political views.

 

Zimmerman will at most be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter.

 

My guess is he'll walk. Rightfully, so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you get it and for the resident dolt you quoted (respect for the dead)...... unless someone is claiming Zmans injuries are self inflicted I see an assailant / aggressor shot and killed for HIS assault on an armed man.

No, I do not feel sorry for the deceased in this instance. The kid made some bad life decisions in the past and this one ended up resulting in his death. All I see is the same liberal dumb-ass people trying to make it a racial event and most libs are buying into it hook line and sinker but that is par for race baiting, if its legit or not. The kicker is Martin himself made the comment as testified to by the star wittiness calling Zman “He looked like a creepy ass cracker.”

 

If your going to speak of me, then have the balls to do so where you can see my reply. Otherwise you're just a standard chickenshit, bush league internet warrior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you're

It's a miracle!! Now both of you watch the personal attacks or I'll go and piss off Fired and close another thread!! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let's start with what cal50 said:

 

He did not say Martin was a crook, but rather, if Zimmerman thought Martin was a crook.....and it is up to Zimmerman to determine what he thought Martin did that made him suspicious.

 

Obviously, Zimmerman suspected Martin was out-of-the-norm for the community. Part of the program was for watch members to become familiar with the residents in the area. Time of day, behavior (looking over their shoulders, hiding in shadows, covering ones head with a hoodie when rain and wind were not a factor.......) are possible flags.

 

As to Zimmerman not following the program, where is there any statement that each watch member gives up their personal rights? They were guidelines, written in generalizations to minimize conflicts where some could try to assert too much power by assuming they were empowered as the police. But, nowhere did I see anything stating Zimmerman was banned by law from doing anything he did. Or banned from carrying his weapon as local law allows. It was just not recommended and I'll go so far as to say it was discouraged. But, never banned. And therefore, Zimmerman was within his rights to do everything he did, with the possible exception of firing his weapon. And that determination will be decided by the jury.

 

The prosecution is trying to paint Martin as this innocent young man who only wanted to drink his tea and eat Skittles. Can you accept the fact that such an innocent, peace loving, lawful young man could possibly not have answered Zimmerman with straight answers that were sensible and reasonable and could never have resulted in violence? Are you so ready to convict Zimmerman that reasonable doubt is not possible?

 

I have a hard time believing Zimmerman did more than ask a stranger why he was in the area and Martin answers were not conversationally adequate to be satisfying to Zimmerman. If Trayvon was living with his dad in the community, I'd expect a reasonable and peaceful young man would have stated where he was staying and who, to the satisfaction of a member of the Neighborhood Watch who is supposedly cognizant of the local residents. I may not be stating this clearly, but what attitudes were involved in the meeting that escalated the event to the level of physical violence? Perhaps there were TWO hotheads playing oneupsmanship.

 

I just can't imagine it otherwise. Perhaps the jury can find the truth. Or find Zimmerman innocent if they cannot find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

What the prosecution is doing, the defense is doing and whatever the families of both Martin and Zimmerman are also doing has little bearing on what happened. They are all trying to win a case and get what they feel is justice. All sides will attempt to color the debate. Zimmerman and Martin both have a past that is not good. Since we are discussing the interaction of two flawed characters, I think we can stop discussing both of their prejudiced comments and discuss the concept of what should be OK within our society. Trayvon Martin is not a perfect human being without anti-authority and likely racial issues and George Zimmerman is also not a perfect human being without a history of being overzealous and likely racial issues as well.

 

My problem with Cal50's take on the situation is that he and others here are fighting a proxy battle. Look at his comments and you will continue to see him attacking a wider issue than whether or not Zimmerman is guilty. It's about race and the racial overtones in this case rather than the death of a young man, who was not a crook, was not doing anything wrong and will never get a chance to overcome his bad choices. Lets not forget that Zimmerman was arrested and charged in the past of resisting arrest with violence and battery of a law enforcement officer. The charges were reduced and later dropped after he entered a alcohol treatment program. And Cal50 even says that he doesn't feel sorry for the kid. However he's more than content to defend a man who once was physical with actual law enforcement, made stupid racist comments and was not shot while committing a crime. It's not about a young man dying and who's to blame, it's about his feelings and race.

 

I think you get it and for the resident dolt you quoted (respect for the dead)...... unless someone is claiming Zmans injuries are self inflicted I see an assailant / aggressor shot and killed for HIS assault on an armed man.

No, I do not feel sorry for the deceased in this instance. The kid made some bad life decisions in the past and this one ended up resulting in his death. All I see is the same liberal dumb-ass people trying to make it a racial event and most libs are buying into it hook line and sinker but that is par for race baiting, if its legit or not. The kicker is Martin himself made the comment as testified to by the star wittiness calling Zman “He looked like a creepy ass cracker.”

 

She (witness) does not consider that a racial slur ( from Martin)

(WOW)

I can clearly see who has a racial bias but everyone knows ONLY white people are racist.

 

He doesn't feel bad that another human died because that human made bad choices as a child?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a miracle!! Now both of you watch the personal attacks or I'll go and piss off Fired and close another thread!! :)

 

LMAO!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a miracle!! Now both of you watch the personal attacks or I'll go and piss off Fired and close another thread!! :)

 

 

LMAO!

Why do I feel the only one to experience the wrath of Nick will not be one of the offenders.

 

If you think it is me, your right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why do I feel the only one to experience the wrath of Nick will not be one of the offenders.

 

If you think it is me, your right.

Chillax! It's Friday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I haven't changed my opinion of the man since I heard the story. Certainly, the "Stand Your Ground" defense is out the door now.

 

Gary

 

The defense long ago said that Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law did not apply to this case, and they did not plan to invoke it.

 

Reputable legal analysts, as opposed to pundits with an axe to grind, had been saying this almost from day one. It has long been clear that this case will be determined by the standard rules covering the right to self-defense.

 

Various blogs that are closely following the trial are providing some interesting coverage. The testimony isn't really unfavorable to Zimmerman, and his defense team is effectively hurting the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. The testimony of Martin's "girlfriend," in particular, is a joke.

Edited by grbeck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Soon as he left his vehicle he lost his ability to claim stand your ground. Sorry, but that changed to Martins right as soon as he felt he was being followed by Zimmerman.

 

Zimmerman thought he was doing something right based on his previous experience with neighborhood robberies and such. And he was legally allowed to own and operate the firearm. But if you read the neighborhood watch pamphlet/rules put out by his local PD, that he was an official part of, it clearly states you are not to pursue or interact with possible crimes in progress. Just report them to police.

 

Was he probably frustrated from the police response time in prior instances thus leading him to leave his car (albiet briefly) to try and follow Martin? Yea. I would be too. But whatever he did put himself on Martins radar and made him act defensive. Except Zimmerman knew the stand your ground law and had a gun. We don't know if Martin knew that but seeing as he wasn't from there it's probably leaning in his favor he wasn't aware. So when Martin saw the gun he probably thought it was going to be him or me. And you'd probably do the same thing he did to possibly eliminate that threat.

 

If anything Zimmerman should've announced that he was armed to Martin upon first encountering him at close range (if Martin was the acting aggressor) and then drawn his gun if he felt further threatened. But as anyone who's taken a firearms course knows you don't point it at anything you don't intend to shoot so he could've kept it pointed at the ground. Thus making any threatening action made by Martin a reason to exercise Zimmermans stand your ground right.

 

One, the defense long ago said it will not invoke the "Stand Your Ground" statute, and reputable legal analysts have agreed almost from day one that it it did not apply in this case. The people eager to apply the "Stand Your Ground" statute to this case were people critical of it, not Zimmerman's defense team.

 

Two, merely being "followed" by someone does not give you the right to turn around and punch him or her under the regular statute covering the right of self-defense. Nor is tracking someone as part of a neighborhood watch association an act of aggression. If it is, I guess we need to immediately disband all neighborhood watch groups.

 

Three, failure to heed the advice of a 911 dispatcher to stop tailing someone is not a felony in Florida or anywhere else (although it could used as evidence in a civil trial).

 

Four, there is no evidence that Zimmerman continued to follow Martin after being told by the 911 dispatcher to stop the pursuit. If anything, the evidence on the tape shows that Zimmerman did stop pursuing him, given that his breathing then becomes slower, and the sound of rushing wind stops.

 

Five, if Martin's backers want to invoke HIS right to self-defense to show Zimmerman as the aggressor, under the virtually every self-defense statute I've seen, a person can only resort to it if he or she is trapped with no means of escape (remember, the "Stand Your Ground" law does not apply in this case). So we're asked to believe that a healthy, 17-year-old male who is over six feet tall can't outrun a man almost 10 years his senior who is not in particularly great shape? That certainly makes sense.

 

Six, anyone who has taken a self-defense course knows that, if you draw your gun, you shot to kill, not at the ground. You never give the other person an opportunity to draw his or her gun and shoot you first, which could be what happens while you're shooting at the ground.

 

Seven, Zimmerman's injuries are consistent with his version of the events. (Remember how Zimmerman's detractors tried to show an unenhanced ABC News tape of him at the police station that supposedly "proved" he did not have head injuries, and therefore his story was discredited? Now it turns out that he DID have those injuries, as shown by police photographs. Can't have it both ways here.) And, contrary to what Martin's funeral director had said soon after the shooting, Martin's hands DID show signs of him having hit someone.

 

Eight, there are witness, such as this one, who support Zimmerman's version of the events, and are thus planting the "reasonable doubt" necessary for an acquittal, if the jury actually does its job:

 

"A former neighbor of George Zimmerman testified he saw two men in a "tussle" outside his home the night of Feb. 26, 2012, and said he now believes the person on top in the altercation - which would moments later turn fatal - was Trayvon Martin. In key testimony, he also said he believes George Zimmerman was the person yelling for help."

Edited by grbeck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There should be an investigation of the high school where she is a "SENIOR".

I am certain federal education dollars have been misused and social "graduation" has been common in order to avoid holding back those who were unable to learn.

I wonder who signed off on her graduation testing and conspired to hand her a diploma she couldn't read ( cursive and old english fonts).

 

 

She will "graduate" and can not read or write and is clueless on racial language references, use or meaning.

Simply amazing in this day & age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's just too bad that a doughboy who makes racial comments on the internet, and most likely can't fight a lick, with a history of violent episodes was allowed to have a concealed weapons permit in the first place. But's that's the legal system in America, where having money or a judge father certainly helps you get out shit and then enables you to play out your overly aggressive cop fantasy's in the future. Much to the dismay of one young man's family.

 

The best part is that Trayvon Martin, to be alive today had to do what would only make him look more like a criminal in Zimmerman's eyes, runaway from him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×