General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDuring the Zimmerman trial, we have had DUers argue for his acquittal, which, of course, happened...
Some argued that his acquittal was going to happen because the prosecution was bungling the case, or that the Florida laws were tilted towards Zimmerman's way, or even that the justice system in that part of Central Florida itself was never going to field a jury that would convict some non-black person of killing any black person.
Now, if those arguments were tempered with a caveat that he SHOULD have been convicted of killing an innocent kid, I wouldn't have had any qualms with that line of argument at all.
But we have had people state that he should have been acquitted because they believed him to be not guilty of the charges. In that Travon Martin did something that warranted his own killing.
It's those people that I ask now; Do you still think that George Zimmerman deserved to be acquitted in the shooting death of Travon Martin?
Even today?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Decaffeinated
(556 posts)
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)And he's still the same dangerous scumbag today.
So, not much.
FourScore
(9,704 posts)I remember when he was acquitted, my good friends and family - some of them die-hard liberals - thought the acquittal was correct. I was depressed for days by both the result of the trial and by my loved ones reactions. I remember telling some of them, Zimmerman is a thug and a dangerous man. He will land in prison eventually. I only hope no one else has to die. But mark my words, you will see more thuggery from this moron. I told them, when that day came, I hoped they would re-evaluate their position on the outcome of the trial.
One person said it so articulately here on DU. I paraphrase, but they pointed out that so far Zimmerman has been attacked by 3 women, one 70-year old man, and a teenager walking home with some candy and a soft drink.
In each case he claimed he was only defending himself. In each case he caused broken property (or death) and he was wielding a gun. He has been pulled over twice for excessive speeding, also with a gun. He still hasn't paid his attorneys despite receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations to his legal fund.
The man is a ticking time bomb. He should have been put in jail for murdering that boy. I'm still so angry about that.
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)Thanks!
tblue
(16,350 posts)that he attacks only women, the elderly, and an unarmed child. His 911 call yesterday was very telling. He is a serial liar, as well as a manifest bully with no self-control. It fries me when I think of the witnesses in the Trayvon trial saying GZ is this sweet gentle blob who literally could not hurt a baby. That's perjury.
Stardust
(3,894 posts)
Cha
(297,187 posts)thank you.
yardwork
(61,599 posts)During the trial and the months leading up to the trial, we didn't know that much about George Zimmerman or Trayvon Martin. Some people seemed to see the case as a "he said/he said" situation and some Zimmerman supporters seemed to be giving him the benefit of the doubt.
I think that the OP is asking if Zimmerman supporters are still inclined to give George Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt.
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)Perhaps I was a bit too verbose in the delivery.
But you hit it right on the button.
Thanks.
avebury
(10,952 posts)trial, there was all sorts of stuff that came out about Zimmerman's various prior run ins with the law (i.e. prior girlfriend filing for restraining order against him, GZ being required to take an anger management course following his assault of a cop who tried to arrest his friend, and so on). In addition, he had had a bad fight with his wife the night of the shooting which most certainly should have been allowed to be introduced in court as that had total relevance to his state of mind that night. Treyvon Martin was a victim of a police force that did not want to take the case seriously and do their job from the moment the incident occurred and Prosecutors who most certainly could have done a better job.
With his college courses, friendships with cops, family background, and so on, there is no doubt what so ever that GZ knows how to game the system. This was clearly evidenced by the 911 call he placed yesterday which only served to allow him to try to change the narrative of the events and, once again, try to portray him as the victim. He kjnew that the police would immediately release the 911 tapes and his call was nothing more then a PR move on his part.
It is not a matter of if but of when GZ's luck will finally run out, hopefully at his own expense and not someone else's.
Orrex
(63,208 posts)I'm not trying to zing you, by the way. I'm in the "he's obviously guilty" camp and remain disgusted by the verdict, but I didn't understand your point about his college courses.
Thanks!
avebury
(10,952 posts)instructors testified during the trial that they extensively covered the issue of stand your ground law in class and that Zimmerman was a good student. Anybody studying criminal justice would have a pretty good undestanding how to frame things to achieve his desired goal (i.e. self defense in the TM case). Just look at all of his conversations/interviews that he has given during and after the trial. He is clearly pretty good at crafting his statements because he knows what the elements are to various different types of criminal charges and defenses. If you had paid attention to the trial you would have been aware of the instructor's testimony.
Orrex
(63,208 posts)Good analysis. 
I saw very little of the trial while it was ongoing, though I read about it daily. Didn't catch the instructor's testimony in that regard.
avebury
(10,952 posts)credibility because it proved 100% that he will tell a bold face lie. He stated in a nationally televised interview that he didn't know anything about stand your ground law. Once you figure out that he is not a credible witness, in my mind, you should totally throw out his story.
I was really frustrated by the poor quality of the jury panal. I really think that the woman whose husband was an attorney (and initially seemed to have a really fast book deal) exerted influence and control on the jury to achieve the not guilty verdict. The other women just weren't intelligent enough to thoroughly analyze everthing. I would have been - Wait a minute. In phone call X, GZ said Y, but consider this and then just picked apart what he said for its inconsistencies and holes in logic. While he never got on the stand, he did testify in the form of the interviews and phone calls with the 99 operator. I am a very analtical thinker and love putting puzzes together so, as I listened to the trial I was consistently putting pieces together from different testimony and evidence and could see that, for example A, B C just did not jive with D, E & F. One extremely analytical person on the jury could have sat there and knit the pieces together to justify a guildty verdict.
yardwork
(61,599 posts)One big mistake the prosecution made was to accept Zimmerman's narrative for what happened. There is reason to believe that Trayvon never put a hand on Zimmerman. In fact, some DUers who seem to know quite a bit about firearms posted some scenarios where Zimmerman could have simply run up to Trayvon and shot him in cold blood. The prosecution, however, accepted Zimmerman's story that Trayvon attacked him. I doubt that happened.
avebury
(10,952 posts)torn apart GZ's story and credibility.
yardwork
(61,599 posts)The OP is asking DUers who supported Zimmerman if they have changed their minds.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)He was a murderer then and he is a murderer now, his supporters were racist scum then and they are racist scum now.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Should have been obvious to the jury, and his supporters -- apparently you still don't get it.
No surprise, gun cultists tend to stick together on this kind of crud.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)open their eyes.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Now we see that he is indeed a troublemaker. Couldn't figure that out before, in spite of his history.
Cha
(297,187 posts)parents and loved ones feel about this latest george zimmerman assault. 
kiawah
(64 posts)
Rex
(65,616 posts)Did you not notice or just ignoring recent events?
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)Martin still has plenty of time to get home, but didn't.
Zimmerman still had no possible way to catch Martin
Zimmerman still had an injured nose and cuts to the back of his head
witnesses still placed Martin on top of Zimmerman
All of which says to me "self defense".
Since he was acquitted though, his life has fallen apart, much to the satisfaction of those who hate him.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)remove all doubt as to the fact that he's a manipulative psychopath.
yardwork
(61,599 posts)those who gave Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt to weigh in.
There weren't that many DUers who openly defended Zimmerman. I remember them and share the OP's curiosity.
JustAnotherGen
(31,818 posts)And it's easy enough to find them. If we go back to General Discussion - they were the 'two' who completely 'drove' and 'controlled' their 'daily Zimmerman Trial' threads in GD.
One in particular I'm waiting for . . . 
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)Who knows? They may show.
JustAnotherGen
(31,818 posts) emoticon is because well . . .
He's going to be just 'brilliant' in his defense of Zimmie on this one.
Well the fetus must have done SOMETHING wrong to him or he wouldn't have . . .
Whether she was pregnant/is pregnant or not - there's going to be some kind of over the top justification for why Zimpig is just this poor widdle defwenseless boy in need of a big bad gun.
ETA: Perhaps the one you are looking for . .. he hasn't been on since Saturday. Maybe he's talking with his old law enforcement investigation buddies and getting the big inside scoop which makes him all knowing and all powerful about criminal rights.
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)And, of course, is still backing Z to the hilt.
These are all great posts to refer to whenever Zimmerman gets his eventual comeuppance.
JustAnotherGen
(31,818 posts)I mean him . . . I'm not sure. . .
Avatar is a hero of mine / and I collect her image . . . woman I met when I was a little girl. She would never ever have defended Zimpig. Child of war who knew hunger, cold, poverty - she never ever would have defended Zimpig. No way.
Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)That said, maybe the prosecution shouldn't have made the deal excluding the character and history of both participants from jury.
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)Do you still believe Zimmerman's story, or disbelieve it and do you think the justice system should have put him behind bars?
Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)Nor did I believe the prosecutions account - fully
I know it's sad and f'd up but the criminal justice system worked.
Their is no question Z is a POS. But nothing I saw in the trial told me he should be convicted and I knew (or was very sure) from day 1 he would acquitted.
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)You DON'T think that he had any culpability in the Martin's death and that he should have paid the price for that?
Just tell me if you think that Zimmerman was right or wrong for killing Martin. I'd like to get your view on that.
Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)The stick in this case has always been that z was only charged with murder and no other crime. Therefore everything rested on that charge alone. Had he a gun charge or something that would have resulted in jail time, a lot of people could have felt some justice was metered.
That said, I think it's quite telling that neither the Feds nor the Martin family ever pursued z in civil court.
I have posted countless times in my defense of the verdict, etc. that this boy did not deserve to die for whatever happened that night. However, That doesn't change how I feel about self-defense and the like.
This was a situation where both parties acted wrongly, one party had a gun and one party is dead.
It was an avoidable tragedy no matter where you come down on the guilt or innocence.
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)So, you are blaming Martin for his own death.
Thanks for elaborating on that.
Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)But not surprised in the least that's all you came away with
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)Who did absolutely nothing to warrant Zimmerman stalking, attacking and killing him.
Quite simply, if Martin was left to walk home unmolested by Zimmerman, no harm would have come to him.
On the other hand, Zimmerman has demonstrated a distinct propensity towards both violent behavior and outright deception, as well as demonstrating deft at manipulating law enforcement and the criminal justice system to his advantage. He also has enablers in all the right places.
I have serious qualms for anyone giving this dangerous person any benefit of the doubt at this stage in the game.
Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)But,
"59. That's because my POV is predicated on the firm belief that Martin was an innocent victim..."
That statement is both plainly obvious and pre-requisite for your POV. However, it's a subjective and speculative statement.
- Why are we to believe Martin was going home. The facts of the case do not support that intention.
- benefit of doubt is exactly what our criminal justice system affords the accused. For everyone. Assholes included.
Again. In hindsight the prosecution should have rolled the dice on letting both characters' history be introduced to the jury. Whatever in Martin's past could her been dredged never would have been deserving of death. And the jury could have seen wholly who they were about to acquit.
Of course that said , their has been a lot of rumors about z's mentoring of two young African American kids (brothers I think). Though I've never seen proof of it, perhaps that's why the prosecution made the decision they did.
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)As well as your willingness to offhandedly smear the dead victim here.
But let's take a look at your own subjectiveness here:
I guess that Martin really doesn't deserve any defference in your behalf. After all Zimmerman couldn't have possibly profiled Martin with walking while black. That accusation is beyond the pale, so to say.
And also we must only refer to the evidence, or the lack thereof, to qualify Zimmerman as to whether or not he's demonstrated any propensity towards violent behavior and manipulation. Any other example of this simply doesn't exist. Thus, given his mentoring of two disadvantaged black youth, we must conclude that Zimmerman couldn't have possibly been an armed and dangerous predator who stalked, attacked and killed an innocent child.
I say, you've certainly convinced me.
Bravo.
What strikes me about you is way that you admit that Zimmerman is a scumbag, but on the other hand, defend against any depiction of him as a dangerous scumbag who unjustly murdered an innocent child.
There must be something about Martin which inhibits you from showing any sympathy towards his victimhood. But I'm having a hard time putting a finger on it right now.
So, I'll just take your admonishment towards me speculating on things under advisement and leave it at that.
Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)And posted that statement many times. I just called out the speculation with respect to the suppositions of his actions.
I have not defended z. I have ardently defended equal protection under the law.
Of course you've responded to little if any of my points and have now turned to attacking me. Fine. Figures.
As to rest, come on, just call me a racist. You're yelling it your mind. Don't worry I won't alert. It's what people do when they argue the points without facts
You asked a question, legitimate at that in your op. I responded. You asked for elaboration. I responded. But you couldn't change my mind. So here we are.
I'm not trying to change your mind. I respect your feelings. I'm not even telling you you're wrong. So grant me the same respect and call me a racist if that's you all can grandeur.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)" just call me a racist. You're yelling it your mind. Don't worry I won't alert....
I imagine many people get frustrated when they are forced to construct their own martyrdom when others won't do it for them...
Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)
FourScore
(9,704 posts)
Little Star
(17,055 posts)given the jury.
Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)Murder 2 or man slaughter and only at the juncture before the jury was the given the case.
Nothing else.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)I guess you did, also?
Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts) FourScore
(9,704 posts)Besides, what happened to Martin's right to self defend? He was minding his own business when a thug with a gun stopped him and possibly accosted him first.
Since Martin is dead, we have no idea if Zimmerman's claims of self defense are even accurate. Obviously, recent events are showing us that Zimmerman frequently claims to be attacked first and that he is only defending himself. He definitely knows how to manipulate the system and the rhetoric.
However, recent events are showing us that Zimmerman most likely manufactured his claims of being attacked by Martin. Unless you want to believe Zimmerman when he claims (just since the trial ended) that 2 women and a 70-year old man have also attacked him, while their version of the events is quite different. They claim Zimmerman was out of control, threatening them with a gun and destroying property. The man has a history of violence and dishonesty.
I have no problem with self defense. I do have a problem when it is used to game the system, and the only one who should have been defending himself that tragic night was Trayvon Martin. Not the thug who chased him down for no reason with a gun.
so it is a legitimate question to ask: Have these events altered your view? Apparently not.
Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)Except,
"He was minding his own business when a thug with a gun stopped him and possibly accosted him first." - unknown
"Not the thug who chased him down for no reason with a gun." - unknown
"so it is a legitimate question to ask: Have these events altered your view? Apparently not."
The recent events are post script to the trial. So my feelings on the verdict remain unchanged. As my opinion of z. They too remain unchanged: he's obviously a guy who's never had his ass kicked before and it's quite obvious he would never have left his vehicle without being armed. I said that before, during and since the trial. Is he a POS? Sure seems like it. Again, an unchanged opinion.
The prosecution should have not made the deal keeping his past from the jury. Just one in a series of mistakes in an un-winnable trial.
erpowers
(9,350 posts)When Zimmerman first spotted Trayvon Martin he was minding his own business. At the most, one can believe Zimmerman when he said Martin appeared to be looking around and looking into the houses. Even in that case, Zimmerman should have left Martin alone. The Neighborhood Watch rules tell Neighborhood Watch people to avoid confrontations and call the police. All Zimmerman needed to do was stay in his car, call the police, and let them sort out the situation. However, Zimmerman left his car and pursued Martin.
Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)He was either minding his business or he was casing houses according to your account of Z's account.
My point is: it's unknown
erpowers
(9,350 posts)Zimmerman claimed Martin was looking around and looking inside houses. It is very possible that Zimmerman was not telling the truth about Martin and Martin was just walking home. Either way Zimmerman should have left him alone.
Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)Unknown. We have Z's account and we have Rachel's. The two are pretty far apart from one another. Somewhere is the truth.
What we know for sure is z would have never left his vehicle without his gun.
And what we don't know for sure is of Trayvon was indeed going home at that point in time. Nothing suggests it.
Their are a lot, lot of unknowns in this case. We can infer all we want. The jury could not (nearly not).
erpowers
(9,350 posts)I think the Stand Your Ground law played a role in the fact that neither the federal government nor the Martin family sued in civil court. In the case of the Martin family, as a result of the Stand Your Ground law, if they would have lost in civil court they could have been forced to pay for Zimmerman's legal fees. I do not think the family wanted to take a chance at having to pay the legal fees of the man who killed their child. As far as the federal government goes, I think they thought it would be hard to get a favorable verdict due to Stand Your Ground and the fact that Trayvon Martin would not be able testify against George Zimmerman's story.
I think what the original poster might be getting at is that the chance that Zimmerman lied May have increased. I think the OP wants to know if you are still willing to believe Zimmerman's story. A number of people who wanted guilty verdicts did not believe Zimmerman's story that he was just minding his own business when Trayvon Martin walked up to him and attacked him even though he tried to prevent the confrontation and as a result he was forced to kill Martin.
I think some of the opponents of George Zimmerman see shades of the Trayvon Martin case in the last two confrontations Zimmerman has had with other people. According to Zimmerman, in each case he was just minding his business and trying to go about his life when someone, out of the blue, just started attacking him, or "going crazy" and he just tried to defend himself. I think that meme sounds familiar for some at DU.
Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)With respect to SYG. that's totally plausible. I really have no idea. However, the Feds were investigating whether to not Trayvon's civil rights were violated. They deemed them not to be as I understand it.
And I agree with you with respect to the OP. I just haven't changed my opinion.
Thanks for the thoughtful response 
yardwork
(61,599 posts)Everybody has an opinion. Mine is that Trayvon was walking home minding his own business at 7 pm on a Sunday evening and a psychopath chased him down and shot him dead.
Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)Whether or not you believe it to be evidence is up to you. That's fine.
What happened was a group of people couldn't come to the same conclusion as you beyond a reasonable doubt based on the rules and procedures. Me neither.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Instead of being shamed into it by the national media...
And maybe the prosecution should have been more interested in fighting for justice instead of protecting their police cronies...
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)I could see how the jury would acquit him. There decision was not a shock to me. Justice is not always served in our legal system and people like zimmy are given the opportunity to vigorously defend themselves. His team did exactly what was needed for their client. Trayvon did nothing wrong. Zimmerman is a murderer. Not all murderers go to jail.
Aristus
(66,328 posts)the benefit.
He's a lying, murderous psychopath who slaughtered an unarmed young man. Which is precisely why he was made the poster boy for the gun-crazed assholes of this country.
Lock him up and lose the key. Put him in general population, and look the other way.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)I understood the acquittal and even accepted that it was not entirely a matter of an intrinsically racist system (that is, the way the case played out in the courtroom made it difficult if not impossible for the jury to convict). But "legal" and "just" are often very different things. This is such a case IMO. For me, the deciding factor was that Zimmerman continued to pursue Martin after being told by the dispatcher that it was unnecessary for him to do so. At that point Zimmerman should have withdrawn from the situation and let the police deal with it.
To me, that makes Zimmerman responsible for what happened. He initiated the confrontation. He sustained the confrontation past the point where he could have been reasonably expected to remove himself. If Martin was the one who actually imitated the physical conflict, that changes nothing (Martin had reasonable grounds to believe he was in danger, and thus had every right to fight for his safety). Martin's death was Zimmerman's fault, period.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)no question, Zimmy was responsible. And it is apparently haunting him too, judging by the most recent incident.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)Zimmerman did not continue to pursue after the dispatcher said it was unnecessary. The 911 call he placed confirms this. After the dispatcher said this, you hear his breathing slow down as he stops running. He then continues to talk to the dispatcher for another 2 minutes, giving the dispatcher his location so he can meet with the police.
At this point, Martin was only a short distance from his residence, and 2 minutes was about 4 times the time necessary for somebody his age who is running to make it there. He clearly doubled back at some point to confront Zimmerman, based on where the confrontation ended up taking place (near where Zimmerman told the dispatcher he was, not nearer to Martins residence).
The media did a horrible job in covering this case, and the fact that people STILL believe Zimmerman continued pursuit after being told this by the dispatcher in spite of the recording being widely available just blows my mind. I mean we haven't even talked about the eye witness accounts that placed Martin on top of Zimmerman.
I'm not saying Zimmerman is a good guy, but based on the evidence I don't believe his case warranted a murder conviction. Nothing that has happened with him since has changed the evidence of that case.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Maybe he was disoriented from the fear of some whack job with a gun stalking him.
Maybe he was mad at some whack job with a gun stalking him like an animal.
Don't know, but I do know that Zman grabbed his gun -- which emboldened him -- took off after an unarmed teenager because he was Black, and ended up shooting him in the heart.
Zman could have stopped/de-escalated it at any time -- right up until he pulled the trigger -- but didn't.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)That is information of which I was unaware (I sort of tuned out the case at some point, really...). I appreciate the info.
kcr
(15,315 posts)None of that info is factual.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)...available. As are maps of the location of the shooting and Martins residence.
kcr
(15,315 posts)IF he'd followed the directions of the dispatcher, he would have waited at his car. The double back theory is baseless speculation by right wing Zimmerman defenders.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)...to pursue. You can hear this clearly in the recording. You can also hear him stopping. I've posted the recording in another post. You are more than welcome to listen.
kcr
(15,315 posts)Or this wouldn't have happened
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)He stopped chasing him after the dispatcher said it was unnecessary, and then conversed with the dispatcher for a short time, giving him his location so the police would know where to meet with him.
I never once claimed he returned all the way to his car.
kcr
(15,315 posts)He told them to have the police call him. He didn't want to stay put!
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)Yet the location of the shooting is still much closer to where he entered the back path than it is to Martins home.
kcr
(15,315 posts)In fact, it makes no sense he would do that. Why would someone try to get away, only to return and attack? When people defend themselves, they generally do so right away. They don't' try to run away, and then halfway through running away trying to escape, think, "Wait a minute!" turn around and go back and attack. That doesn't happen.
kcr
(15,315 posts)It just blows your little mind, huh? Why, oh WHY won't they believe in bunk like 'Martin clearly double backed'? It's so frustrating to be a Zimmerman supporter, isn't it? The fact people keep attacking him and forcing him to defend himself, and everyone keeps thinking that's evidence must be burning your buns.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)And a lot of people went around on TV talking over and over again this one incorrect fact; That Zimmerman continued his pursuit after the dispatcher told him it was unnecessary.
This sort of thing happens all the time. Like I said, listen to the recording yourself.
I think part of the problem is a lot of the videos of the call stop right after the dispatcher. Even this video stops a little before the actual end of the call, but its enough to where you can hear the difference between Zimmerman running and then stopping.
And here's a graphic showing all the points of interest in the event.
kcr
(15,315 posts)Why didn't they put an arrow pointing to the pond? That would have balanced it out. And would have been just as relevant as the all the other arrows (Seriously, we needed arrows pointing to both front and back entrances why, exactly?) Because none of that proves Martin double backed. This would only work in world where persuits happen only in straight lines!
I remember when someone I didn't know was stalking me in my neighborhood one night. I was driving home one night and suddenly out of the blue I noticed someone was following me. I had no idea why. This happened in a car, but the same principle applies, I think. I started driving in circles looping around everywhere. What I didn't do was go straight to my house. Because I didn't want the creepo following me to know where I lived. At some point I imagined we ended up near where the person started following because we went all over the place. This was back before cellphones, so I had no way of calling anyone. At any rate, none of this means what you and other Zimmy defenders claim it does.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)Of course, you'd know that had you bothered to listen to the tape. 
kcr
(15,315 posts)or you'd realize I don't give a shit, because it's not evidence of what you claim it is 
Or rather, it's irrelevent. Look at all the arrows of evidenve based on what Zimmerman says! Welll, whoop dee do! Evidence of a sociopath who beats up on people and threatens them with guns! He's still doing it! To this day!
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)But ignoring evidence, especially in a murder case, is not exactly what I would call a virtue. Good day. 
Ignoring the evidence from the lying, abusive scumbag. How nutty to ignore evidence like that? Really, how ridiculous. Right?
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)kcr
(15,315 posts)
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)If Zman had stayed in his car, this would not have happened.
If Zman "suspicion" had not been piqued by the sight of an unarmed Black kid, this would not have happened.
If Zman, in control of the situation with his gun, had tried to de-escalate it at some point, Martin would still be alive.
Maybe if Zman wasn't mad at his wife, and hadn't grabbed his gun to accost an unarmed kid, this wouldn't have happened.
Maybe if the judge had given proper instructions to the jury, he would have been convicted of at least manslaughter.
If the jury did what is right, this latest incident would not have happened.
csziggy
(34,136 posts)In fact, the timing fits perfectly with the possibility that Martin was heading straight home and that Zimmerman went to the back entrance in an effort to cut the "suspect" off from leaving by the back entrance. If Zimmerman had walked or driven by road towards the back entrance, Martin could have seen him at the end of the sidewalk. Martin told Rachel that he was almost home when he saw the "creepy cracker" again. If Martin then turned and went back down the sidewalk, Zimmerman could have gone back around and accosted him at the "T" where it's pretty obvious that any confrontation began.
Believing that Zimmerman just was standing around doing nothing in the 2 minutes after the dispatcher told him not to follow is ridiculous - the dispatcher told him "We don't need you to do that." 15 seconds after we hear the car door close. Zimmerman could not have gone very far in that 15 seconds. He had 2 minutes to return to his car and wait for the cops. That passiveness does not fit his personality and it does not fit with what we know happened, by the location of Martin's body and by the witness testimony.
My problem with the situation is that I believe that Zimmerman is a cold blooded liar. No witnesses saw enough to tell us accurately what happened. The only other person who could have told us is dead, by Zimmerman's hand.
Zimmerman will never be held accountable for Martin's death - the botched prosecution and incompetent jury saw to that. Someday Zimmerman will get what he deserves - he is incapable of staying out of trouble and eventually someone who is faster on the trigger will be involved. IMO.
Rex
(65,616 posts)The moment Zimmerman started a foot pursuit of Martin, his intentions were those of a man on a mission to kill someone. Sorry, but you cannot parse that one fact.
avebury
(10,952 posts)him when they arrived so that he could tell them where he was. Why would he have said that if he was staying put and waiting for the police to arrive? You do so because you are on the move and don't know where you will actually at a later point in time.
If Martin was on top of Zimmerman at the time of the fatal shot, why were there no spray of blood from the shot? Given the nature of gravity, there should have been some of TM's blood on GZ's clothing. If you try to claim the rain washed it away, blood stains are not that easy to get out of clothing.
A lot of the verdict was predicated upon people believing GZ whose story I always thought was pure BS. His behavior post trial tend to back up that assessment. In addition, his statement on a televised interview that he didn't know anything about stand your ground law was a bald face law that goes directly to he credibility.
The biggest problem with the prosecution was that they assumed that the jury could put 2 and 2 together when, in fact, the prosecutors need to spell everything out in plain english in grade school language. This was not the brightest group of people and I really think that the juror who came out right away (married to a lawyer) probably played a huge role in influencing the rest of the jurors.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,181 posts)First of all, you clearly discount the possibility that Trayvon hid out for a minute or two until he felt confident that he lost the strange man who was chasing him for no reason.
Secondly, let's not forget that the shooting occurred on the dog path in the back of the houses. So if in evading Zimmerman, Trayvon ran down the dog path, let's consider a few things. First, it was dark and rainy, with poor visibility. Moreover, it's a townhouse community, with the backs of the connected houses looking nearly identical to one another. Lastly, Trayvon was not a resident of the community, but a guest. He may not have been intimately familiar with the backs of the houses enough to identify which one is the house that he is staying at. There were no house numbers on the back of the house. The house numbers were all on the front of the houses. So wouldn't you agree that if Trayvon had actually been heading back up the dog path, it may have very well been because he wanted to get back over to Retreat View Circle so he could properly identify the house he was staying at?
Last and most importantly, why? Why would someone who was doing nothing wrong that night, and then found himself being followed and chased by a strange person for reasons unknown to him, who then ran away from his pursuer and manage to lose his pursuer, then suddenly change his mind and voluntarily double back and attack the man he worked so hard to escape? That makes zero sense. That's why I could not have voted to acquit Zimmerman, because that's the only story that placed him as a victim and it made no sense at all. It defied all logic. Wouldn't you agree?
Not to mention you make a big deal about supposedly how close Trayvon was to his house and the time that elapsed, but you completely gloss over how close Zimmerman claims he was to his car during that same amount of time, and what he was doing during that time? Or his dubious claim that he got out of the car only to identify the street he was on, despite the fact he had lived in the community for years, that the community only had 3 streets total, and he was the neighborhood watchman presumably familiar with his own neighborhood.
I'm calling total bullshit on your opinion here.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)The point is that there are far too many questions here for a murder conviction. You are correct that Martin could have gone into hiding, but then that begs the question as to why come out of hiding with Zimmerman still standing there? Zimmerman states on the 911 call that "he ran away," the implication being that he witnessed Martin fleeing the area. It is possible that Martin decided to hide, but even if that is the case, that isn't a cut and dry case then that Zimmerman confronted Martin with he intention of killing him in cold blood.
kcr
(15,315 posts)like, 'he must have doubled back', for example. Which then allowed for an innocent boy to be murdered in cold blood and allowed the killer to get away with it.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)You want to hold on to your conviction that he is a cold blooded murder, be my guest. But I'll be damned if I'll sit around and put up with your insulting tone one more second than I have to. Welcome to the ignore list.
kcr
(15,315 posts)But I think you knew that's what I was saying. But a Zimmerman defender and someone who can't tell the difference between calling an idea moronic and a person a moron putting me on ignore? Somehow I'll live.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,181 posts)Only First Degree Murder requires proof of intent to kill and premeditation.
George Zimmerman was never charged with first degree murder. Never.
Most people, myself included, don't believe that George Zimmerman got out of the car so that he could shoot and kill Trayvon Martin in cold blood. But he wasn't charged with 1st Degree murder, so that's pretty much irrelevant.
He was charged with 2nd Degree Murder, which only requires that he act with a conscious disregard for human life. And you have a guy who already knows police are on the way, and yet he gets out of the car. Armed. While cursing "these assholes, they always get away" and "fucking punks." (And it turns out he had just been a big fight with his wife.) So it could clearly be argued that George Zimmerman was not in the right state of mind that night, yet he consciously took actions which he knew could have deadly consequences. Mainly trying to play the police officer that he wasn't and attempting to detain Trayvon for the crime of "being up to no good."
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)I still think the fact that Zimmerman stopped his pursuit calls into serious question the idea that he was still trying to detain Martin at that point.
You're right that it could be argued that way, but I still don't feel the evidence is solid enough to go beyond a reasonable doubt.
csziggy
(34,136 posts)So how did Zimmerman end up 100 feet away from his car standing over Martin's dead body? 15 SECONDS after he closed his car door, the dispatcher told him he didn't need to follow. 2 minutes later he's 100 feet away from his car.
IMO his bullshit story about "looking for an address" is just that - bullshit. He KNEW he needed an excuse to explain why he was not safely in his car and did not want to admit what he was really doing - chasing down a kid who just wanted to get home.
Zimmerman never stopped his pursuit until Martin was dead.
FourScore
(9,704 posts)and possibly endangering the 12-year old boy at home as well.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)That was always the biggest question mark in my mind; who exactly initiated the confrontation. And it was never conclusively laid out one way or another.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)It was laid out clearly.
If Martin did stand his ground against the armed stalker/bully (which is questionable), I only wish he had knocked Zman out. Of course, the police probably would have shot Trayvon when they arrived, but at least he would have had a chance.
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)eqfan592
(5,963 posts)Which wouldn't make a lot of sense. Which video are you speaking of?
uponit7771
(90,335 posts)...said he ran after TM and then afterwards told the police he was only trying to see the house numbers that were all lit up.
Before Z got out of the car he followed T to multiple spots stopping on the way... riding besides TM at one time and never ID'ing himself.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Your premise is very weak, he did pursue with the intent to stop Martin. The dispatcher said he did not need to pursue, everything after that moment is on Zimmerman. No way you can parse that fact.
erpowers
(9,350 posts)Just because Zimmerman stopped running does not mean he stopped pursuing Trayvon Martin. You make the point that that Zimmerman talked with dispatcher for two minutes after he stopped running. Why was that not enough time for Zimmerman to return to his vehicle? Second, why did he pursue Martin in the first place? The Neighborhood Watch rules tell watchers to avoid confrontations and call the police. Zimmerman could have just stayed in his car and called the police. Third, why did Zimmerman fail to inform Trayvon Martin that he was a member of the local Neighborhood Watch team? As far as I know, Zimmerman had two or three opportunities to tell Martin he was a member of the Neighborhood Watch. During his police interview Zimmerman said the reason he did not tell Martin that he was a part of the Neighborhood Watch was that he was afraid of a confrontation with Martin. Does someone who is so afraid of a confrontation with someone that he fails to identify himself then get out of a vehicle and pursue that person?
As far as witness testimony goes, Zimmerman had days to convince people that Martin was on top of him. If Martin was on top of Zimmerman and Zimmerman's gun was where he claimed how was he able to get to his gun. How was Zimmerman able to reach behind his back and pull out his gun while at the same time trapping Martin's hand with the part of his arm between his elbow and his shoulder? Second, if his gun was behind his back how did Martin see the gun. Zimmerman claimed that he only reached for his gun after Martin reached for the gun.
In addition, if someone is being beaten and having their head smashed against concrete why would they wait for the other person to reach for their gun before shooting that person? I believe Zimmerman claimed Martin smashed his head against the concrete more than a dozen times and punched him in the face more than three dozen times. All before Zimmerman fired his weapon and all without Martin's hands being seriously damaged. In addition, I believe Zimmerman left the confrontation without a concussion. So, we are to believe that grown men wearing helmets can get concussions by simply being hit one time by other grown men (yes, 200-300 pound grown men, but once again the grown men are wearing helmets), but George Zimmerman can have his head smashed against concrete more than a dozen times and then be punched more than three dozen time and still walk away without a concussion.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Where to begin.
yardwork
(61,599 posts)
DiverDave
(4,886 posts)just asked a kid in the rain if he needed a ride home?.
I've thought of that often as I would have done that very thing (and have done it too)
But a scared little man with a gun decided that he was gonna 'make the neighborhood safe from "THEM" as they always get away with it.*His own words to the 911 op.
He got away with murder. and he is a hero to all the scared little men with guns all over America.
But just what if...
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)uponit7771
(90,335 posts)Soundman
(297 posts)Martin would have waved when Zimmerman drove by? And I also share your thought as well about Zimmerman. I feel like wtf have we as a society become? At any rate, I will wait until this shakes out and I learn more to form an opinion.
I still say that the evidence in the Martin case did not merit a conviction. I am on the record as saying the same, and I was correct.
I work in very dangerous environments all the time. I was the sound guy at the venue where Dime Bag Darrell was shot (it was the first national act after I quit). There had been at least 6 people shot at the venue on Saturdays when it was operated as studio 69. I was usually escorted by a police officer to my car at during studio 69 shows. I did two shows this past month at venues where there have been murders.
Here is what I have learned over the years, take it for what it's worth. Treat everyone with respect, acknowledge their existence if you make eye contact, and always, always remember, they may be a potential killer.
People seem to want to live in a fantasy world. I have seen people clock out for no reason what so ever. You can choose to live in the world that you "wish" existed at our own peril. Or you can choose to live in the world that does exist and conduct yourself accordingly.
csziggy
(34,136 posts)To Martin. "Excuse me, are you lost? I'm Neighborhood Watch, could I give you a hand?"
If Martin had been a thug, that would have scared him off any crime, having a man with a cell phone talk to him. And since Martin was not a thug, if Zimmerman had acted as a reasonable adult, it would have reassured Martin that Zimmerman was no threat, and Martin's response could have reassured Zimmerman that Martin was no threat.
The cop in charge of the investigation said the same - that Zimmerman had more than one opportunity to defuse the situation but instead escalated it until Martin was dead.
cheyanne
(733 posts)Also, the Justice Department has not brought charges because the facts do not warrant any.
So, you have a choice to consider him guilty of murder, but don't blame the justice system. The law was carefully followed.
The real culprits for what happened that night are the gun laws and neighborhood watch groups.
So the further course of Zimmerman's life will may change the way I think about him, but that doesn't affect the justice of the verdict.
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)In light of what we already know about the guy.
Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)to obtain the conviction.
JustAnotherGen
(31,818 posts)He's got the police and legal system in his back pocket.
That girl is going to go to jail for a long time when those people down in that town and Georgie are done with her.
cheyanne
(733 posts)but I think he was not guilty of murder that night.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Sorry, but the proof is not on your side.
Llewlladdwr
(2,165 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)pretend to speak for the criminal justice system. Thanks.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)And for that reason avoided those threads
But as for my conscious Should he be acquitted - Hell No
The painful truth is police and the NRA have perverted our laws allowing crap like this to happen - Legally
Tippy
(4,610 posts)eqfan592
(5,963 posts)The 911 recordings clearly demonstrate that Zimmerman halted his pursuit of Martin within seconds of being told by the dispatcher that following him wasn't necessary. They then spoke for nearly 2 minutes, Zimmerman giving the dispatcher his location so that he could meet with the police. In that time Martin had sufficient time to reach his place of residence several times over. Shortly after Zimmerman hangs up with the dispatcher Zimmerman and Martin get into their altercation, near the location Zimmerman gave police, NOT near Martins place of residence.
Given this, it seems clear that Martin backtracked in order to confront Zimmerman, and based on the eye witness reports, Martin ended up on top of Zimmerman.
These facts, in my view, generate enough reasonable doubt to find him not guilty of murder. I'm not saying I think Zimmerman is an upstanding citizen and the nicest guy in the world. From what seems to keep coming out on him, it would the opposite is true. But that doesn't change the evidence available in this case. People get far too emotional when looking at a situation like this and tend to lose their sense of objectivity, and that was readily apparent on this forum during and after the Zimmerman trial.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)obviously TM that came back for GZ, and that GZ pursued no further after the 911 operator said he shouldn't do so.
That, and the fact that it was TM that was assaulting GZ when TM was shot, are the main reasons I decided acquittal was appropriate.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)But if one looks at the case objectively, it seems apparent that the narrative constructed both here and elsewhere of Zimmerman chasing Martin down and shooting him just didn't fit with the evidence available.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)at first I did partially buy into what people here said about the case. But unfortunately many people here bought into the story as presented through the media by Trayvon Martin's team. That story was unfair to the defense since the defense's story wasn't properly presented.
In such a conflict, as between GZ and TM, both sides are probably doing something wrong and are most likely very imperfect people. GZ has proven that fact, though I suspect what he's gone through has made him a worse person.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)I've actually taken to trashing just about every Zimmerman thread on the forum as I see them, mainly because you can only put up with the same garbage so many times over.
Kaleva
(36,295 posts)in your first paragraph and I thus didn't think he'd be convicted. The prosecution might well have been able to convict him of a lesser crime such as involuntary manslaughter.
Gothmog
(145,168 posts)Manslaughter was a lesser included charge and was always on the table. My prosecutors overcharge and rely on the lesser included charge.
I thought that the case may have been overcharged but the jury had the option of finding Zimmie guilty of manslaughter.
Mr Dixon
(1,185 posts)I was always under the impression that the DA over charged the case, to ensure an acquittal but that is just my opinion.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)Last edited Thu Nov 21, 2013, 10:07 AM - Edit history (3)
During the trial I stated here on DU that I thought it was manslaughter. The evidence does indicate that it was TM that assaulted GZ, but I thought GZ had some (sufficient for conviction) culpability for the conflict. I thought a short prison sentence was appropriate.
After the trial, and after giving it some thought, I stated here on DU that acquittal was appropriate. The only evidence we have to go by, from the trial, was that it was most likely TM that brought violence to their encounter. GZ was doing nothing illegal. TM should have just gone home and ignored the asshole that was following him in the truck. GZ still was very near the location during the assault as he was while the 911 operator said not to follow. In the several minute time gap TM had plenty of time to go home. So we must assume that it was TM that came back to confront GZ. GZ's keys were on the ground from what was most likely a surprise assault. It's a proven fact that TM was assaulting GZ when TM got shot.
GZ thought TM was suspicious. We have no way of knowing exactly why. In the course of our lives we encounter various troublesome people, but that in no way gives us a right to assault them. Whoever brings violence to an encounter is responsible for what happens next. GZ had a right to assume that he was facing an attempted murder against him. Self defense is justified.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,181 posts)Why would someone who was being chased by a strange person for no apparent reason, who loses that person, then voluntarily double back and attack that person that he had worked so hard to escape?
Tell me in what world does that make any sense?
And the only "evidence" that supports the theory that Trayvon ambushed Zimmerman was Zimmerman's own self-serving statements. That's it. No one actually witnessed Trayvon attacking Zimmerman.
Now we did have a earwitness who testified to the contrary, that it was Zimmerman who came upon Trayvon and demanded to know his business, and that a physical confrontation followed thereafter. Her name was Rachel Jeantel. For whatever reason, people chose not to believe her, even though she remained pretty much consistent with her story. I don't know. Maybe ignored her because they thought she talked funny.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)he decided to assault GZ. There is only physical evidence of a TM assault on GZ.
Even ignoring what GZ said, there is evidence that GZ most likely hadn't moved far from where he was while talking to the operator in the several more minutes before the assault. The assault wasn't far from the truck and GZ had already gotten out of the truck (audible on the call) before the 911 operator told him he shouldn't follow TM. It's possible that GZ got back into the truck and followed TM farther, but that's less likely.
The benefit of the doubt favors GZ since we have an innocent until proven guilty legal system, even for people we may not like.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,181 posts)There's no evidence, other than Zimmerman's own statements, that Trayvon ambushed him. The ambush claims exist only within the context of what Zimmerman has said. Additionally, we don't know that Zimmerman was actually walking back towards his car except, again, in the context of his own statements.
Now again, there was witness testimony that suggested that it was Zimmerman who initiated the physical confrontation. However, her testimony was ignored for reasons not fully explained.
Rilgin
(787 posts)I do not want to be drawn into a long argument but that is exactly what can happen.
My wife served on a murder jury from a murder that occurred on the night of the San Francisco earthquake.
The murder victim had a confrontation with someone retreated, then came back. Read that again. The victim came back and was killed by the person who he had earlier had an altercation.
Did TM come back. I do not really know. Noone knows. I guess this is what I am responding to. There are two stories that could be true. I am a lawyer and actually looked at the evidence and testimony and I can not determine what story is true.
That is the problem with the TM GZ case. The problem with this argument is assumptions of things that can not be proved and assertions about human nature that are just not true. It is clear that 2 minutes elapsed between the time that TM initially ran pursued by GZ. An earlier post said that TM hid rather than run home based on an incident where he was stalked and the poster did not return home. This is reasonable conjecture and a possibe explanation but is just conjecture. It could (emphasis added) explain what happenned and is consistent with some aspects of human nature. The problem is that it was asserted by the poster as fact not a possible explanation for the time lapse.
The poster saying he believes TM ran home and then came back also has a reasonable explanation and also fits with human nature. That was the problem with the case and the reason for the acquital. There was not sufficient evidence to prove a willful murder or negate actual self defense.
As a liberal or progressive, my take is that the real problem with the GZ TM incident is the gun and lack of gun policy. It just proves that when you have confrontations between people no matter the cause or fact, regardless of whether the gun use is intentional or reactive, people can get killed rather than beat up.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,181 posts)In this case that you say your wife served on, did the victim know the killer?
It would be one thing if George Zimmmerman knew Trayvon Martin from past instances and the two had some sort of longstanding grudge, and after Zimmerman chased Trayvon, Trayvon came back to settle some scores.
But that wasn't the story here. Here, Trayvon didn't know Zimmerman from Adam, and visa versa. Yet he found himself in the unenviable position of being chased by him for reasons he had no idea why. Remember, Trayvon was doing nothing wrong that evening. Nothing. Those facts are not in dispute.
So you honestly tell me....if you are being chased by a strange man for reasons you have no idea why, and you manage to lose that person, do you honestly believe that your thoughts would be, "Well, now that I've expended my energy and lost that strange man, I'm going to go back and find him and teach him a lesson!"
Is that in any way, shape or form logical?
Another thing to keep in mind about this case. That George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin was never in dispute. If Zimmerman just let those facts stand as they were, he would be convicted of some degree of homicide, since on its face, killing another person is illegal. To avoid a conviction, Zimmerman would need to raise what's called an affirmative defense, meaning he's admitting to the killing but circumstances excuse its prima facie illegality. Here, with self-defense, while the state still had to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, Zimmerman did have the duty to present at least a plausible theory of self-defense. While the jury apparently found it plausible enough, I disagree. Zimmerman's claim that he was "ambushed" defied all logic, and as such I don't believe met his obligation to avoid criminal culpability.
Rilgin
(787 posts)They did not know each other prior to that night. There was no racial component. Both individuals were african americans. They got in an argument. One went away then came back and was shot by the person who remained at the scene of the argument who had a gun. His testimony was the other guy who came back tried to assault him so he fired. The guy who came back did not have a gun. The verdict was self defense even though the victim had no gun.
My only point is that your assertion.that it is illogical that TM made it home and then returned to challenge gz is emperically incorrect. Testosterone makes men especially young men do lots of stupid things. Getting away from gz may have put him in a comfort zone where testosterone took over. There is some evidence of this in.the phone call with TMs girlfriend. TM said he was near his house and was clearly angry at the cracker who had followed him although this evidence is not definitive..
Whether TM hid or came back to challenge GZ will never be known but both stories are consistent with human nature and your arguments will be stronger if you recognize this fact..
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,181 posts)So in your case, two men were stopped and arguing with each other, one went home, the other remained on the scene, the first person came back and the second guy thought it was to kill him, so he shot back.
Where was the chase? Where was the one guy pursing the other guy for reasons not known? That's a totally different dynamic, not even remotely similar.
It wasn't a matter of Trayvon getting into a verbal argument with Zimmerman and then leaving and then returning. It was a matter of Zimmerman chasing Trayvon, without there having been any prior interaction between the two. None. Trayvon didn't know who Zimmerman was, or why he was chasing him. There was no prior history between the two, not even a single exchange or interaction. Do you understand that such a situation would be one of fear and intimidation, and not one for foolish bravado or "challenges"?
Also, you need to review the facts of the case. Trayvon never made it home. He may have told Rachel he was "near" his house, but near being relative to the distance from the 7-11. And Rachel's testimony, if taken as true, clearly establishes Zimmerman as the aggressor, as she testified she heard Trayvon shout, "Why are you following me?", followed by Zimmerman shouting, "What are you doing here?" and then the sound of a scuffle and the dropped phone.
Rilgin
(787 posts)Last edited Thu Nov 21, 2013, 07:05 AM - Edit history (1)
Yes, all cases are different. Every single fact is different in every confrontation, killing, justifiable self defense and unjustifiable self defense. The main similarity is someone came back to a situation that they had previously avoided. That was your main point and it is clearly not true. People sometimes avoid and sometimes confront situations and sometimes come back after avoiding a situation. Young men generally are more prone to confronting problems directly than older men.
Everything you said about Travon could be said about the SF victim with only minor situational changes. There was no prior interaction between the two. None. The Victim didn't know who the shooter was was, or why he had confronted him earlier. There was no prior history between the two, not even a single exchange or interaction. The rest is only your opinion that Travon felt fear and intimidation, and did not later act out of either foolish bravado or "challenges. I would add that he could have acted in righteous igdination of being followed.
You have your mind made up on the story you believe. I understand that. It leads you to declare with authority some facts that are not facts just stories.
One of these was your statement that Travon did not make it home as a fact rather than a theory For me its just a possible explanation of what occurred, one of many. You, however, assert the converse as proven even though there is absolutely no evidence as to where he was after he ran and eluded Zimmerman. There are no footprints videos, or witnesses.
I have spent a lot of time looking at the evidence mostly to see if you could actually prove something (I also have spent way too much time reading JFK arguments). I would say right back at you with respect to looking at the evidence.
The only thing I think might be provable is corresponding evidence/testimony in 2 calls as what appears to have happenned at SOME POINT. However, that point was before the final fatal confrontation.
The points of agreement relate to GZ tellin the dispatcher that the guy he has been following has run towards the back gate and he can not see him. Similarly Rachel Jeantel testified that TM told her that he was going to elude the guy following him and then she said she heard wind. She also testified that he then told her that he had in fact gotten away. At some point the phone was hung up. She called a little later and then he said he was just by his father's house which is if you look at a map by the back gate which is the direction where GZ said TM ran. Do I know exactly where he was when he said he was almost home after being followed and getting away. No. I think thre are a few possibilities. You however have a 100% certainty that it was only his distance from the 711 in stating that after he had run from a guy who was following him. This is similar to your claim of knowledge of what Travon felt or was thinking that night without any evidence.
I think unless GZ was a total fraud and acted out the 911 call (which some believe), its pretty clear that TM approached the car where GZ was in and then ran and got away from GZ. GZ got out of the car and tried to chase him but lost him at which time he was told not to try to follow.
The fatal confrontation occurred minutes later.
There are a number of possibilities for where TM was during that time. There is no definitive proof and no definite evidence. The main possibilities are (1) he got to his house and turned around for his own reasons to confront the guy who had followed him (2) he did not want to lead this guy to his house and hid and then either GZ found him, TM decided to confront GZ about why he was following him or they ran into each other accidently when TM tried to get home or (3) TM eluded GZ by running the wrong way or got lost and then eiher GZ found him or they ran int0 each other accidently. There is no proof of which of these three occurred. No video, photos, witnesses, or footpritnts.
The ONLY evidence bearing on this is GZ's and Rachel's testimony and GZ's is self interested and should be discounted. Rachel's testimony is not definitive but (combined with the fact that both testimonies see to support TM getting away towards the back gate) better supports (but again does not definitely prove) that TM almost made it home and then came back to confront GZ about why he was following him. He did not know GZ had a gun and was a young man as pointed out by me before and young men (of all races) often respond in a variety of ways to conflicts with others. Please note that if he went back to confront GZ this would NOT be doing anything illegal or wrong. He certainly was entitled to ask GZ why he was following him. Again there is very little proof as to what actually occurred when they finally did engage which led to TM's death. GZ might still have been the agressor. All there is is conjecture and that is not enough for criminal verdicts.
For yourself, you would strengthen your arguments by not assuming that others do not know the evidence and by seperating your opinion from fact. There is no proof (although some evidence) that GZ made it home However, there is also no proof and absolutely no evidence that TM did not want to lead the guy following him to his house. You do not know his internal thought process and there is no absolute or convincing evidence as to whether TM felt intimated and in fear (your theory) and was scared to go home or whether after getting home, he decided to return to confront the guy who followed him as to why he was following him. There is no way of knowing what or who precisely started the fight.
One last point. You did a fair job explaining the concept of self defense as an affirmative defense. I can say that because I am a lawyer although not a criminal lawyer. Your explanation showed you are either a lawyer or did decent research. However, you did not research Florida law.
I have not done in depth research but I believe Florida self defense law works differently than most states (most rational states). I believe that in florida, the prosecution has to disprove self defense as an element of the crime. This is the main reason many knowledgable lawyers (which I read) thought it would be a difficult case. Further in most jurisdictions even if someone is an early agressor, one can regain the ability to act in self defense.
Personally, I think it might have been possible to make a case for manslaughter based on GZ carrying a gun while on neigborhood watch but it would be an unusual argument. I mostly see this as a problem with guns and the fact that humans confront each other in situations that breed emotion and uncertainty and the chances of a tragedy are accelerated if one of the human is carrying a gun.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)as the posts defending Zimmerman did at the time.
I feel very confident that if a white teenage kid had been stalked and chased and then shot by a black man, everything would have been different.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)nt.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)Following someone you think is suspicious is not illegal. Assault is illegal.
All evidence is that GZ quit following TM, but TM came back and assaulted GZ.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)to convict him of murder. And whatever his subsequent antics, my opinion of that will not change.
It's like those who believe that OJ Simpson's acquittal was correct because of the possibility that the white supremacist cop Mark Furhman tampered with the DNA. I don't think OJ's subsequent conviction for armed robbery caused many of these folks to change their opinion.
MissMillie
(38,553 posts)I think Zimmerman stalked that kid. I think he should have stayed in his car, stayed on the phone w/ police, and I don't think he should have had a loaded weapon on him.
I think the only reason he stalked that kid was because that kid was black.
That's what I think.
As far as Zimmerman's acquittal, I didn't follow the trial and don't really know enough of the details. It is my understanding that there were reliability issues with witnesses on both sides.
Whether or not the prosecution proved guilt w/i a reasonable doubt--I have no idea.
But just because guilt cannot be "proven" doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)You'd have to be a total fool to think he was innocent.
The jury got it way wrong and so did anyone defending this creature from the depths.
I avoided much of the threads here about him. I couldn't handle hearing him being defended, by DUers.
The dogwhistles were really loud during that time. Ear piercing loud.
JI7
(89,248 posts)From other places some people still insist trayvon had some fault even when they are willing to admit zimmerman wasnt so innocent.
They see a black teen and just refuse to believe he didn't do something wrong.
They say things like both sides handled it wrong.
Probably some on here who think the same
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)I can remember a few trolls, but I don't recall any significant support for Zimmerman on DU. Perhaps you can cite some references to refresh people's memory.
JustAnotherGen
(31,818 posts)They are right here out in the open.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Shooting an unarmed kid -- because they felt afraid, or at least claimed so after shooting -- when it really wasn't necessary.
Generally, those into guns and "stand your ground laws" were Zman supporters, whether vocal or silent.
There were a number of supporters who would post things like, "Zman is an asshole . . . . . .but he was within his God given Constitutional , prehistoric rights to grab his gun, stalk an unarmed teenager, shoot him, and make up some BS story of how he was afraid of the menacing Black kid who appeared 10 feet tall and 450 pounds of solid muscle . . . . . . and Florida laws and lame jurors make it possible to get off."
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)except by a couple trolls long since banned. Surely you can provide a link to such comments by DUers, as you claim?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Gun fanciers don't go easy.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)You posted a very long and detailed QUOTE.
How could you possibly get that QUOTE correct if you cannot show the source unless YOU MADE IT UP?
Like most facts missing or distorted in your posts, this latest one is no exception. It's pure fabrication.
Or you could prove me wrong by linking to the QUOTE you posted. But we both know you can't and instead will attack me with insults.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Being factual and honest in your arguments has never been your priority. Will you start now or just deflect again to get away from your TOTAL FABRICATION OF A QUOTE?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)murdering Trayvon Martin.
So Cleanhippie, did you support Zman in the trial? If you say "No, I did not support Zman, his stalking/bullying Martin with a gun, and his innocence," please post a link where you came out and said Zman was "a guilty, gun toting, murdering, bigot."
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Perhaps you just don't know what a QUOTE is and you made a mistake putting your "interpretation" in quotes.
Admit you fabricated it or change it. Be honest about what you post. Are you capable of that?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)It's your turn to answer a question -- Did you support/believe Zman's assertion in the trial that he killed Trayvon Martin because he had no other choice, and he was not the one to initiate the encounter?
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)1. To repeat or copy the words of (another), usually with acknowledgment of the source.
2. To cite or refer to for illustration or proof.
3. To repeat a brief passage or excerpt from.
"I quoted the essence of..."
You can't even be honest with yourself about what you post.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)reasons for supporting Zman's shooting an unarmed kid.
Until you tell me differently, I think the words I posted in quotation marks aptly describe your -- and your gun fancying buddy's -- view on George Zimmerman's use of his gun to stalk/bully and ultimately shoot an unarmed teenager.
The quotation marks are not the question/point here, although their use was proper on an internet forum where one is not quoting an individual, but the philosophy of a group or cult -- ie, Gungeoneers' who vehemently backed Zimmy's shooting of Trayvon Martin.
But, keep focusing on "quotation marks" if you desire rather than admitting you were a supporter of Zman and his choice to grab a gun, stalk/bully an unarmed teenager, and ultimately shoot him in the chest.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)
No matter what I, or anyone else tell you, you will continue to make up and believe whatever makes you feel good about yourself, regardless of what the facts are.
Pretty typical of your posts.
Good luck with that.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)That kind of dishonesty only comes from those that cannot support their position with actual facts.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)He made it up. Judging by many of his other posts, it's pretty normal.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)There were two groups. The first, a small group of trolls, claimed Zimmerman was justified in shooting Trayvon. I believe they've since been banned. Since by all appearances they were outside agitators, it's incorrect to call them DUers.
The second group, of several regular DUers, simply stated there wasn't sufficient evidence. This is not to say he was innocent, just that a conviction would be very difficult to get. They were right...I thought a murder2 was pretty solid, but was wrong.
I certainly don't recall any long-time DUers cheering for Zimmerman or proclaiming shooting Martin was justified. I think the poster was simply creating a strawman to persue an agenda.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)That much is plainly evident.
lancer78
(1,495 posts)Yes.
Myrina
(12,296 posts)... and would LOVE to know what those jurors are thinking now that they realize what they've let loose in Florida ....
WowSeriously
(343 posts)Nothing he does today should have an impact on your position then, unless what he does today bears on the facts presented back then.
Also, I thought he was guilty as sin of premeditated murder with hate crime qualifications.
Response to MrScorpio (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)Or at least they should be. I didn't follow the case too closely, so I don't know if it was prosecutorial negligence or what that lead to the acquittal. But you appear to be arguing that Zimmerman should have received some type of "Lifetime Achievement Conviction" based on actions that had not occurred yet. Even if the events that have occurred since the trial had occurred before the trial, they shouldn't determine the guilt or innocence of the accused.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)There was no altercation with Trayvon. All of that is and was BS. Zimmerman profiled and killed Trayvon because Zimmerman is a delusional, gun nutty, bigoted murderer.
Kingofalldems
(38,454 posts)
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)He deserved to be in jail for manslaughter. There are people with much less of a history of violence than Zimmerman who are doing hard time in Florida jails because of that crime, even involuntary mansluaghter. Do I think the proescutors botched it, yes, and I do not care if they were deliberate or simply incompetent, neither is acceptable.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)The way the law is written made the prosecution's job very difficult. That's on top of the fact the case was over-charged, they did not present the case very well, and Rachel Janteel was a terrible witness that seemed unprepared.
A jury's job is to decide a case on the facts presented and only on the facts presented and how it applies to the law. The fact the state went for murder-2 is laughable. They should have went for manslaughter right off the bat and then have other possible lessors, that would have made it so they could likely get him on something. But because they set that bar so high for themselves, and the fact they barely even touched the manslaughter aspect of the case, the jury really had no other choice but to acquit.
It is what it is. The case was weak. Self-defense in Florida (and many other states) is very lenient and gives a lot of legal protection to the gun owner. It's just the way the law is written.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Zimmerman murdered a boy walking home from the store for no good reason. The PD tried their very BEST to cover it up and the trial was a sham of justice. Everyone and their dog has said so by now, the only people that will not, are the people that can never be wrong about anything. Best to just ignore them, since they are not here for a real discussion.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)JustAnotherGen
(31,818 posts) Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Things that make you go hmmm...
JustAnotherGen
(31,818 posts)MrScorpio points out one who has popped up - without naming names. Trying to figure that one out . . . but our boy seems to be sitting this one out - eh?
Gothmog
(145,168 posts)As a lawyer, I was critical of some of the actions of the prosecution in this case. Mistakes were made but I still hoped or thought that the jury had enough to convict Zimmerman. I was very disappointed with the jury verdict but sometimes the defense gets a verdict that it does not deserve. Zimmerman should have been convicted and I have been hopeful that the DOJ would retry this case under the civil rights law.
Zimmerman's latest actions are evidence that he knows that he got by with a crime and so he thinks that he is above the law. That type of stupidity does not work for long in the real world. Look OJ is in prison right now because he thought that he was above the law and was "justified" in attacking the person holding some memorabilia. I would not be surprised to see Zimmerman get the book thrown at him on this charge
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)who can't hear you because they're back under the bridge.
flvegan
(64,407 posts)It's not about you. Injecting opinion just garners this response. If you want an honest answer, ask an honest question, okay?
As for your question: yes, I do. Let me know when you want after-the-fact issues, unrelated to the initial case, to put you in a state of double jeopardy, okay? Or is this just a judgment call (emotion) again? Did he deserve to be acquitted? Yes. State didn't make its case. If you have evidence to the contrary, I beg of you to present it. If guilty, I'd love to see him rot.
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,181 posts)No one is actually asking Zimmerman be re-tried for the Martin murder. Double Jeopardy forbids that, and we all understand that.
What's being asked is strictly hypothetical, whether Zimmerman's post trial behavior has changed your underlying opinion about the verdict. And before one gets into the argument that these are "unrelated", I would ask that you consider issues regarding Zimmerman's state of mind the evening of the killing, including the information that his ex wife had left the house that night after the two had an argument.
Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)It shouldn't ask whether or not opinions have changed with respect to the verdict but to his guilt or innocence.
There is probably a minority within the minority that believed he was innocent entirely from the beginning.
Those are the folks who may be scratching their heads since the verdict with all his run-ins.
bobclark86
(1,415 posts)No, he did not commit murder. So the jury had to acquit, as a jury nullification would have almost certainly led to an overturned verdict on appeal -- which would have dragged this shit out to the state supreme court, which would have flipped the verdict. We'd have similar results -- shithead out free, family unable to sue -- but add in a couple more million dollars in prosecution costs to be pulled from helping poor school districts or homeless people with hepatitis.
BTW, only a person with a severe mental disability -- that would be a retard (Sorry, Sarah Palin) -- thinks someone who starts a fight, finds out he's losing like a little bitch to a teen 50 pounds lighter and pulls a gun should get off scot-free. Oh, or somebody who goes hunting for black people.
As I said, clearly written by a dipshit gunfucker.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)You might want to rethink this thread.
Juries should not be taking into account what they think might happen and base a conviction on that.
Hekate
(90,667 posts)krispos42
(49,445 posts)The DA may have bungled the case; some of the DU legal eagles seem to think so.
The judge may have prejudiced the jury by not allowing them to consider the circumstances leading up to the confrontation; other of the DU legal eagles seem to think so.
As far as I'm concerned, Zimmerman didn't have the right to stalk a stranger practically up to the person's house without consequences and confrontation. Martin was defending himself and his family, as far as I'm concerned. He didn't want to lead a stalker back to his home, he was on foot while Zimmerman had a car, so escape was not necessarily an option, either.
Now, you figure that when person is stalking another person, particularly a young athletic person, without apparent fear, the stalkee would logically have to figure the stalker must have something that gives the stalker a pretty big advantage. Either a weapon, or other accomplices, or both.
The stalkee, Martin, had every reason to fear Zimmerman, and with avenues of escape cut off, to confront him, even to strike preemptively.
The only thing I can see he did wrong was that he didn't call 911 to report the suspicious person, but considering the difficult relationship that minorities have with the police...
99Forever
(14,524 posts)It doesn't surprise me one bit that his fellow gun bullies stood up for him. They are psychopaths, and like scorpions, it's what they do.
TBF
(32,056 posts)Although these days the two seem to go hand in hand.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)A special kind "entitled" mental illness is required to believe that your "right" to cling to and worship tools of death, supersedes the health and safety of everyone else. They are classic anti-social psychopaths.
TBF
(32,056 posts)but maybe they are just loud (and obnoxious).
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)The good news is that most DUers were disgusted by Zimmerman and by his idiotic supporters.
Zimmerman murdered a kid in cold blood.
I was not one of his supporters (I am aware you did not want to hear from me)
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)It's just that I don't block ANYBODY.
Thanks for your input.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)That's what I meant about not wanting to hear from me (I didn't think it had to do with me personally ... just me as someone who loathes that murdering scum Z and has since he killed a kid)
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)ANd I never meant to exclude anyone.
And your voice along with the others were needed.
spin
(17,493 posts)Zimmerman was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore I believe that had I been on the jury I would voted for Zimmerman's acquittal. That does not mean that I believe that Zimmerman was totally innocent.
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.
If the jurors or judge have no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty.
The term connotes that evidence establishes a particular point to a moral certainty and that it is beyond dispute that any reasonable alternative is possible. It does not mean that no doubt exists as to the accused's guilt, but only that no Reasonable Doubt is possible from the evidence presented.
Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof that must be met in any trial. In civil litigation, the standard of proof is either proof by a preponderance of the evidence or proof by clear and convincing evidence. These are lower burdens of proof. A preponderance of the evidence simply means that one side has more evidence in its favor than the other, even by the smallest degree. Clear and Convincing Proof is evidence that establishes a high probability that the fact sought to be proved is true. The main reason that the high proof standard of reasonable doubt is used in criminal trials is that such proceedings can result in the deprivation of a defendant's liberty or even in his or her death. These outcomes are far more severe than in civil trials, in which money damages are the common remedy.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Beyond+a+Reasonable+Doubt
