What evidence does the prosecution have?

Status
Not open for further replies.

wishuwerehere

Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2011
Messages
825
Reaction score
17
I thought this thread was needed so that we may debate the prosecution's case against Zimmerman, for better or worse.
 
For starters, the prosecution has Zimmerman’s own words on the 911 recording and I believe they will be used to show Zimmerman’s intent.

The State also has Trayvon’s girlfriend’s testimony about what she heard over the phone. (I believe she is going to be a key witness in this case and will be used to show Trayvon’s fear.)

jmo
 
I believe that they have nothing.

The 911 call has nothing on it that is in anyway going to hurt GZ.

1) OK - They 911 oporator said "we do not need you to do that" (follow the guy) but it is still legal for him to do that.

2) Some want to hear that there is a racial slur on the tape. I do not hear that at all.
But even if he did say a racial slur, we have all said a slur which does not mean we are racists.

3) TM is no child as it was falsely portrayed, he was IMO giving the impression of a , and GZ had a right to suspect him based on the history of that area.
 
I don't think they have anything at all because everything so far backs up George's and the eye witnesses claims.
 
I don't think they have anything at all because everything so far backs up George's and the eye witnesses claims.

I think they have a dead black teenager, an admitted shooter, a law/2nd amendment issue/gun lobby that a lot of folks really can't stand, a prosecutor known for being a hard *advertiser censored**, and more public pressure (at least initially) than is typically seen, and that's quite an understatement, imo.

I think when they made the arrest they had all of the above, and THOUGHT they had a hate crime element, too. jmo
 
I believe that they have nothing.

The 911 call has nothing on it that is in anyway going to hurt GZ.

1) OK - They 911 oporator said "we do not need you to do that" (follow the guy) but it is still legal for him to do that.

2) Some want to hear that there is a racial slur on the tape. I do not hear that at all.
But even if he did say a racial slur, we have all said a slur which does not mean we are racists.

3) TM is no child as it was falsely portrayed, he was IMO giving the impression of a , and GZ had a right to suspect him based on the history of that area.

BBM - He can suspect him all day long. Call the cops. Call Trayvon names, if he likes. But what he had no authority to do was to pursue Trayvon in an effort to detain him. That is exactly what I think transpired. Trayvon stood his ground. Zimmerman killed him for it. I believe the prosecution will set out to prove this.

jmo
 
BBM - He can suspect him all day long. Call the cops. Call Trayvon names, if he likes. But what he had no authority to do was to pursue Trayvon in an effort to detain him. That is exactly what I think transpired. Trayvon stood his ground. Zimmerman killed him for it. I believe the prosecution will set out to prove this.

jmo


We have NO idea if he pursed him or not. Everybody is just assuming he did.

they don't have enough evidence to prove with out a resonable doubt that GZ set out to kill Trayvon.
 
I think they have a dead black teenager, an admitted shooter, a law/2nd amendment issue/gun lobby that a lot of folks really can't stand, a prosecutor known for being a hard *advertiser censored**, and more public pressure (at least initially) than is typically seen, and that's quite an understatement, imo.

I think when they made the arrest they had all of the above, and THOUGHT they had a hate crime element, too. jmo

There may be a hate crime element to this case. But it is so subjective. This case already is a lightening rod as you stated above. There would be no way they would list hate crime with the charges, not in that climate.

jmo
 
We have NO idea if he pursed him or not. Everybody is just assuming he did.

they don't have enough evidence to prove with out a resonable doubt that GZ set out to kill Trayvon.

I disgree. I believe Zimmerman's 911 call will be used to show intent. Zimmerman exited his vehicle before the end of the call. IMO this demonstrates that he never had any intention to wait for the cops. Zimmerman was going to be the cop that day.

jmo
 
Tossing a question out ...

do all cell phones have GPS, and if so, would be any value to LE in determining , who actually was where
 
I disgree. I believe Zimmerman's 911 call will be used to show intent. Zimmerman exited his vehicle before the end of the call. IMO this demonstrates that he never had any intention to wait for the cops. Zimmerman was going to be the cop that day.

jmo

which 911 call did you listen to?

how long was it?
 
I disgree. I believe Zimmerman's 911 call will be used to show intent. Zimmerman exited his vehicle before the end of the call. IMO this demonstrates that he never had any intention to wait for the cops. Zimmerman was going to be the cop that day.

jmo

intent on what? That he was going to kill Trayvon?

JMO.
 
intent on what? That he was going to kill Trayvon?

JMO.

In my previous post above I stated he set out to detain Trayvon before the police arrived. Trayvon stood his ground. Zimmerman killed him for it.

jmo
 
I know, there is a two minute one and a 4 minute one. the four minure one is the whole call.

What is your point? I think I've been clear in my explanation, and yes it was the call which has been released to the public.
 
I believe that they have nothing.

The 911 call has nothing on it that is in anyway going to hurt GZ.

1) OK - They 911 oporator said "we do not need you to do that" (follow the guy) but it is still legal for him to do that.

2) Some want to hear that there is a racial slur on the tape. I do not hear that at all.
But even if he did say a racial slur, we have all said a slur which does not mean we are racists.

3) TM is no child as it was falsely portrayed, he was IMO giving the impression of a , and GZ had a right to suspect him based on the history of that area.

1) While it may be 'legal' to follow someone, it will be VERY hurtful to GZ with SYG or self-defense. There is no doubt in my mind that he continued to follow TM after the dispatcher told him not to. Every piece of evidence points in that direction.

2) While he may not have said racial slurs (and I'm not convinced he didn't), his preconceived notion of these f'ing punk" a$$holes" always getting away shows that he was profiling TM in itself. The REAL f'ing a$$holes that were always getting away were, in fact, younger black males. That will be incriminating to GZ at trial as well

3) TM is not a and GZ knew absolutely zero about him before that night. That will never wash in a court of law. On the contrary, it will only make #2 point against him stronger.
 
There may be a hate crime element to this case. But it is so subjective. This case already is a lightening rod as you stated above. There would be no way they would list hate crime with the charges, not in that climate.

jmo

I understand what you mean, I think, but I also think it depends on what you mean by "hate" crime. For it to be a true hate crime, the bias would have to be against a protected class and they don't have the racial slur anymore, or, afaik, any other evidence of bias against black people. Imo, now it would have to be bias against those "expletives" who always get away -- and also afaik, bias against suspected criminals isn't a hate crime even if your suspicion is completely unreasonable. I definitely think they would never have put punks in the APC if they had a choice. jmo.
 
I believe that they have nothing.

The 911 call has nothing on it that is in anyway going to hurt GZ.

1) OK - They 911 oporator said "we do not need you to do that" (follow the guy) but it is still legal for him to do that.

2) Some want to hear that there is a racial slur on the tape. I do not hear that at all.
But even if he did say a racial slur, we have all said a slur which does not mean we are racists.

3) TM is no child as it was falsely portrayed, he was IMO giving the impression of a , and GZ had a right to suspect him based on the history of that area.

So do you think the dispatcher just told GZ that in lieu of "have a nice day?" GZ knews from his training he was not to follow. It was not a "legal" matter. LE's directions were not to, NWP training was not to, just call it in. He was wrong, morally and ethically wrong in doing what he did since TM had every right to be where he was.

How was TM giving the impression of a ? Would that not be in GZ eyes, his mind, his thought process? Isn't that profiling when you have no reason to think a person is up to no good but because he fits a description of a normal black male you need to call it in??? That would have been fine had he stopped right there.

GZ had not rights after he stepped out of that truck. He had already called LE and once he left his truck he was taking matters into his own hands putting everyone's life in jeopardy around him because he was carrying a gun. jmo
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
149
Guests online
1,127
Total visitors
1,276

Forum statistics

Threads
589,931
Messages
17,927,830
Members
228,004
Latest member
CarpSleuth
Back
Top