What evidence does the prosecution have?

[zenreaper]

Originally Posted by Sun48shine

Where is the proof that TM attacked GZ? Can you please provide the link? Was there a video of this or is it just the ever changing words of GZ?

Its right next to the proof that a DOG attacked GZ, or that GZ fired from a standing position, or that GZ was LOOKING to kill TM. It is SPECULATION. The difference between those three, and MY speculation, is that there is actually EVIDENCE to back up MY speculation. There are the injuries. A struggle occured. GZ has injuries, all reports we have say TM did NOT have injuries.

<modsnip>

[zenreaper]

Originally Posted by Sun48shine

I am referring to this case. So does your state allow people to carry loaded guns out when they see people appearing to be suspicious?

Very few states, with the appropriate permits, do NOT allow you to carry. Keep in mind, althought the TM defenders have repeated it constantly, GZ was NOT on a neighborhood watch patrol. He had gone to the STORE. He was PERFECTLY within his rights to carry a firearm where he was going.

[Sun48shine]

Originally Posted by AJ Noiter

No, my state requires that if we see someone suspicious we can not be carrying a firearm, legally.:ohoh: To be honest I'm not even sure I understand your question here, it seems a bit.. fragmented or something.

How do you know what GZ's intensions were? Since he said there were several suspicious looking or acting people in recent months prior to the shooting, he may have wanted to take matters in his own hands. He may have become so frustrated with SPD that he may have decided that he was going to put an end to all suspicious looking people.

[AJ Noiter]

Originally Posted by Sun48shine

How do you know what GZ's intensions were? Since he said there were several suspicious looking or acting people in recent months prior to the shooting, he may have wanted to take matters in his own hands. He may have become so frustrated with SPD that he may have decided that he was going to put an end to all suspicious looking people.

Based on your quoting of my words, I have no clue what you're talking about. I haven't stated anything about GZ, in fact, I stated at one point that THIS CASE was irrelevant based on some of your words. Curiouser and curiouser I'm getting here.

[Sun48shine]

Originally Posted by zenreaper

Its right next to the proof that a DOG attacked GZ, or that GZ fired from a standing position, or that GZ was LOOKING to kill TM. It is SPECULATION. The difference between those three, and MY speculation, is that there is actually EVIDENCE to back up MY speculation. There are the injuries. A struggle occured. GZ has injuries, all reports we have say TM did NOT have injuries.

<Modsnip>

I am not trying to argue with you. I am trying to be open to other views, not one-sided.

If TM had no injuries besides the gunshot wound, wouldn't that prove that he did not punch or really fight GZ?

[beach]

Originally Posted by Sun48shine

I am not trying to argue with you. I am trying to be open to other views, not one-sided.

If TM had no injuries besides the gunshot wound, wouldn't that prove that he did not punch or really fight GZ?

BBM

Have we gotten the autopsy report confirming that?

[Sun48shine]

Originally Posted by AJ Noiter

Based on your quoting of my words, I have no clue what you're talking about. I haven't stated anything about GZ, in fact, I stated at one point that THIS CASE was irrelevant based on some of your words. Curiouser and curiouser I'm getting here.

Maybe it's just my opinion of guns. I think that people who carry them as neighborhood watchman are looking for trouble. They are supposed to contact police with suspicous activity and let police handle the situation.

[beach]

Mod Reminder:

Reminder that is is okay to scroll past a post that you feel is not relevant or argumentative. No one is obligated to respond to anyone else.

What is NOT okay, is to respond rudely or respond in a personal way to another member.

[AJ Noiter]

Originally Posted by Sun48shine

I am not trying to argue with you. I am trying to be open to other views, not one-sided.

If TM had no injuries besides the gunshot wound, wouldn't that prove that he did not punch or really fight GZ?

I am still of the belief that he used his phone instead of his knuckles, when "punching" Mr. Zimmerman. Given that scenario, and even if he punched Mr. Zimmerman with his knuckles, that doesn't necessarily mean he would have any injuries. Knuckles are hard, there's not a lot of tissue to bruise. Slamming someone's head into cement doesn't immediately tell me how he WOULD have an injury. Placing your hand over someone's mouth tells me you might have some of their saliva on your hand, maybe a bite mark.. but nothing definitive to state that there SHOULD be an injury.

[Velouria]

Originally Posted by zenreaper

Its right next to the proof that a DOG attacked GZ, or that GZ fired from a standing position, or that GZ was LOOKING to kill TM. It is SPECULATION. The difference between those three, and MY speculation, is that there is actually EVIDENCE to back up MY speculation. There are the injuries. A struggle occured. GZ has injuries, all reports we have say TM did NOT have injuries.

<modsnip>

Other than the gaping bullet hole in his chest, you mean?

As for all that EVIDENCE you claim backs up your speculation, it does not support the theory that TM attacked GZ (as in attacked FIRST) any more than it does the theory that TM struck GZ in an attempt to defend himself against a stranger who accosted him.

[LambChop]

Originally Posted by zenreaper

Its right next to the proof that a DOG attacked GZ, or that GZ fired from a standing position, or that GZ was LOOKING to kill TM. It is SPECULATION. The difference between those three, and MY speculation, is that there is actually EVIDENCE to back up MY speculation. There are the injuries. A struggle occured. GZ has injuries, all reports we have say TM did NOT have injuries.

<modsnip>

Injuries do happen in a fight but are rarely an indicator of who started what and it's certainly is not evidence one way or the other. It is possible GZ sustained those injuries when he fell. We do know they both fell, it's how they got there that is still unknown. Evidence SA is citing regarding the location of the body not being consistent with GZ's statement put's anything GZ stated questionable. TM should have some injuries on his hands if he was continually punching GZ in the nose and bashing his head against the cement. TM had no weapon. Maybe the reason TM has no injuries is because he truly was just trying to get away from GZ and GZ would not let him go. jmo

[marlame]

Originally Posted by zenreaper

Yes, TM was SO in fear for his life that he continued bopping along talking to his GIRLFRIEND, right? Why didn't he call the police? Oh, yeah, he was YOUNG and made a bad choice. So maybe he made a bad choice and attacked GZ as well, right? NOOO, he wouldn't have done THAT, right?

And FTR (and I will say this EVERYTIME the TM Supporters claim it) there is NOTHING ILLEGAL ABOUT FOLLOWING SOMEONE.

"Following" someone in certain cases may not be illegal BUT it may not be WISE and can have serious and sometimes deadly consequences.

With that said, IMO ...I don't think GZ was simply "following" Trayvon. I think he was STALKING him.


At what point does "following" become "STALKING"?... :waitasec:
Florida Stalking Statute 748.048
(2) Aggravated stalking: willful, malicious and repeated following or harassing another with credible threats with the intent to place person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury;

:moo: Again this is JMHO:
1) George Zimmerman had no legal authority to: Stalk, follow, stop and/or detain anyone.

2) Police Dispatch told Zimmerman they "do not need" Zimmerman to follow Trayvon Martin.

3) As soon as Zimmerman willfully, knowingly and with forethought ignored Police advice, to not follow Trayvon, Zimmerman became an armed Stalker

Once Zimmerman went from concerned citizen to Stalker, all actions Zimmerman took toward Trayvon Martin were UNLawful.
George Zimmerman STALKED and SHOT Trayvon Martin!

[LambChop]

Originally Posted by AJ Noiter

I am still of the belief that he used his phone instead of his knuckles, when "punching" Mr. Zimmerman. Given that scenario, and even if he punched Mr. Zimmerman with his knuckles, that doesn't necessarily mean he would have any injuries. Knuckles are hard, there's not a lot of tissue to bruise. Slamming someone's head into cement doesn't immediately tell me how he WOULD have an injury. Placing your hand over someone's mouth tells me you might have some of their saliva on your hand, maybe a bite mark.. but nothing definitive to state that there SHOULD be an injury.

But explain to me how you would slam someone's head into the cement when they have no hair without injuring your own hands???? I have yet to get a reasonable answer to that question. LOL Any ideas??? jmo

[Phoenixfla]

Originally Posted by Sun48shine

Can you prove that it is not true in this case? NO!!!

The statement was "Taking a gun out of the house shows intent to cause harm." That is what I was replying to. It is not true. If "Taking a gun out of the house shows intent to cause harm" then everyone who carries a concealed weapon lawfully is doing so with the intent to cause harm. It was a broad statement with no foundation.

If you want my opinion if GZ intended to harm someone when he took his gun with on an errand my answer to that would be that I have not seen any evidence to support that. How did he know he would encounter a suspicious person who would allegedly go on to attack him at some point?

If the statement was " Taking a gun out of the house shows intent to use the gun in self defense if attacked" I could agree with that.

[LambChop]

Originally Posted by Phoenixfla

The statement was "Taking a gun out of the house shows intent to cause harm." That is what I was replying to. It is not true. If "Taking a gun out of the house shows intent to cause harm" then everyone who carries a concealed weapon lawfully is doing so with the intent to cause harm. It was a broad statement with no foundation.

If you want my opinion if GZ intended to harm someone when he took his gun with on an errand my answer to that would be that I have not seen any evidence to support that. How did he know he would encounter a suspicious person who would allegedly go on to attack him at some point?

If the statement was " Taking a gun out of the house shows intent to use the gun in self defense if attacked" I could agree with that.

And I think 99% of legal gun owners have no intention of getting an award for the "crime stopper" of the year award. I really think GZ was obsessed about it. Obsession with a gun.....very bad mix. jmo

[RANCH]

Originally Posted by marlame

"Following" someone in certain cases may not be illegal BUT it may not be WISE and can have serious and sometimes deadly consequences.

With that said, IMO ...I don't think GZ was simply "following" Trayvon. I think he was STALKING him.


At what point does "following" become "STALKING"?... :waitasec:
Florida Stalking Statute 748.048
(2) Aggravated stalking: willful, malicious and repeated following or harassing another with credible threats with the intent to place person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury;

:moo: Again this is JMHO:
1) George Zimmerman had no legal authority to: Stalk, follow, stop and/or detain anyone.

2) Police Dispatch told Zimmerman they "do not need" Zimmerman to follow Trayvon Martin.

3) As soon as Zimmerman willfully, knowingly and with forethought ignored Police advice, to not follow Trayvon, Zimmerman became an armed Stalker

Once Zimmerman went from concerned citizen to Stalker, all actions Zimmerman took toward Trayvon Martin were UNLawful.
George Zimmerman STALKED and SHOT Trayvon Martin!

BBM
Is there evidence that GZ repeatedly followed Trayvon?

[AJ Noiter]

Originally Posted by marlame

<snip for length>
At what point does "following" become "STALKING"?... :waitasec:
Florida Stalking Statute 748.048
(2) Aggravated stalking: willful, malicious and repeated following or harassing another with credible threats with the intent to place person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury;

I pointed out a few words you may want to look at. Most of this scenario someone was on the phone. We have Mr. Zimmerman's words for most of it, the rest is picked up by Mr. Martin's girlfriend who never states anything about a threat being made.

1) George Zimmerman had no legal authority to: Stalk, follow, stop and/or detain anyone.

When do you NOT have the legal right to follow someone? Restraining order is the only thing that comes to my mind, and then you can still do it from a distance as prescribed in the restraining order itself. As mentioned above, we have a good indication of what happened based on the two phone calls. I don't recall the girlfriend ever stating Mr. Zimmerman tried to detain him.

2) Police Dispatch told Zimmerman they "do not need" Zimmerman to follow Trayvon Martin.

Notice the word "need" ? That made it ambigious, thus it could not be taken as a command. Also, from the audio of the 911 call we know that Mr. Zimmerman said "Ok" as if he did stop. Mr. O'Mara questioned Investigator Gilbreath and he stated he had no evidence that conflicts with Mr. Zimmerman's story regarding this... so what evidence do you have?

[AJ Noiter]

Originally Posted by LambChop

But explain to me how you would slam someone's head into the cement when they have no hair without injuring your own hands???? I have yet to get a reasonable answer to that question. LOL Any ideas??? jmo

I won't say specifically for this case, but there's ears and a human head really isn't that hard to grip with your hands anyway.

[cityslick]

Originally Posted by Sun48shine

Can you prove that it is not true in this case? NO!!!

Simple, he had a license to carry a concealed weapon. Or is it the belief that everyone who has a CCP has intent to hurt someone if they walk out of the house with a gun?

[Sun48shine]

Originally Posted by Phoenixfla

The statement was "Taking a gun out of the house shows intent to cause harm." That is what I was replying to. It is not true. If "Taking a gun out of the house shows intent to cause harm" then everyone who carries a concealed weapon lawfully is doing so with the intent to cause harm. It was a broad statement with no foundation.

If you want my opinion if GZ intended to harm someone when he took his gun with on an errand my answer to that would be that I have not seen any evidence to support that. How did he know he would encounter a suspicious person who would allegedly go on to attack him at some point?

If the statement was " Taking a gun out of the house shows intent to use the gun in self defense if attacked" I could agree with that.

If the statement was " Taking a gun out of the house shows intent to use the gun in self defense if attacked" I could agree with that.

I thought that most states don't allow people to use guns as self defense, outside of your homes.

[Phoenixfla]

Originally Posted by LambChop

And I think 99% of legal gun owners have no intention of getting an award for the "crime stopper" of the year award. I really think GZ was obsessed about it. Obsession with a gun.....very bad mix. jmo

My opinion is that he was tired of his neighborhood being victimized by crime. He reported someone he thought was suspicious. It is my opinion that while waiting for the police arrived he attempted to continue watching the area so that when the police arrived he could let them know the location, or at least the direction of travel of this suspicious person. My opinion was that this pizzed off TM and he decided to let GZ know that with his fists.

As for being obsessed with guns, I have known a couple of people in my life that I would classify as obsessed with guns. They have many guns, high power guns, guns that are right on the border of being illegal. GZ had one compact relatively low power pistol, and in my opinion was not obsessed with guns.

[missingm]

Originally Posted by LambChop

But explain to me how you would slam someone's head into the cement when they have no hair without injuring your own hands???? I have yet to get a reasonable answer to that question. LOL Any ideas??? jmo

Go ahead and slam a ball or melon into the ground and look at your hands. I bet they don't have any injury. You would push someone's head into the ground using the palm of your hand, not the back.

I think that the main thing going against GZ in regards to the screams is the relatively short period of time between the last scream and the sound of the gun. It seems to be too short of a time to go from total desperation to gaining the upper hand with the gun.

I can easily believe that the screams were either GZ's or TM's. I don't believe the voice expert who stated they consulted with a linguistics expert before coming up with the final score. I believe there are voice recordings for TM out there that will ultimately be used. If the screams are GZ's, it only partially helps him as you could imagine a person intent on killing someone might scream for help to make it look in self defense. It is totally damning evidence if it is TM.

[Elley Mae]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law
Many states have some form of Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground law. Alabama,[7] Alaska, Arizona,[8] California,[9][10] Florida, Georgia, Illinois[citation needed], Indiana, Iowa[11], Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana,[8] Maine, Michigan,[8] Mississippi, Missouri, Montana,[8] New Hampshire,[8] North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma,[8] Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,[12] South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee,[8] Texas[13], Utah,[14] West Virginia,[8] Wisconsin and Wyoming have adopted Castle Doctrine statutes, and other states (Iowa[15], Virginia,[16] and Washington) are currently considering "Stand Your Ground" laws of their own.[17][18][19]

[zenreaper]

Originally Posted by marlame

"Following" someone in certain cases may not be illegal BUT it may not be WISE and can have serious and sometimes deadly consequences.

With that said, IMO ...I don't think GZ was simply "following" Trayvon. I think he was STALKING him.


At what point does "following" become "STALKING"?... :waitasec:
Florida Stalking Statute 748.048
(2) Aggravated stalking: willful, malicious and repeated following or harassing another with credible threats with the intent to place person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury;

:moo: Again this is JMHO:
1) George Zimmerman had no legal authority to: Stalk, follow, stop and/or detain anyone.

2) Police Dispatch told Zimmerman they "do not need" Zimmerman to follow Trayvon Martin.

3) As soon as Zimmerman willfully, knowingly and with forethought ignored Police advice, to not follow Trayvon, Zimmerman became an armed Stalker

Once Zimmerman went from concerned citizen to Stalker, all actions Zimmerman took toward Trayvon Martin were UNLawful.
George Zimmerman STALKED and SHOT Trayvon Martin!

Under the statute, in order to be "stalking", it CLEARLY states that it must be done "repeatedly". Since it was not done repeatedly, it was NOT stalking.

[zenreaper]

Originally Posted by LambChop

But explain to me how you would slam someone's head into the cement when they have no hair without injuring your own hands???? I have yet to get a reasonable answer to that question. LOL Any ideas??? jmo

Go to the store, pick up a cantalope, slam it on the counter. Do you have any bruises?