George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin General Discussion Thread #8

[gxm]

Yes! Sheaffer is confirming what I just said. SYG and self defense are not the same thing. JMO. OMO. MOO. (Because I have trouble wrapping my head around these legal subtleties.)

 

[costalpilot]

I am just not sure that it is a lie. I don't see it that way. Maybe he did not feel he felt enough about it to talk about it clearly and correctly on NATIONAL TV!

I can tell you lots about Football. I was raised on it, But I would be petrified to go on ESPN and have a conversation about it and get something wrong.

I still don't see how this is an issue..

I know that If I kill someone in my home I have a right to protect myself and so that is okay.. I did not study it I know it..
So if I am attacked in my home and kill someone will someone come and look up this thread and say.. " HEY she knew this! IT must be murder?!!~!"

I think that the prosecution should stick to the CIC.. This is all smoke and mirrors IMO..

desperation, nothing less, imo.

 

[gxm]

I've warmed up to West, and I was really put off by that terrible joke. Just saying.

 

[Jane Jetson]

How? That he wanted to be a cop??

So people that become cops just fall into it? They don't plan it? Or study for it? Or desire it?

Silly... Just silly..

OMO

ITA.

In my opinion, people who want to be cops are, for the most part, brave, and want to protect their fellow citizens. Those descriptions both apply to what George Zimmerman was doing on the night of February 26, 2012, in my personal opinion.

 

[costalpilot]

Yes. They are trying to gather enough little things at the jury to hope they add but but the core of their case is was this a willful planned act.. And that they can not get to. Not with what they have ..

OMO

they have already cast heaps of reasonable doubt on the "heart" of their case, according to the TV talking heads I have seen.

by their own actions.

in the opinion of most of the legal experts I have seen on TV..

 

[missmazzy]

IMO - GZ profiled TM, he followed him against protocol that he knew and was very familiar with, initiated the contact with TM, used deadly force when it wasn't necessary and then knew exactly what to say to police so that he (hopefully) wouldn't get charged with the crime that he knew he just committed. If he had said he was familiar with the law, and he's the only person that knows how the altercation started, that would point to him knowing what to say so that he could avoid any prosecution; so, he lied and said he didn't know about that law so that it would appear that his situation "fit" the parameters for self defense/SYG.

Thank you. Makes sense...if that's the way it happened. I don't agree, but that's why we're all here, to discuss. I appreciate the answer.

 

[bourne]

The State's argument is making a seriously flawed argument because if studying criminal justice means Zimmerman has no credibility, then all lawyers, police officers, and anyone who studied criminal justice should be deemed as effective evaders of the law and can never be believed when under police interrogation. That is ABSURD!

 

[sacrablue]

TM was walking down the sidewalk confronting GZ with one hand in his waste area when suddenly he jumped behind a hedge or a shrub and jumped out and startled GZ.
Are we happy with this nonsense IMO ?

But wait, now GZ is saying he turned around to go back to his SUV because dispatch asked him to.
You see what GZ is doing don't you IMO?
He is trying to fabricate stories to answer all the questions.
Like going to walk and find an address.
Nonsense GZ. You are getting caught up in your own sugar coated nonsense to cover your butt after the fact.

 

[sickofitAll]

This case reinforces my opinion that you should never talk to police without a lawyer present...

The only thing the state has presented are minor discrepancies between statements and interviews...

He fully cooperated with them...he even did a damn walk-through the following day...

GZ thought he was doing the right thing by talking to them...They are using every word against him...

 

[bourne]

I am just not sure that it is a lie. I don't see it that way. Maybe he did not feel he felt enough about it to talk about it clearly and correctly on NATIONAL TV!

I can tell you lots about Football. I was raised on it, But I would be petrified to go on ESPN and have a conversation about it and get something wrong.

I still don't see how this is an issue..

I know that If I kill someone in my home I have a right to protect myself and so that is okay.. I did not study it I know it..
So if I am attacked in my home and kill someone will someone come and look up this thread and say.. " HEY she knew this! IT must be murder?!!~!"

I think that the prosecution should stick to the CIC.. This is all smoke and mirrors IMO..

I agree. I don't believe Zimmerman was necessarily lying. He might simply not have remembered the exact term for that specific self-defense SYG. In fact, it seems like the Defense is saying that the professor may not have used the term SYG but "Castle Doctrine" which is the more generally known legal term in most states.

 

[JudyBolton]

That is ABSURD!

And yet you can bet that this judge will not allow ANY evidence to show the recent history of TM which IMO shows that GZ had good instincts when he found him suspicious .

 

[missmazzy]

This case reinforces my opinion that you should never talk to police without a lawyer present...

The only thing the state has presented are minor discrepancies between statements and interviews...

He fully cooperated with them...he even did a damn walk-through the following day...

GZ thought he was doing the right thing by talking to them...They are using every word against him...

In response to your first sentence, I'm not a religious person but AMEN!

 

[katiewonders]

This case reinforces my opinion that you should never talk to police without a lawyer present...

The only thing the state has presented are minor discrepancies between statements and interviews...

He fully cooperated with them...he even did a damn walk-through the following day...

GZ thought he was doing the right thing by talking to them...They are using every word against him...

I agree with you, and really like this lecture by a lawyer (and law professor) who tells you just why he - and we - should never talk to the cops. I, however, can't imagine myself not talking to one. Maybe I should watch the video again. lol

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik"]Don't Talk to Cops, Part 1 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Just K]

they have already cast heaps of reasonable doubt on the "heart" of their case, according to the TV talking heads I have seen.

by their own actions.

in the opinion of most of the legal experts I have seen on TV..

They are laying their foundation and we can not know if they are "winning or losing" until they present all of their case. IMO.

For example, if I said I am going to the store, I'm loading my gun, strapping it on and then I got into my car. If you now know that I shot someone 10 minutes later, and that is all you might assume that the case is over.

The State is nowhere near finishing their statement...so to speak.

They still have to present all of the ME reports, ballistics, and other forensic evidence.

 

[costalpilot]

IMO - GZ profiled TM, he followed him against protocol that he knew and was very familiar with, initiated the contact with TM, used deadly force when it wasn't necessary and then knew exactly what to say to police so that he (hopefully) wouldn't get charged with the crime that he knew he just committed. If he had said he was familiar with the law, and he's the only person that knows how the altercation started, that would point to him knowing what to say so that he could avoid any prosecution; so, he lied and said he didn't know about that law so that it would appear that his situation "fit" the parameters for self defense/SYG.

thats a lot of "opinions" without actual evidence.

i think my comment is an observation rather than an opinion, but i could be wrong, so

imo.

 

[Jane Jetson]

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a high standard. No way the prosecution gets there with this extraneous stuff, IMO.

Having said that...GZ's life is irreparably destroyed (yes, I know TM is dead, may he RIP).
After this trial, no matter the outcome, the Martins will sue GZ, win, since the standard is lower, and GZ will have a multi million dollar judgement against him (a'la OJ). He will be unable to work and actually make money, and any monies he receives for stuff related to the case will be taken away.

Really a no win situation all around, which is why this case is so so sad. IMO.

In my opinion, although my heart goes out to the Martins, and I pray for the soul of Trayvon, may he rest in peace, there is no way they would win anything against George Zimmerman. As we are seeing, there is, in my opinion, no evidence against him and a lot of evidence that exonerates him.

 

[bourne]

This case reinforces my opinion that you should never talk to police without a lawyer present...

The only thing the state has presented are minor discrepancies between statements and interviews...

He fully cooperated with them...he even did a damn walk-through the following day...

GZ thought he was doing the right thing by talking to them...They are using every word against him...

Agree. I think Zimmerman, or any defendant with or without a lawyer, should have given only one statement to LE. This way they won't have multiple accounts of what you're saying and nitpick miniscule inconsistencies to prove you're lying.

It's sad that we have to be so cynical about "justice" and the law.

 

[JudyBolton]

This case reinforces my opinion that you should never talk to police without a lawyer present...
.

I agree with your reasoning but isn't this a sad commentary on our justice system? If you are innocent you cannot just tell the truth? You have to think of every single word as if it will be twisted against you?

Sorry for our country that this spectacle has been brought about and how it will affect everyone's future. imo

 

[missmazzy]

They are laying their foundation and we can not know if they are "winning or losing" until they present all of their case. IMO.

For example, if I said I am going to the store, I'm loading my gun, strapping it on and then I got into my car. If you now know that I shot someone 10 minutes later, and that is all you might assume that the case is over.

The State is nowhere near finishing their statement...so to speak.

They still have to present all of the ME reports, ballistics, and other forensic evidence.

I am still waiting patiently for the ME to testify. IMO, if he/she states that the bullet's trajectory, etc. show that TM was on top when he was shot, the case is over.

 

[LinTX]

I personally have seen many FB postings threatening violence if there is a not guilty verdict. I am also smart enough to know most of those people are full of crap.

My brother lives in the area, and did not rely on FB postings when he told me yesterday that people there are very concerned. He's also known to be able to distinguish crap from reality from time to time...