George Zimmerman /Trayvon Martin General Discussion #14 Friday July 12

[Chester_from_THM]

The lead detective believed TM was a who was there to commit a burglary. They didn't even bother to canvass the townhouses to see if he belonged there. Just stuck him in the morgue as an "unknown". Clear the police didn't want to bother.

Amen, LG!

This is probably what is so disturbing to me about this case. How LE did not even bother to treat him like a victim, and did not bother to investigate GZ's story adequately. There was so much apathy about this young man's death, it is heartbreaking.

And even after death, TM is being accused of causing his own death because he could have run home.

I guess it is also his fault that the ME's office *advertiser censored**ed up, and the investigators *advertiser censored**ed up and gave GZ a pass right from the start.

Disgraceful, IMO.

 

[BiggNewt]

This is a disaster...No evidence...all emotion...all speculation. IMO

 

[cityslick]

Once again!
GZ did start this altercation that ended up in cold blooded murder.

And I Quote
"WE DON'T NEED YOU TO DO THAT"
Not once but TWICE.
Please tell me what is so un-understandable about that.

That didn't start the fight with TM. Him getting out of his car and and walking in his neighborhood is not evidence that he started the fight.

It is not against the law to get out of your car.

 

[EGirl]

No, I believe you misunderstand something very important. Zimmerman is not assumed to be innocent, nor is it assumed that he is telling the truth.

Zimmerman killed an unarmed teen. He has admitted to doing so. Killing unarmed people is against the law. However, Zimmerman is claiming that he had no choice but to kill this kid, and that therefore he should be excused from the normal penalties that might apply.

Zimmerman is the one making this claim. It is his job to provide some evidence to justify his choices. The prosecution's job here is not to prove what happened, but to show that Zimmerman's version of events is not necessarily believable. Every questionable statement Zimmerman has made, every flaw in his various stories, the lack of any meaningful injuries, all these must be weighted by the jury. They are not weighting the prosecution's case -- as there is no question that Zimmerman pulled the trigger -- they are weighting Zimmerman's excuse.

The reason for this is simple. If the law did not work in this way, virtually any time a murder took place away from witnesses the defense could claim self-defense. Yes, I stopped the woman at gunpoint, but I never planned to kill her -- she grabbed for my gun! Prove me wrong! Yes, I followed this kid around with a gun, but I never planned to kill him -- he attacked me, he went for my gun! Prove me wrong!

See how that works? Zimmerman is the one making the claim, and it's a bloody big one. We have an unarmed dead teen, a teen who (by the defendant's own admission) was attempting to get away. Getting from that to "I had to kill him" is a mighty big leap, and Zimmerman's story has quite a few holes.

IMO

No that's not how it works.

The police investigate, send the case to the DA, to the Grand Jury (which didn't happen in this case) to determine if a crime had in fact been committed. The DA then has to prove that a crime was committed in a court of law.

Many cases never make it that far because investigation ferrets out whether it was a case of self defense or not.

 

[5bigfish5]

Seriously? The Pros is arguing for emotion over evidence!?

It's all they have.

"bleep-bleep punks" is BAD! But crazy-bleep cracker is A-OK.

 

[MeeBee]

Everyone's a lawyer! IMO

 

[katiewonders]

I'm shocked its not necessary for Zimmerman to take the stand in a self defense case. It's unheard of where I come from.

In the US, the defendant never has to take the stand in any case.

 

[Zoe Bogart]

There is no evidence of fear from TM.

Here we go with the feelings again.. Imagine, Feel, Emote.. Don't look at the evidence.

Let's not forget "child". I guess "child" garners more emoting than "young man".

 

[rose222]

Once again!
GZ did start this altercation that ended up in cold blooded murder.

And I Quote
"WE DON'T NEED YOU TO DO THAT"
Not once but TWICE.
Please tell me what is so un-understandable about that.

Following someone does not = starting a fight.

It's not illegal to follow someone but it is illegal to punch someone.

IMO.

 

[logicalgirl]

You definitely need to find another dentist. I've had about 7 root canals and it was a piece of cake. Technique is very important and I have been to sloppy careless dentists, but fired them all. OT, I know, sorry.

No - the difference is if your wisdom tooth is impacted. Then you will get bruising and black eyes.

IMO

 

[Linda7NJ]

This closing is much better. IMO

 

[gxm]

IMO, the state is making a mistake pushing the "child" meme. It's silly to refer to a person who was clearly a young man as a "child." Unless TM was developmentally challenged, it just makes the state look desperate. JMO. OMO. MOO.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

No, I believe you misunderstand something very important. Zimmerman is not assumed to be innocent, nor is it assumed that he is telling the truth

Zimmerman killed an unarmed teen. He has admitted to doing so. Killing unarmed people is against the law. However, Zimmerman is claiming that he had no choice but to kill this kid, and that therefore he should be excused from the normal penalties that might apply.

Zimmerman is the one making this claim. It is his job to provide some evidence to justify his choices. The prosecution's job here is not to prove what happened, but to show that Zimmerman's version of events is not necessarily believable. Every questionable statement Zimmerman has made, every flaw in his various stories, the lack of any meaningful injuries, all these must be weighted by the jury. They are not weighting the prosecution's case -- as there is no question that Zimmerman pulled the trigger -- they are weighting Zimmerman's excuse.

The reason for this is simple. If the law did not work in this way, virtually any time a murder took place away from witnesses the defense could claim self-defense. Yes, I stopped the woman at gunpoint, but I never planned to kill her -- she grabbed for my gun! Prove me wrong! Yes, I followed this kid around with a gun, but I never planned to kill him -- he attacked me, he went for my gun! Prove me wrong!

See how that works? Zimmerman is the one making the claim, and it's a bloody big one. We have an unarmed dead teen, a teen who (by the defendant's own admission) was attempting to get away. Getting from that to "I had to kill him" is a mighty big leap, and Zimmerman's story has quite a few holes.

IMO

WHERE DO YOU LIVE? because here in AMERICA we are all presumed innocent of charges until they are proven.

 

[Mahouston69]

Thank goodness its Kevin Costner for final args!

And pretty to look at

 

[UdbCrzy2]

I'll bet weak unfit men everywhere are rejoicing with this presentation. Hey, I can start a fight, lose it, and shoot the guy and it's legal.

Unbelievable the world has come to this.

IMO

It sort of reminds me of the South Park video It's Coming Right For Us IMO
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/149674/its-coming-right-for-us

 

[logicalgirl]

Following someone does not = starting a fight.

It's not illegal to follow someone but it is illegal to punch someone.

IMO.

Apparently not according to posters here - you can even shoot them dead.

IMO

 

[Footwarrior]

I also don't understand about the Arizona Iced Tea and skiddles. I bet I have heard that 10 million times on tv.
The hoodie I get. Not only AA's wear them (I have several, everyone in my family does). Every bank and credit union I frequent, has signs by every door, stating, NO HATS, SUNGLASSES OR HOODS, because people wear these to hide their identy when they are doing crimes. I can understand pulling the hood up while its raining, but if I when into a business, I would pull it down while inside, just to give the employees view of my face and a little peace of mind.

The 7/11 store clerk wasn't at all bothered by TM wearing a hoodie. And when GZ saw Trayvon, he was outside and it was raining.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

No - the difference is if your wisdom tooth is impacted. Then you will get bruising and black eyes.

IMO

I didn't.

 

[Chris_Texas]

So let me get this straight. "MAYBE Martin was defending his life by punching Zimmerman." MAYBE that's what happened so let us convict Zimmerman of murder.

Yikes to this way of thinking.

imo.

Fortunately no one is saying that. You left out quite a few very important details.

Zimmerman, an armed adult, pursued an innocent teen because he thought walking home in the rain, at dinnertime, was suspicious. He pursued him to the clubhouse, he pursued him around the corner and down the street, he pursued him until the teen panicked and ran behind some buildings to escape the "creepy" guy following him. He then exited his vehicle, and against LE advice, pursued him further still.

At some point they met, a tussle occurred, and the teen was gunned down. Zimmerman is claiming that he had no choice but to kill this kid, and he has offered several conflicting versions of events as justification. He has failed to offer a consistent version of what took place leading up to the physical conflict, and his version of what happened during the fight has changed as well -- and none of his versions match the physical evidence found at the scene.

Trayvon Martin is dead. His killer, a man with a history of violence and lying under oath, has offered nothing but inconsistent excuses and stories in his defense. The right to defend yourself is not on trial, George Zimmerman is, and he damn well aught to be found guilty.

IMO

 

[JeannaT]

The jury wants to shoulder on.

Interesting. I don't think if I were Guy, I would want to close before a hungry and tired jury.

Their call, I guess.

It sounds to me like they're planning to deliver a verdict today.
IMHO