George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin General discussion #2

Status
Not open for further replies.
It was apparently in the opening statements by defense.

ok thanks, missed it. Of course the defense will challenge that. Doesn't mean they were bagged wrong. But it seems they comfirm his hands were bagged.
 
the judge isn't allowing any of this in is she? - i thought it was just the 911 calls

The only way either history comes in is if the State brings up GZ's history.

She ruled either side could not use past histories in opening statements.

But if the state brings it up, then the defense can use Trayvon's history.
 
:nono:

This is not a "clear, documented police record of violence".

You have a civil case in which the police were never involved in, and was resolved with both sides receiving restraining orders - essentially he said, she said.

Then you have charges that were lessened in court to a non-violent offense, of which he was convicted. What he was charged with doesn't matter. You can charge someone with anything. The conviction is all that matters. And then the charge was subsequently expunged after he met certain requirements and stayed out of trouble for a prescribed period of time, because he was a first-time offender.

<modsnip>

That is absolutely a clear, documented record of violence. Getting one's charge reduced for agreeing to take a substance abuse class is not the same as saying "he didn't do it." He obviously did it, and apparently didn't stick at smacking up his girlfriend, either. This is documented. Your accusations about Martin are not; they are only speculation.

If the conviction were all that mattered, there wouldn't be people calling Martin a with absolutely no verified proof that he was anything of the sort.
 
Here is something that we have to consider though.. He is not being charged with anything else. Not obstruction of justice, not illegally restraining someone, nothing else. I think that if there were really grounds to charge him he would have been charged.

So all that leaves is second degree murder and they are just not there yet. Not for me anyway.

I don't believe GZ did either of those thing and I don't think it's a 2nd degree murder case at all. I do not believe he intended to kill him, I think it was voluntary manslaughter given the circumstances. Intent to do harm but not necessarily to kill. Things got out of hand, but I continue to blame GZ for that.

The circumstances were brought about by GZ. He was determined not to let TM get away, even though he never saw the kid do anything other than walk around "looking suspicious" which is completely subjective. Bad choices, stupid decisions - but I don't believe GZ should walk off scott free either. He made huge errors in judgment and should be held accountable.
 
Yes. I think it's a case of two young men (and yes, I consider GZ to be a young man) who completely misread each other. I think GZ thought TM was fleeing the scene and did not expect a confrontation. I think TM thought he had the upper hand in the confrontation and did not expect GZ to have a gun on him. Such a horrible, senseless tragedy.

Fleeing the scene of what? TM was a guy wearing a hooded sweatshirt in the rain, talking on the phone while carrying iced tea and candy.

Suppose GZ had merely 'detained' him? What would he have thought he was detaining him for? My son wears hoodies frequently. He might walk through a neighborhood at night talking on the phone. Why would he be followed? He's a young man, and young men are occasionally stopped by LE for no reason, just EWY (existing while young).

I fail to see any reason whatsoever why TM should have been pursued, or followed, or detained, or shot. Zimmerman didn't recognize him as someone he knew from the neighborhood. But it looks as though there are 100+ units in the neighborhood- there could be many hundreds of people living there, and it was so dark, how could Zimmerman recognize him, regardless? He followed a teenager who was doing nothing wrong, not even acting suspiciously.
 
I don't believe GZ did either of those thing and I don't think it's a 2nd degree murder case at all. I do not believe he intended to kill him, I think it was voluntary manslaughter given the circumstances. Intent to do harm but not necessarily to kill. Things got out of hand, but I continue to blame GZ for that.

The circumstances were brought about by GZ. He was determined not to let TM get away, even though he never saw the kid do anything other than walk around "looking suspicious" which is completely subjective. Bad choices, stupid decisions - but I don't believe GZ would walk off scott free either. He made huge errors in judgment and should be held accountable.

There is no evidence to suggest he did not want martin to get away.
 
That is absolutely a clear, documented record of violence. Getting one's charge reduced for agreeing to take a substance abuse class is not the same as saying "he didn't do it." He obviously did it, and apparently didn't stick at smacking up his girlfriend, either. This is documented. Your accusations about Martin are not; they are only speculation.

If the conviction were all that mattered, there wouldn't be people calling Martin a with absolutely no verified proof that he was anything of the sort.

Just because someone is charged does not make them guilty.

AS far as TM goes, I think he called himself a .
 
I wasn't surprised she liked the page on Facebook. It's a big case, local to her area. I will be shocked if most of the witnesses haven't "liked" a page, made comments of some sort, or even donated to the Zimmerman fund. JMO

Having said that, her adding the left to right in her testimony today hurt her credibility. I will believe her first reports to LE though...

I don't think the facebook 'like' was as damaging as her signing the change.org petition. Yikes!
 
todays last witness mentioned 'she grabbed the dog and went up stairs'. Another witness was walking a dog.
My question is 'why weren't these dogs barking at the noise?'
 
There is no evidence to suggest he did not want martin to get away.

Really? Following him relentlessly and making the comment "these ***** always get away" seems pretty clear to me. And TM was found no where near GZ's truck. So again, it's very clear that GZ went after him.
 
CCW card holder til no longer required (Az law change), Arizona, multiple gun owner all my life, bro-in-law LE, etc., etc. But we can agree to disagree.
So what would you do if you didn't have a round in the chamber and one of your hands or arms was rendered disabled? Just genuinely curious.
 
Really? Following him relentlessly and making the comment "these ***** always get away" seems pretty clear to me. And TM was found no where near GZ's truck. So again, it's very clear that GZ went after him.

just because he said that does not mean he went after him.

look at the evidence.
 
There is no evidence to suggest he did not want martin to get away.

Well, he called the cops on him, began to pursue him when he ran, and muttered about people like him always getting away in a frustrated manner. Safe to say he did not want Martin to get away.
 
He actually called himself a gangsta

So do my blond haired, blue eyed cousins. And they aren't. LOL!

Well, unless you consider the Army a gang! Some might, so can't rule that out.
 
Well, he called the cops on him, began to pursue him when he ran, and muttered about people like him always getting away in a frustrated manner. Safe to say he did not want Martin to get away.

I don't think he wanted him to get away before police arrived and was just trying to keep him in sight. I don't believe he was pursuing him trying to corner him or hold him. I think he was just trying to see where he was going to alert police.
 
I don't think he wanted him to get away before police arrived and was just trying to keep him in sight. I don't believe he was pursuing him trying to corner him or hold him. I think he was just trying to see where he was going to alert police.

Well that's my point. He may not have chased him (maybe) or attempted to detain him. But it is clear he doesn't want him to get away.
 
Fleeing the scene of what? TM was a guy wearing a hooded sweatshirt in the rain, talking on the phone while carrying iced tea and candy.

Suppose GZ had merely 'detained' him? What would he have thought he was detaining him for? My son wears hoodies frequently. He might walk through a neighborhood at night talking on the phone. Why would he be followed? He's a young man, and young men are occasionally stopped by LE for no reason, just EWY (existing while young).

I fail to see any reason whatsoever why TM should have been pursued, or followed, or detained, or shot. Zimmerman didn't recognize him as someone he knew from the neighborhood. But it looks as though there are 100+ units in the neighborhood- there could be many hundreds of people living there, and it was so dark, how could Zimmerman recognize him, regardless? He followed a teenager who was doing nothing wrong, not even acting suspiciously.

I didn't say I thought TM was fleeing. I'm saying, IMO, that is what GZ thought. I believe that GZ did not expect a confrontation. IMO, he was trying to figure out where TM went so he could give that information to police.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
211
Guests online
2,701
Total visitors
2,912

Forum statistics

Threads
586,893
Messages
17,872,459
Members
226,889
Latest member
LBeckyB9421
Back
Top