George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin General discussion #2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Because GZ was having his head bashed into the pavement and he had no way of retreating so he used his weapon to fire causing the bullet hole to the chest.

He used his weapon as a last resort when people would not come out and help him when he was screaming for help.

thats not what gz said - he said tm saw the gun and grabbed for it and there was a struggled, i just can't remember if this was his first or last statement
 
They had break ins, TM was seen loitering in the complex I think he just wanted to police to be able to talk to him.

Good enough but he took it to another level. I think it is entirely fine to drive up along side someone, roll the window down, and say "hey, do you live around here?" giving TM the chance to say what he was doing there, or getting a better read on the kid. Was he nervous? Did he act calm and casual? He could have done that but he chose to follow him around like a creep. And loitering can be subjective, was he walking around the same area over and over or walking in a definite direction?
 
I carry a revolver, S & W .357, FMJ hollow points, so not an issue :floorlaugh: I use various pistols when I target practice or have to put down an animal, use the Mossberg 590 when I want to scare away predators, or rifles if I want to cap 'em.

Good ol' wheelguns!
 
I carry a revolver, S & W .357, FMJ hollow points, so not an issue :floorlaugh: I use various pistols when I target practice or have to put down an animal, use the Mossberg 590 when I want to scare away predators, or rifles if I want to cap 'em.

Just want to add that a revolver is a great and often overlooked choice of a handgun for protection. IMO, it is much less complex than a semi-automatic, and for people that are new to guns and maybe even a little fearful of them, but want a handgun for protection, I always recommend a revolver.

I also have a .357 S+W Model 19 revolver, and it is my favorite bedside handgun. I have a smaller 380 Bersa semi-auto for carrying.

For people who do not know, a double-action REVOLVER has the cylinder in which you put the shells and each time you squeeze the trigger with the hammer down in its normal position, then the cylinder rotates to the next shell and the hammer falls onto the shells primer in that location in the cylinder. Its the kind of handgun we see in the movie deer hunter where they spin the cylinder during the russian roulette scene.

I think too many people like to purchase semi-automatic handguns just because they are more "cool" and is what we see in TV all the time. The often overlooked revolver is a safe and less complex choice. IMO only of course
OH, and virtually no risk of shells "jamming".
 
With all due respect, did you watch the trial today? The crime scene photographer (the state's witness, FWIW) confirmed GZ's injuries. The lumps and abrasions from having his head hit the sidewalk were clearly evident in the photos she had taken.

Further the defense asked if luminol (or similar substance) was used to detect blood. The answer was no. LE used only flashlights, in the rain on a dark night, to search for blood evidence.

I was gone for awhile, did she state the injuries were from having his head hit the sidewalk? Because how would she know where they came from by just taking a photo? Or is that your opinion? No snark meant.
 
George Zimmerman says, he (TM) got away, they always get away. That is not a quote, just close enough. I have to assume TM is either hiding, or circling back. I also assume both GZ and TM had every right to be out in the neighborhood. I assume they both had every right to be watching/following the other one. GZ called 911 to voice his concern about a suspicious person in the neighborhood. TM had the right to call 911 if he was concerned. The question is, who was the attacker? I understand people saying GZ shouldn't have gotten out of his vehicle. Shouldn't TM have gone home instead of approaching GZ and asking him why he was following him? According to TM's girlfriend, that's what happened. If GZ had stayed in his car, this would have never happened. If TM had just kept walking home, this would have never happened. The only debate I see is deciding who started throwing punches. If someone attacked me, and I had a gun, they would have never put a scratch on me. Trust me, I'd shoot first! I can't help but believe that if GZ just wanted to shoot TM, he would have done it before TM ever put a mark on him. I don't think he would have called police if he just wanted to shoot somebody. Even the fact that GZ has made numerous 911 calls isn't alarming to me. All these calls, and no violence on GZ's part? It all comes down to who attacked who! The argument that GZ had no right to follow TM doesn't hold water. They both had a right to be out in the neighborhood whether they were walking in the same direction or not.

To answer the bolded question - perhaps TM was trying to figure out GZ and determine if he needed to call the cops on HIM? All GZ had to do was say "hey, we've had a lot of break ins around here and I don't recognize you, do you live here"? For all TM knew, GZ could have been a perverted freak or someone who wanted to rob HIM.
 
I know its hard to believe, but not all dogs bark at strangers or commotions.

I have a very meek and mild mannered dog and when a stranger comes to the door, he goes and hides. Not kidding. :floorlaugh:

Aawwwwweee (((((Hatfield's dog)))))
 
Just want to add that a revolver is a great and often overlooked choice of a handgun for protection. IMO, it is much less complex than a semi-automatic, and for people that are new to guns and maybe even a little fearful of them, but want a handgun for protection, I always recommend a revolver.

I also have a .357 S+W Model 19 revolver, and it is my favorite bedside handgun. I have a smaller 380 Bersa semi-auto for carrying.

For people who do not know, a double-action REVOLVER has the cylinder in which you put the shells and each time you squeeze the trigger with the hammer down in its normal position, then the cylinder rotates to the next shell and the hammer falls onto the shells primer in that location in the cylinder.

I think too many people like to purchase semi-automatic handguns just because they are more "cool" and is what we see in TV all the time. The often overlooked revolver is a safe and less complex choice. IMO only of course
Just funny that someone concerned about lack of safeties and carrying with one in the chamber carries a revolver that doesn't traditionally have a safety, and has a round ready to go on the pull of a trigger.
 
A few random points:

1. There is no evidence that GZ was severely beaten. He was probably struck once on the nose. Zimmerman has no reported guarding injuries, and TM has no damage to his hands, wrists, or elbows. In short, there is nothing to suggest that Martin was striking Zimmerman repeatedly at all. No evidence, other than the testimony of the defendant -- a known liar who has changed his story multiple times.

2. There is no evidence that Martin was repeatedly ramming Zimmerman's head into the sidewalk. First, they weren't on or even near the sidewalk. Second, Zimmerman's head does not show the injuries you might expect if this had happened. Third, no blood was found on the sidewalk. Fourth, Zimmerman was bald and it was wet -- making any effort to grab his head difficult or impossible. Fifth, Martin had no blood or DNA from Zimmerman on his hands.

3. Zimmerman's version of events has changed multiple times during the course of all this. Not minor points, or things misremembered, but major aspects of his story. This should be kept in mind when evaluating the few simple points he has stuck with.

4. Zimmerman's story does not match the physical evidence or the witness statements.

5. Zimmerman's call to 911 contains defamatory statements about Martin that Zimmerman has never justified or explained, and which do not seem to match what we now know about the victim.

6. There is, in my mind, a very real question as to whether or not Zimmerman's repeated stalking of this kid automatically negates any claim to self-defense.

7. The bullet trajectory is a big deal. The fact that it was a straight through shot, front to back, indicates that Zimmerman must have had enough separation to position to gun between them -- and this ignores completely the problem of drawing it from that position in the first place. If Zimmerman's story were true I would expect to see an entry wound in the side or abdomen.

IMO

It's hard to comprehend that a "mixed-marshal-arts enthusiast" didn't use that training to defend himself against a kid that liked to refer to himself as a "street ". (I don't believe TM was a "" of any variety. He just wanted to build street cred as many young people seem to want these days.) :twocents:
 
To answer the bolded question - perhaps TM was trying to figure out GZ and determine if he needed to call the cops on HIM? All GZ had to do was say "hey, we've had a lot of break ins around here and I don't recognize you, do you live here"? For all TM knew, GZ could have been a perverted freak or someone who wanted to rob HIM.

So Trayvon is right by his father's girlfriends house, could have gone inside and called 911.

Why would TM need to ask George a question? Trayvon did not even reside in George's neighboorhood.

he had a phone on him, so why not call 911 and say there is some freaky person following me, I need the police here asap?
 
Because GZ was having his head bashed into the pavement and he had no way of retreating so he used his weapon to fire causing the bullet hole to the chest.

He used his weapon as a last resort when people would not come out and help him when he was screaming for help.

But you said he was just trying to keep him in sight. If you're trying to keep someone in sight then how do you end up fighting with them and getting your head bashed in? 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. People who aren't pursuing someone don't end up shooting the other person. I found if I call the police I wait for the police I don't continue chasing the person, which GZ did.
 
P.S. It isn't helping that I also keep wondering, "Why did GZ need a gun to go to Target?"
Some people routinely carry everywhere they go - as long as it's not a prohibited location.
 
To answer the bolded question - perhaps TM was trying to figure out GZ and determine if he needed to call the cops on HIM? All GZ had to do was say "hey, we've had a lot of break ins around here and I don't recognize you, do you live here"? For all TM knew, GZ could have been a perverted freak or someone who wanted to rob HIM.



Ahhhhh! So it's OK for TM to be curious about what GZ was up to? That was exactly what GZ did. He called the cops. He never approached TM. I'll say it again....all TM had to do was to go home. Approaching is confronting. Shouldn't have happened.
 
Just funny that someone concerned about lack of safeties and carrying with one in the chamber carries a revolver that doesn't traditionally have a safety, and has a round ready to go on the pull of a trigger.

The conceal carry class I attended had some interesting questions and answers about how "loaded" and "ready" a weapon should be carried for protection. Personal choice does come into play to some extent, but the overall theme of the class was to be sure and be safe to avoid accidental firing, but does not necessrilarily mean not having one in chamber so long s gun has a safety too. The problem comes into how "ready" one can be if you are attacked and need your weapon.

So, there is an inherant conflict that each person has to make a decision on as far as how "ready" do you want to have your weapon.
 
Because GZ was having his head bashed into the pavement and he had no way of retreating so he used his weapon to fire causing the bullet hole to the chest.

He used his weapon as a last resort when people would not come out and help him when he was screaming for help.

Exactly. He was screaming for help, asked witness JG to call the police, and TM chose to continue beating him. TM could have also chosen to scream for police, but he didnt. At that point, what would you do if you were GZ? Continue getting beaten into the pavement and risk brain damage? Or resort to any means necessary to save your own life?

I am a long term websleuths reader (but infrequent poster) who lives near where this happened and works with witness JG and his wife. This whole case hits really close to home and I am terrified of riots in our town. Sigh. I can't wait to read back through the threads from today and yesterday and see what all you intelligent sleuths have to say.
 
this is my first time posting on this case...

i am trying to go into this with an open mind but at this point, if I was on the jury I would vote not guilty. I'm sorry but it's not plausible to me that Zimmerman would call and ask for police before any confrontation with Trayvon took place, and then go chase him down and shoot him, knowing the cops would be there any second. This, combined with his injuries to the back of the head which is the evidence we have seen so far, just confirm for me that there is reasonable doubt.

i feel terrible for the Martin's loss, but sympathy for either side is not to be considered when coming to a verdict.

i think the defense is turning almost all of the state's witnesses into defense witnesses and I find Mr. O'Mara much more likeable than the state attorneys.
i also think the point of Mr. West's very long and meticulous, detailed opening was to get in front of all the states evidence and plant the seed early so that there is already some doubt in their minds when the prosecution is presenting their witnesses. I know opening and closings aren't considered evidence but we'll see what the defense is able to show in their case in chief.

that last witness today was just ridiculous. she was like a deer in headlights when put on the spot by O'Mara. I think we are going to see a lot of this in the coming days. The state should have been much better prepared for this. I will also concede that we may see some of this with defense witnesses as well, however I would think Mr. O'Mara would bring it up himself rather than try to hide it as the prosecution did.

Angela Corey bothers me after that presser she held to announce the charges against zimmerman, and seeing her in the front row just reminds me of that.

I believe the defense got the jury they wanted more so than the state and I will be shocked with anything other than a not guilty verdict. Maybe a hung jury if not a total aquittal
 
But you said he was just trying to keep him in sight. If you're trying to keep someone in sight then how do you end up fighting with them and getting your head bashed in? 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. People who aren't pursuing someone don't end up shooting the other person. I found if I call the police I wait for the police I don't continue chasing the person, which GZ did.
They do if the other person hides, approaches them, and punches them.
 
I'm gonna chime in. I don't think there is any way of telling what exactly happened that night. I don't think GZ got out of his car intent on killing or shooting TM. I think he got out so he wouldn't lose sight of him. Not saying his actions were right, but I don't know if he actually did anything illegal there. Honestly, I don't think there is enough evidence to say he wasn't afraid for his life. If I was on that jury, I don't think I could convict him. It's a tragedy and I know Trayvon isn't here to tell his side, but I don't see anything that proves beyond a reasonable doubt it wasn't self defense. Just my opinion, though.
 
The conceal carry class I attended had some interesting questions and answers about how "loaded" and "ready" a weapon should be carried for protection. Personal choice does come into play to some extent, but the overall theme of the class was to be sure and be safe to avoid accidental firing, but does not necessrilarily mean not having one in chamber so long s gun has a safety too. The problem comes into how "ready" one can be if you are attacked and need your weapon.

So, there is an inherant conflict that each person has to make a decision on as far as how "ready" do you want to have your weapon.
I agree with this, but my point of view on the subject is that if your weapon never leaves its holster unless you intend to fire it or immediately disable/unload it, there's pretty much zero chance something bad will go down. If you're carrying the weapon improperly and not in a holster, your mileage may vary.

ETA I will admit I was afraid when I got my first weapon (A Sig P226) and was confounded as to the lack of safety. For this reason, I carried without one in the chamber for a while. As I got more comfortable with the gun and realized that it won't fire unless something engages the trigger mechanism, I started carrying with one in the chamber. Now I always do this, and none of my pistols have safeties. I am a safety nut, though, and will chew anyone out that is improperly handling/pointing a firearm around me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
177
Guests online
1,101
Total visitors
1,278

Forum statistics

Threads
586,807
Messages
17,870,129
Members
226,857
Latest member
Leafy
Back
Top