G. Zimmerman

[zopperman]

There was a forensic pathologist who testified that the forensics evidence supports Zimmerman's account of what happened as well as an eyewitness to the scuffle. The wounds that Zimmerman sustained as well as the trajectory of the gunshot all point to things going down the way Zimmerman said they did. You are correct that we will never really know as we were not there BUT at least there is evidence to back what Zimmerman says happened.

I am merely asking those that think Z is guilty what they have seen in order to come up with an educated decision that he is guilty. Its really not a difficult question unless you are basing that decision on an emotional feeling rather than facts that have been presented

Fair enough. i feel as though he should have been able to handle the situation differently but that's irrelevant in court.

Also, FWIW, in my experiences "expert" testimony can be easily coaxed one way or another. I could probably provide you with an expert who would testify that T's account of what happened was true.

 

[huntsonora]

Fair enough. i feel as though he should have been able to handle the situation differently but that's irrelevant in court.

Also, FWIW, in my experiences "expert" testimony can be easily coaxed one way or another. I could probably provide you with an expert who would testify that T's account of what happened was true.

I have opinions about this deal as well, they just aren't relevant to the case. I think that Zimmerman is a wannabe cop and took his "duty" as a neighborhood watch guy way too seriously. I doubt he's a guy I would be friends with and more than likely I would openly mock him for being a dumbass. I feel that Trayvon was probably trying to be shady on that night to mess with Zimmermann and I also feel that Trayvon isn't the choir boy that the MSM wanted to portray him as. I feel that Trayvon was an idiot for getting into a fight with GZ and I think GZ is a pud for getting his ass kicked and killing the kid. I think that this case would have never made the news if it were black on black, brown on brown or white on white crime but that fact that a kid named Trayvon(black name) was killed by a dude named George Zimmerman(white name) was just too much for the news agencies to ignore and Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are always on the hunt for a new "hate crime" to further their own pathetic agenda. I thought it was absurd that Obama got into the middle of it by saying "if I had a son he would look like Trayvon". I thought it was a joke that our elected politicians wore hoodies on capital hill. You have the race card which elicits such an emotional response from so many, you have the firearms debate and the political implications that go along with it and you have the media looking for just this kind of story to sensationalize. Look at the edited clips of the calls that Zimmerman made to 911. Its tragic that a "news agency" would do something like this. Everybody has an agenda for a guilty or not guilty verdict and it makes me want to puke.

All of that being said, I have yet to see any evidence or argument that suggests George Zimmerman should have even been charged with a crime, much less convicted. I am merely asking for somebody to provide that

 

[Ol'Blue]

I have opinions about this deal as well, they just aren't relevant to the case. I think that Zimmerman is a wannabe cop and took his "duty" as a neighborhood watch guy way too seriously. I doubt he's a guy I would be friends with and more than likely I would openly mock him for being a dumbass. I feel that Trayvon was probably trying to be shady on that night to mess with Zimmermann and I also feel that Trayvon isn't the choir boy that the MSM wanted to portray him as. I feel that Trayvon was an idiot for getting into a fight with GZ and I think GZ is a pud for getting his ass kicked and killing the kid. I think that this case would have never made the news if it were black on black, brown on brown or white on white crime but that fact that a kid named Trayvon(black name) was killed by a dude named George Zimmerman(white name) was just too much for the news agencies to ignore and Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are always on the hunt for a new "hate crime" to further their own pathetic agenda. I thought it was absurd that Obama got into the middle of it by saying "if I had a son he would look like Trayvon". I thought it was a joke that our elected politicians wore hoodies on capital hill. You have the race card which elicits such an emotional response from so many, you have the firearms debate and the political implications that go along with it and you have the media looking for just this kind of story to sensationalize. Look at the edited clips of the calls that Zimmerman made to 911. Its tragic that a "news agency" would do something like this. Everybody has an agenda for a guilty or not guilty verdict and it makes me want to puke.

All of that being said, I have yet to see any evidence or argument that suggests George Zimmerman should have even been charged with a crime, much less convicted. I am merely asking for somebody to provide that

I'm still waiting for the prosecution to PROVE anything at this point. They are just eat up all around.

 

[huntsonora]

I'm still waiting for the prosecution to PROVE anything at this point. They are just eat up all around.

IMO they basically proved that they shouldn't have gone to court with this case but political pressure makes some people do things they don't want to do

 

[SeattleCyclist]

Was itself defense?

I don't think he felt threatened until he was punched in the snot bucket but who knows

So many contradictions.
So if he didn"t feel TM was a threat, why did he call 911 earlier. And why did he step out with a gun.
If he felt threatened, why did he step out of his car. Why didn"t he wait for the police? A person who is threatened runs away from the situation and not come out and make himself more vulnerable. A person who is felt threatened will seek a protective place and in this case, inside the car or drive away from it. So why would this be a case of self-defense?

 

[huntsonora]

So many contradictions.
So if he didn"t feel TM was a threat, why did he call 911 earlier. And why did he step out with a gun.
If he felt threatened, why did he step out of his car. Why didn"t he wait for the police? A person who is threatened runs away from the situation and not come out and make himself more vulnerable. A person who is felt threatened will seek a protective place and in this case, inside the car or drive away from it. So why would this be a case of self-defense?

Obviously I am speculating here but for me personally there is a difference between seeing a "threat" in a neighborhood as it pertains to personal property being stolen or vandalized and the threat of bodily harm. Both are things I would want to talk to the police about. If I saw somebody I didn't know walking between my neighbors houses acting shady and I called the cops I wouldn't feel as if my life were in danger. If the same dude came out of the bushes and started wailing on me then the circumstance has changed and I would feel the need to defend myself. Look, if you can't understand that you don't want to understand it. Nobody on this forum or any other is going to change your mind. It's simple really.

If you see a dog you've never seen before in your neighborhood acting weird or aggressive you might call animal control. You don't feel like your in danger but you know it's not a dog you've seen before and you want it checked out. Your attitude would change if the dog came across the street, got agressive and started mauling you. Understand that analogy?

As for the question of why he got out of his car, per the video the prosecution played of Zimmerman and the cops going over what happened he got out of the car to get the dispatcher an address they asked him for.

Have you seen any evidence that points to the fact that GZ is guilty? I've asked a couple different times and have not gotten an answer. I'm not trying to be coy, I really am curious as I haven't seen anything and am trying to see if I have missed something

 

[RunninInGA]

So many contradictions.
So if he didn"t feel TM was a threat, why did he call 911 earlier. And why did he step out with a gun.
If he felt threatened, why did he step out of his car. Why didn"t he wait for the police? A person who is threatened runs away from the situation and not come out and make himself more vulnerable. A person who is felt threatened will seek a protective place and in this case, inside the car or drive away from it. So why would this be a case of self-defense?

I'm speculating you know very little about the case other than what you've heard on the occasional news or radio segment. I know for a fact you know very little regarding the timeline of events based on the thoughts you've posted. The media has you brainwashed into thinking the way they want you to. We could all remain ignorant of the facts and pretend to know what we're talking about or we can educate ourselves and actually hold constructive conversations NOT based on emotion or misinformation.

 

[ndcent]

I also don't believe anybody is debating that an "unarmed minor" was on top of the defendant beating him like a runaway slave.

I bet you can burn one hell of a cross man.

 

[huntsonora]

I bet you can burn one hell of a cross man.

Thats always where people go when they have nothing left. Its the sign of a defeated man when he goes to the race card as a last resort. I don't burn crosses and I am not a racist, hell, I am in an interracial marriage and my children are only half white. I'm not a racist, I'm a realist

 

[BrianSD_42]

I bet you can burn one hell of a cross man.

You know this is a pretty sh/tty comment ndcent. What is your problem, always race baiting but apparently for the left. You're like an inverse Thai.

 

[RunninInGA]

You're like an inverse Thai.

 

[BrianSD_42]

Originally Posted by SeattleCyclist
So many contradictions.
So if he didn"t feel TM was a threat, why did he call 911 earlier. And why did he step out with a gun.

did it occur to you that he called the police 211 hotline to report suspicious activity because the had just had several break ins in the neighborhood and he honestly (wrong or right) believe T to be suspicious?

He might of stepped out with a gun because that is what people who concealed carry DO. They don't always leave the gun in the car.

I do think it was dumb to confront a unknown person in the dark while carrying a loaded weapon but that doesn't indicate malice or neglect.

Originally Posted by SeattleCyclist

So why would this be a case of self-defense?

It might be self defense because Z felt his life was in danger at the moment of the shooting. The witnesses and forensic evidence support his claim and all the jury needs to aquit is reasonable doubt.

Even if the jury felt that he "most likely did commit" murder that is not enough. You need proof beyond all reasonable doubt. I am still amazed that I even have to explain this concept.

 

[ndcent]

Dude may have well called Martin a ****** with his no class "slave" jab.

Way to go T4R moderation!!

 

[SeattleCyclist]

Was it self-defense?

I'm speculating you know very little about the case other than what you've heard on the occasional news or radio segment. I know for a fact you know very little regarding the timeline of events based on the thoughts you've posted. The media has you brainwashed into thinking the way they want you to. We could all remain ignorant of the facts and pretend to know what we're talking about or we can educate ourselves and actually hold constructive conversations NOT based on emotion or misinformation.

So who is guilty of speculation then? You already made a lot of assumptions of myself\, mt knowledge, my being "brainwashed" by media etc. That's the problem with most people here who are so emotional about the case. You only listen to 1 side! Both sides are guilty of that. I am very aware of the fact and I listen to all sides.
My question is simple, was it self-defense?

 

[RunninInGA]

Dude may have well called Martin a ****** with his no class "slave" jab.

Way to go T4R moderation!!

^^^Is this your troll account?\/\/\/

So who is guilty of speculation then? You already made a lot of assumptions of myself\, mt knowledge, my being "brainwashed" by media etc. That's the problem with most people here who are so emotional about the case. You only listen to 1 side! Both sides are guilty of that. I am very aware of the fact and I listen to all sides.
My question is simple, was it self-defense?

 

[huntsonora]

Dude may have well called Martin a ****** with his no class "slave" jab.

Way to go T4R moderation!!

You must have misunderstood, I didn't call Trayvon a runaway slave, I was saying he beat Zimmerman like Zimmerman was a runaway slave. It was tongue in cheek because Zimmerman isn't black and because of all of the racial undertones involved in this case.

As for your over dramatization and accusation that I "may have well called Martin a ******", well, its just pathetic. I did not use that word but it doesn't surprise me that a bleeding heart such as yourself would resort to trying to put words in my mouth in an effort to deflect the fact that you have yet to provide any facts to substantiate the things you've said. You have to lower yourself to the level of insinuating that I burn crosses and imply that I may have well used the N word. Sad really

 

[BrianSD_42]

My question is simple, was it self-defense?

Hey buddy WHO are you asking?

Are you asking the readers of this thread? Did you even read the thread?

We have been talking about this for pages and pages. Plenty of arguments have been made.

.

 

[SeattleCyclist]

did it occur to you that he called the police 211 hotline to report suspicious activity because the had just had several break ins in the neighborhood and he honestly (wrong or right) believe T to be suspicious?

He might of stepped out with a gun because that is what people who concealed carry DO. They don't always leave the gun in the car.

I do think it was dumb to confront a unknown person in the dark while carrying a loaded weapon but that doesn't indicate malice or neglect.




It might be self defense because Z felt his life was in danger at the moment of the shooting. The witnesses and forensic evidence support his claim and all the jury needs to aquit is reasonable doubt.

Even if the jury felt that he "most likely did commit" murder that is not enough. You need proof beyond all reasonable doubt. I am still amazed that I even have to explain this concept.

:iagree:


Hey RunninInGA, this is an example of an objective and educated response. To make so many assumptions and speculations just makes us know the kind of person you are. I asked a simple question and you replied with so many assumptions of myself.

BrianSD, thanks for keeping this conversation in a higher level.

 

[huntsonora]

So who is guilty of speculation then? You already made a lot of assumptions of myself\, mt knowledge, my being "brainwashed" by media etc. That's the problem with most people here who are so emotional about the case. You only listen to 1 side! Both sides are guilty of that. I am very aware of the fact and I listen to all sides.
My question is simple, was it self-defense?

Based on what I have seen the prosecution present and what I have seen the defense present I would have to say that it became self defense when Trayvon was on top of him. I am basing that on what the forensic pathologists have testified to and what the eyewitness has testified to. I have seen the prosecution present nothing more than speculation and you cannot convict a man on speculation. This is the reason I have asked numerous times for somebody, anybody, to show me evidence that shows that GZ committed a crime

 

[RunninInGA]

So many contradictions.
So if he didn"t feel TM was a threat, why did he call 911 earlier. And why did he step out with a gun.
If he felt threatened, why did he step out of his car. Why didn"t he wait for the police? A person who is threatened runs away from the situation and not come out and make himself more vulnerable. A person who is felt threatened will seek a protective place and in this case, inside the car or drive away from it. So why would this be a case of self-defense?

:iagree:


Hey RunninInGA, this is an example of an objective and educated response. To make so many assumptions and speculations just makes us know the kind of person you are. I asked a simple question and you replied with so many assumptions of myself.

BrianSD, thanks for keeping this conversation in a higher level.

Seriously? What kind of person makes assumptions....then chastises others for doing the same?

I suggested you educate yourself about the case as you clearly do not know the facts that have been presented in the court, which has been the basis for most of the educated / non-trolling posts and responses in this thread. We can all have a much more productive conversation when everyone is educated to the most recent information available instead of month old news headlines and media talking points...which people from both sides of the story acknowledge are inaccurate.

I'm sorry my direct response has moistened your tear ducts, but it is not my job to educate you.

Am I wrong about this?