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

[ShadyLady]

He also called him the N word and he's not black .

And this helps your side how?

 

[Zoe Bogart]

Not trying to one up you, Zoe Bogart, but I lived in Kennesaw, GA, where it has been the law to own a firearm since the 1980s.. Virtually crime free city...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia

'Kennesaw It's The LAW'..
In 2007, the city was selected by Family Circle magazine as one of the nation's "10 best towns for families".[3] The city is perhaps best known nationally for its mandatory gun-possession ordinance.[4]

I spent many weekends claiming Big Kennesaw and Little Kennesaw when I lived in Atlanta. Mandatory gun possession. Alright.

 

[Chris_Texas]

But, Trayvon was NOT committing a crime. He was walking home from the store. He is a boy, certainly not a girl. :facepalm: He was barely 17 (by 3 weeks) and 5'11". Those are the facts. If this was my child, I would refer to him as a child, kid, boy...there is nothing wrong with it. Age is relevant in that Trayvon was a kid who was simply walking home from the store. IMO

But that's not the only factor in this case.

He was not just a kid, walking home from the store or screwing off outside at dinner time talking to his girl.

And note, this didn't take place in the dead of night, this was DINNER TIME. Many people had only just finished getting home from work. Prime time TV hadn't even begun yet. It was early enough that had it not been drizzling there would have likely been little kids still out playing or heading home from their friend's houses.

But it wasn't some white teen in a letterman jacket, it was a black kid in a hoodie. Had it been me or most of the people posting here, I would have made it home just fine. Zimmerman wouldn't have batted an eye, he wouldn't have called 911, and he certainly wouldn't have followed me for blocks before getting out of his car to pursue me on foot.

And if he had, and events had played out exactly as they did with Martin, I suspect that not a single person here would be leaping to Zimmerman's defense. No one would casually asume that the middle aged white guy (me)suddenly went on a murderous rampage that could only be stopped with a gun. They would demand to know why I was being followed, and they would want some proof that I had gone freaking mental and attacked the person I had just finished fleeing from.

But I am not Martin. Actions that are completely fine and safe and above suspicion for me, were lethal for this teen. Assumptions that NO ONE would make in my case -- that I sucker punched people, told them I was going to murder them, and that I punched them dozens and dozens of times while beating their head into jello -- are accepted as gospel when the victim was Trayvon Martin.

IMO

 

[Love Never Fails]

I was just curious what people's opinions are. I know you can never know but we have some waitin' to do so let's chat! IMO. LOL, it's ok y'all don't have to answer but I am really curious what everyone thinks.

You asked for opinions.

George.Zimmerman.Is.Innocent.

 

[lisasalinger]

If I were a juror... I'd toss out anything Zimmerman claimed to have happened because he's a proven liar. That would leave me with a dead child and the phone calls.

I'd find him guilty.

You would also have to throw out RJ's testimony too because she is an "admitted" liar.

IMO

 

[ShadyLady]

Why just Florida? This stuff can and does happen everywhere.

Point is also that there are teens that are dangerous and out of control with NO respect for LE, much less adults.

Time to treat them as adults. IMO

 

[MeeBee]

You asked for opinions.

George.Zimmerman.Is.Innocent.

Do you think the jury feels the same.

 

[Jane Jetson]

The defense has the obligation to provide a prima facia case in support of self defense. They do not have to prove that it was self defense beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense met their burden. The prosecution still has to prove that it was not self defense beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that in a self defense case the defense has some burden of proof and must put forth an affirmative defense in no way diminishes the prosecutions burden of proof.

The defense has said it was self defense. They have provided clear third party evidence and testimony of that. Not the least of which was a steady stream of prosecution witnesses such as the initial investigating Law Enforcement. A reasonable case for self defense has been made.

Whereas the prosecutions case seems to involve saying "Nuh uh!" And "Wannabe Cop!" A lot, but without showing any clear timeline or sequence of events or even putting forth a full theory of the crime.

I don't like this. I don't like Zimmerman. I don't like that he killed a teen because he made bad assumptions. But those are matters for a civil court examine a question of wrongful death. Here in this criminal court the Prosecution has not established their criminal case beyond a reasonable or even mildly half assed doubt to my eyes. They have pretty much done the defenses work for them.

I agree with most of your post, Fae, but I don't know enough about George Zimmerman to say I don't like him. That is your right, of course, but I wanted to put my :twocents: in there. My question is about the other part of that last paragraph.

What "bad assumptions" did GZ make? He, as a Neighborhood Watch person, was asked by a dispatcher to find out where Mr. Martin was going. He did that. Then he asked to speak to a cop, headed back to his car, and got attacked by Mr. Martin on the way, in my opinion. Rather than be attacked for a longer period of time, Zimmerman defended himself in the only way he saw possible.

I'm not really looking to argue with you, but I'm just not sure where his bad assumptions are. The rest of your post is most definitely appreciated.

 

[codecracker]

But as many posters here keep reiterating, we have to consider only facts and legality. So GZ 'thinking' TM was an adult based on size is intuition or speculation. Just the facts ma'am. Fact is that TM was a child. So calling him a child is a correct legal term. It's not grandstanding. MOO

I always thought the correct legal term for a person under 18 was Juvenile of course that is not as effective as "a child". JMO,MOO

 

[cityslick]

It is reasonable to believe he was striking Zimmerman because of the facial injuries. What else would pounding downwards mean, especially if the person on the bottom has a bashed up head?

IMO:twocents::twocents:

Let's use Mr. Guy's own argument - common sense. Absent of knowing anything else, if evidences points to someone on top of another, with a witness seeing the arms going in a down motion and the person on the bottom sustaining injuries, common sense say that's it's likely that the person on top was hurting the person on the bottom.

It's not that really hard to understand from my perspective.

 

[MeeBee]

Point is also that there are teens that are dangerous and out of control with NO respect for LE, much less adults.

Time to treat them as adults. IMO

That's nothing new. But it's a good thing to make note of...IMO

 

[jacalyn]

Guess Crime Watch is not a good idea...to whose benefit. Also why people do NOT go out, open their doors...when did this start? I grew up, no key, no locks, no bars, no pit bull, no alarm system, no gun and still coupled with all that, people are scared today. When did this change? Admit, I have none of the above, general talk...OK!

When did I grow up? Hint not before BC Another hint, hubby & I going to a surprise party and I'm wearing my fav, "F" U pumps. Yea, I'm old, best shot walk in them and smile. Later

PS What IF GZ did not stop.

 

[glamourkitty1922]

As I mentioned in a previous thread, those could very well had been pushing and shoving motions, or restraining and pushing back motions. It is extremely telling that JG changed his testimony under oath, it means he wasn't entirely certain that those were "pound and ground", but he could be sure they were "up and down". He also stated that he did not see the slamming into concrete part, nor did he see TM inflicting any injuries on GZ' head or pounding downwards. He just saw what he saw "up and down arm motions". Must be afraid of perjury. IMO.

He would have had to be at the men's heads to tell if Z's head was being bashed against the concrete. However, Z has facial and head injuries that he didn't have when he left for the store. There is no way Z's face could look like that if he was being pushed downwards, but the back of his head could have been bashed up with violent pushing.

MOO

 

[MeeBee]

I always thought the correct legal term for a person under 18 was Juvenile of course that is not as effective as "a child". JMO,MOO

In the law in Florida it says anyone under the age of 18 is a child. It uses the word child.

 

[Lovelymountains]

But as many posters here keep reiterating, we have to consider only facts and legality. So GZ 'thinking' TM was an adult based on size is intuition or speculation. Just the facts ma'am. Fact is that TM was a child. So calling him a child is a correct legal term. It's not grandstanding. MOO

Yes. I would refer to him as a child.

 

[Love Never Fails]

Although I hate predicting juries, my two cents on this one is that it will either be acquittal or hung. I think people are way too passionate on this case to compromise. Hung is very likely.

Just my opinion.

IMO....OMO....it should be an acquittal. But I would look for a hung jury.

 

[Karmady]

Yeah, I can't stand the sarcasm about the fruit drink and the skittles, as if they were deliberate "props" by a malice-filled , because it was a FACT that those were what TM had on him that night, NO MORE NO LESS. IMO.

They never mention the lighter, just for example.

jmo

 

[cityslick]

If I were a juror... I'd toss out anything Zimmerman claimed to have happened because he's a proven liar. That would leave me with a dead child and the phone calls.

I'd find him guilty.

Also ignores all the other evidence. Witness testimony, expert testimony, etc.

 

[daisymae]

Hey neighbor, Peachtree City here.

Really? I'm from Peachtree City!! PM me. You probably knew of my father in Westpark.

 

[Chris_Texas]

Not in evidence. he knew where he lived and he said AT.. Not I can not find where I am...

I was speculating. Apparently even Zimmerman was confused as to where he was, so it is not at all unreasonable to assume that Trayvon might have been as well. He could EASILY have believed he was standing five feet from his home.