George Zimmerman /Trayvon Martin General Discussion #6

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Because he had stopped him. HE was not looking to kill him. He was finally up and free from his grasp and there were others around..

He used his gun to stop his aggressor.

IMO.

and, in RZ's statement in testimony today, he thought the person on scene right after he shot TM, with the flashlight, was an officer. Why wouldn't RZ put his gun away? MOO
 
I would think that would be typical for someone who accidentally shot someone - for example, the gun was being held and accidentally went off.

I think if I shot someone who I believed was trying to kill or seriously harm me, I wouldn't go over and try to revive or check on them. Especially if I believed the person were still alive.

If I accidentally harmed someone, absolutely.

Heck yes we would. The fact he treated a human being like a sack of potatoes just blows me away.
 
The penalty for manslaughter with a gun is 30 years. IMO, that is too severe for what happened in this case. Yes, TM is dead, but it could have easily been reversed. I believe GZ is "guilty" of self defense (not a crime), or reckless endangerment (although that doesn't really fit either).

Is that the maximum or minimum penalty? Is reckless endangerment a lesser included charge?
 
Wait a second...this prosecutor is from Jacksonville? Why did they import a prosecutor? Do they have a shortage in Sanford?
 
I just did a search and found pictures of TM's pants with staining on the knees.. Could be grass stains IMO
 
But he did nothing legally wrong. What did he do that was so wrong? Because any of us might handle it differently than the other.

This was a 6 ft tall guy.

TM is dead because Beat up GZ and he shot him to save his life. IMO.

That is not GZ's fault. That is a tragedy But I don't see anything that says that GZ is guilty of anything other than having a legal firearm.

IMO.

Then you and I will never agree.
 
Heck yes we would. The fact he treated a human being like a sack of potatoes just blows me away.

I don't own a gun and have never been in a physical altercation, but if someone were on top of me bashing my head and I became so afraid that I shot him, I wouldn't go back for more assaults.

It's kind of an artifact of shoot-em-up TV shows that people die quickly from one bullet. More typically, it takes more shots to kill or the person is able to recover fully from one shot.

I wouldn't get close enough to be assaulted again.
 
Is that the maximum or minimum penalty? Is reckless endangerment a lesser included charge?

30 years is the max. It is thought by some that this judge would give him the max. I added the reckless endangerment, I don't think it's a lesser included in this case.
 
30 years is the max. It is thought by some that this judge would give him the max. I added the reckless endangerment, I don't think it's a lesser included in this case.

Well, what is the minimum? Just because some people think the judge would do that doesn't mean she would.
 
Heck yes we would. The fact he treated a human being like a sack of potatoes just blows me away.

I hope that if you were ever in the position to shoot someone to defend your life that you would be a good shot! If you just "nicked" the attacker and he deceitfully "played dead", I would fear that he would then be able to continue his attack on you as you approached his body to render first aid. MOO BBM
 
Then you and I will never agree.

Maybe, What I get is that you think he should be held guilty for something other than the actual event.

That is what I don't understand.

GZ did nothing illegal. Not that has been proven yet.

It seems that some people, not you specifically but people in general seem to just want to get him for something.. Because TM is dead..

What if it was reversed. Same circumstances yet it was TM that had the gun...

I wonder if people would feel the same?? JMHO


I think that he is not guilty of murder. I don't even think he is guilty of manslaughter. Maybe if he had an illegal firearm but I just don't see it..

MOO.
 
I don't own a gun and have never been in a physical altercation, but if someone were on top of me bashing my head and I became so afraid that I shot him, I wouldn't go back for more assaults.

It's kind of an artifact of shoot-em-up shows that people die quickly from one bullet. More typically, it takes more shots to kill or the person is able to recover fully from one shot.

I wouldn't get close enough to be assaulted again.

The body was lifeless laying in the grass. The least he could do would be to check for vital signs and cover the body.
 
There's also an important key here: George did not shoot Trayvon because he was being beaten up, he said he did it because Trayvon went for his gun. That is something that hinges on believing George Zimmerman and I don't know if I necessarily do because parts of his story do not add up at all.
 
At night it would be quite easy to hide in the shadows behind bushes. I recall one time, in bright daylight, a teenage kid trying to hide in bushes that did not fully conceal him across the street from me. I could see him, but someone coming around the corner probably could not. I found it such odd behavior that I went back inside the building to wait for my ride. I do not consider my actions to be "profiling." I consider it prudent. JMO, OMO, MOO.

I used to live in an apartment complex similar to the one in this case. Because of my job, I came back to my apartment after midnight. I would take a good look around before I left my car and walked to my door.

There are few places that have more hiding places than an apartment complex at night, especially for a teenage "kid" up to no good.
 
The body was lifeless laying in the grass. The least he could do would be to check for vital signs and cover the body.

Cover the body with what? Meanwhile, the police arrived - I wouldn't be over there covering a body when a police officer with a flashlight was standing right there. He believes, at this point, that TM is alive, BTW.
 
Seriously disagree

In Reply
1. Mr. Martin may not have heard the recording properly, he may have been too upset, OR like Zimmerman, decided differently later on.

2. That's before all the evidence came out.

3. Those are unreliable and not permitted as evidence.

4. Goodman's tale is not neccessarily accurate and doesn't fit the testimony of other witnesses who were there and were neighbors.

5. Rachel's testimony didnt' change nearly as often as that of some others and I think she is correct about the location at that time.

6. Most of them said they couldn't see hardly at all in the drizzle and dark. But the light near Salma Mora's home was reportedly better and she saw GZ on top just before the shot.

7. I agree that Zimmerman had no MMA fighting injuries because he is the one who was trained in MMA fighting. Google it

8. Grass stains have no time limitations AFAIK

9. That would be in direct conflict of what Zimmerman related.

10. Pure unestablished conjecture.

11. Ahh, a factoid among the assortment of WAGS Which has no true bearing on the case

12. Because he had a gun, in this case.

The trial was probably brought about because the Florida Powers That Be were made to realize they weren't going to get away with sweeping this killing under the carpet like so much unwanted dirt. However I do not see the Prosecution doing anything other than going through the motions to appease most Americans who aren't racially biased. IMO

All In My Opinion.

*mod snip* I don't have a dog in this fight, I look at evidence.

1. Completely wrong and conjecture on your part, Martins dad was vehement that it was NOT his son screaming when he heard the tapes. Then changed his mind when the lawyers got involved.

2. Before the evidence came out? Wrong again, this was in a interview long after the evidence was out.

3. Voice stress analysis is not admitted to court like polygraphs, but they are a strong police tool and good proof. There is no hesitation or thinking about things, he spit the answers out as soon as the question was asked, my experience is that is a truth teller.

4. Goodman's tale is not accurate in what way? Because you don't like it? He has been the best eyewitness so far. It does fit because as i explained before, Zimmerman was on top AFTER the shot telling him not to move and spreading his arms. That's what the other girls saw, after the shot, not before the shot.

5. BS--Her testimony changed when she added 'get off, get off' which is different than he original statement. However, I am not talking about that.You are agreeing with me she made it all the way down to his house (that's her testimony, not mine), so he had to come back to the T-intersection.

6. Selene saw someone running left to right. That had to be from Trayvon's house where Rachel said he was--all the way back to the T-intersection. Why didn't he walk in his house? Because he ran back to the T.

7. You are confused, I said Zimmerman had significant fighting injuries and Trayvon had none. Zimmerman was interested in it but went to a gym to lose weight.

8. Evidence of those grass stains were taken into custody that night. I doubt Zimmerman is going to walk around with grass stains for several days, or Trayon is going to walk around with grass stain pants for several days.

9. Wrong, that is exactly what GZ said, it started near the grass, went to concrete and he was trying to move his head onto the grass.

10. No not conjecture but supported based on timing. Zimmerman was on the bottom when he shot based on shirt analysis. Zimmerman did not get on top until after the shot.

11. No bearing that Trayvon was a 6-foot hs football player who carried his dad out a building? Very important because some of the public thinks he was a little kid based on pictures released, and jurors have to know he was physically able to do that.


12. Wrong, no one is going to start a physical fight and take a substantial beating first when he is out of breath. He would have pulled out the gun first. No one is going to call the cops and have him meet them there either.


You may seriously disagree, but you have no serious evidence to back you up. I also know people are emotionally invested in this case, but Zimmerman is innocent. Forensics and other evidence back him up.
 
I hope that if you were ever in the position to shoot someone to defend your life that you would be a good shot! If you just "nicked" the attacker and he deceitfully "played dead", I would fear that he would then be able to continue his attack on you as you approached his body to render first aid. MOO BBM


A 9 mm point blank shot to the chest area gives you peace of mind the victim is not going to chase you back to the car.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
84
Guests online
2,158
Total visitors
2,242

Forum statistics

Threads
601,745
Messages
18,129,160
Members
231,138
Latest member
mjF7nx
Back
Top