George Zimmerman /Trayvon Martin General Discussion #7

[Horace Finklestein]

Considering the fact that GZ was the head of NW and it's CLEAR in their handbook that he is to ONLY report to LE, not to follow a suspect, it's in their best interest to pay out the policy. The gun would have been a factor as well. It's common practice to pay out policies and avoid trial. Huge check? Not IMO. That's nothing from a home owner's association payout. I'm sure the Martin's would rather have their beloved son instead of $.

BTW - the $ paid out on the policy has nothing to do with this trial. IMO

Disagree.imo

 

[nnglas]

because he did charge doesnt mean he wanted to. the charge was the result of overwhelming political and social pressure, pure and simple. imo. he probably wanted to keep his job. so he succumbed to the pressure.


testimony? charging is not testimony. hes not hedging anything.

Excuse me but you are incorrect on the facts. The lead investigator wanted to charge GZ before the media got involved and he was overruled by the chief that was later removed/fired.

IMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DIBSY]

Nancy grace, the shining beacon of impartiality.

Katiecoolady and some others among us who followed another trial met her and she does come across as unbiased Until the evidence piles up against the defendent. IMO

 

[AngelWings444]

Exactly. Going just on emotion.. If we just decided guilt based on feeling, I could swing to guilty.. but that is not what we do here in America. We put someone on trial so that we can bring forth evidence to prove they are guilty. Not just "feel" it.

I get the emotion. I feel the emotion. When I see the video of him in the 7-11 I get choked up. It is hard to watch someone's last minutes..

but I can not put GZ in jail because I feel bad for TM and his family. It has to be proven in fact. OMO

I don't think people who support GZ being charged with this crime and believe he is guilty, are going by "feelings". I know I am not. I am looking at the evidence, injuries, change of stories and host of other things. I don't think it's fair to brush off the people who do believe he is guilty and say they are just going by "feelings". JMO

 

[Nezumi]

Considering the fact that GZ was the head of NW and it's CLEAR in their handbook that he is to ONLY report to LE, not to follow a suspect, it's in their best interest to pay out the policy. The gun would have been a factor as well. It's common practice to pay out policies and avoid trial. Huge check? Not IMO. That's nothing from a home owner's association payout. I'm sure the Martin's would rather have their beloved son instead of $.

BTW - the $ paid out on the policy has nothing to do with this trial. IMO

Can you please post a link to the Neighborhood Watch "Handbook" you reference? All I've ever seen is material that makes suggestions on how to start a neighborhood watch. I wasn't aware that there was any legislation anywhere that mandated 'rules' for Neighborhood Watch groups.

 

[sacrablue]

I agree, I don't have a diagram, but it really seems pretty far away from where GZ claims his head was being pounded on the sidewalk. AND he never says that TM gets up and runs or walks away. That is what is throwing me off from the story given.

Here is the best picture I can find IMO. The body and 'killer' concrete are in view.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

Will GZ's family testify that it is GZ screaming for help?

 

[JeannaT]

*That point* is what this trial is about isn't it? Did the circumstances of the 2-minutes fight that did not cause much hurt to Z reach *that point* to justify shooting the UNARMED stranger who was minding his own business?

If the trial doesn't provide a satisfactory answer then what happened to TM can happen to any of us. Someone with a gun can come up to you, briefly fight you and then shoot you, and then get away claiming self-defense as long as he or she has a couple of bruises to show, and oh, nearby concrete, bricks, wood or stones.

:twocents:

The law usually deals with the standard of "a reasonable person". So, in order to be able to legally shoot someone, "a reasonable person" would have to be in fear of imminent bodily harm or death.

So I guess that's words to live by. Don't behave in a way that would cause a "reasonable person" to fear that you are about to maim or kill them.

BTW, this defense doesn't work if the jury believes that GZ attacked Trayvon Martin - so someone can't come up to you, attack you and then shoot you. The person has to be behaving lawfully at the time they feared for their life.

I guess basically, no, your scenario isn't a legal one, IMHO.

 

[Tricia]

Please, Please, Please, Remember to put, "In My Opinion" if you are posting something that is not a fact.

Please?

Thank you,
Tricia

 

[RANCH]

I can't imagine any reason GZ would state that he pulled Trayvon's hands out if he didn't, though. Why would he say that?

It seems that Trayvon must have pulled them back in while he was on the ground before he died.

I don't see how GZ lying about Trayvon's hand positions helps his case if he is in fact lying about it. Maybe I'm missing something.

 

[cityslick]

Katiecoolady and some others among us who followed another trial met her and she does come across as unbiased Until the evidence piles up against the defendent. IMO

This is OT but c'mon now. Everyone knows what NG is about. In her mind every defendant is guilty. She doesn't even try to hide it.

 

[AngelWings444]

No. What they said was that they saw someone on top and THOUGHT it was TM because GZ must have been bigger based on a picture of TM at 12 years old. One said she could not tell who was on top in the dark.

There is no clear witness evidence except the guy who came out of his house and looked right at them there. He says TM was on top. He had a clear view and was not hiding in his house.. OMO

Sorry, that is not correct. A witness testified that GZ was on top and the man who was on top got up, the person on the bottom never did! It was a she..maybe you missed her testimony. She was the one who testified in spanish. JMO

It's ok to agree to disagree.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I don't think people who support GZ being charged with this crime and believe he is guilty, are going by "feelings". I know I am not. I am looking at the evidence, injuries, change of stories and host of other things. I don't think it's fair to brush off the people who do believe he is guilty and say they are just going by "feelings". JMO

I apologize if I offended anyone..

I just don't see fact that supports that GZ wanted and willfully killed TM. I don't see it. And all the points people make to support it seem to start with.. " I feel" I have feelings but I am basing them off of facts in evidence.

I have not seen a fact based case that supports the PROS yet. Right now I see a case that is being poked full of holes.

To me the evidence has to lead us and there is nothing that makes GZ out to kill TM. OMO

 

[qwerty2013]

In your opinion.

Yes, already indicated that was my two cents, ":twocents:"

 

[UdbCrzy2]

Have we had an answer to GZ's statements to LE that he put out Trayvon's arms? How the heck did they end up under his chest? Doesn't make sense. JMO

This also makes no sense to me, if TM had his hand over GZ mouth/nose how could he be yelling for help?

This story told by GZ interviews just does not make sense to me. I keep watching the trial on TV thinking that something will make sense and it never does.

And then the part where he claims to have his head being beaten on the sidewalk and he shoots TM, but the body is far away from the sidewalk and he does not explain it in the interviews.

Also, I guess he can shoot someone who is above him and not get any blood on his clothing?

See, that's what is making my hinky meter go off.

 

[Nezumi]

IMO

The physicians assistant who saw him the day after and took his vitals testified GZ was "obese" by medical standards

OT: That little comment actually annoyed me to no end. I have a BMI of 17.5 and I guarantee that my athletic-exercises-every-day-non-smoking-veggie-eating best friend (who has a BMI of 26.5) is faaaaaaaar healthier and more fit than my lazy, cig smoking self. Just sayin' :blushing:

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Sorry, that is not correct. A witness testified that GZ was on top and the man who was on top got up, the person on the bottom never did! It was a she..maybe you missed her testimony. She was the one who testified in spanish. JMO

It's ok to agree to disagree.

And he was on top at the end. He says he got onto TM's back and made sure his hands were apart so that fits. But it also fits that the other neighbor DURING The fight, Saw TM on top of GZ first.
IMO

 

[DIBSY]

Yea by their own parents, not parents of the victim. Anyway 18 is not considered a minor so the point is moot.

I am not aware that Rachel was over 18 when she was first questioned...in some states you have to be over 21 I think....anyway since her own mother didn't speak English, I wouldn't be surprised if she authorized Rachel's friend's parents to stand in for her. Since LE permitted that ( or some other understanding ) arrangement, how can it be illegal? I bet it's not exclusive to this case. There are likely millions of immigrant parents in this country who do not speak English. IMO

 

[cityslick]

Sorry, that is not correct. A witness testified that GZ was on top and the man who was on top got up, the person on the bottom never did! It was a she..maybe you missed her testimony. She was the one who testified in spanish. JMO

It's ok to agree to disagree.

Yes after the shot. She didn't see before the shot. The goes with GZ's story btw. He said he got on top of TM after the shot

 

[TexMex]

Hannity interview about to be played. Some parts excised/redacted