What evidence does the prosecution have?

[AJ Noiter]

But it does...at the bond hearing the prosecution said just that!

What folks are fogetting the state is claiming it was TM who was in greater fear of this strange man following him...the only thing we don't know, who, if anyone, threw the first punch, or is it just an embellishment for the perpetrator himself..that would be GZ trying desperately to get out of a murder charge trying to use SYG defense, when in all actuality, TM could have used that same defense.. all you have is the word of a proven liar, in my belief, that liar being GZ...
<snipped for length>

as·sault/&#601;&#712;sôlt/
Verb:
Make a physical attack on.

That would be the definition of assault. You could argue that there was "verbal assault" but I'd find it hard to believe that asking "What are you doing here?" is verbal assault.

 

[AJ Noiter]

Innocence does not need to be proven. Our Constitution gives us that right.

Then you agree that Mr. Zimmerman is currently innocent, yes?

 

[LynnM]

The autopsy report is sealed and will remain sealed as long as this case is under investigation...they will not release it, YET but at some point it will be..

I know that it is sealed right now, but I have read references to the parents filing a motion to seal it and I wondered if anyone had a link to that. I would have thought that the autopsy report would have been automatically sealed during the investigation and that the parents wouldn't have had anything to do with that.

 

[Phoenixfla]

But it does...at the bond hearing the prosecution said just that!

What folks are fogetting the state is claiming it was TM who was in greater fear of this strange man following him...the only thing we don't know, who, if anyone, threw the first punch, or is it just an embellishment for the perpetrator himself..that would be GZ trying desperately to get out of a murder charge trying to use SYG defense, when in all actuality, TM could have used that same defense.. all you have is the word of a proven liar, in my belief, that liar being GZ...

His condolence to the Martin family, he says he didn't know how old TM was, thought he was a few years younger than he..yet on the 911 NEN call, he tells the dispatcher, late teens..and he has a shirt on with those words, late teens...

BDLRionda mentions at the bond hearing that TM was captured on video purchasing his items. He didn't steal them, was not in the act of stealing and therefore, TM is an innocent, unarmed teen who was fatally shot to death by GZ and what his mentality told him TM was up to..

It's really appalling that some are trying so hard to make it TM a just barely 17 y/o, is in the wrong when the adult in this situation, GZ had he kept himself in the safety of his vehicle and observed from a distance, TM would be alive and GZ would not be facing murder..what did TM do wrong? Nothing..he was trying to get to his door when he was encountered by the sheriff of Twin Lakes Retreat!

What doesn't make sense to me, if GZ was in that much fear, why did he continue his pursuit of a suspicious teen? He wasn't the one in fear, I believe it was TM who was in greater fear, hence that horrific wail when GZ pulled out his loaded with hollow bullets weapon..he meant to do harm...

Justice for Trayvon Martin

Did you know that a 17 year old can enlist in the army with parential consent? They can also drive a 8000 pound vehicle capeable of killing another person if not driven responsibily.

I'm not ready to say that TM was not at fault just because he was 17.

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

That would be the definition of assault. You could argue that there was "verbal assault" but I'd find it hard to believe that asking "What are you doing here?" is verbal assault.

I don't believe I made that reference, so I'm a little confused at your post...

TM did not have to answer to any civilian...an office of the law, yes...but he could have ignored Mr. Sheriff and got him even angrier...

Treat others as you expect to be treated, is a golden rule for getting along with others in this world. Yet, GZ wants respect but doesn't give respect..his attack on the ATF agent, his DV with his ex fiance, tells me all I need to know about GZ, his actions and mentality...

AT the moment, he is innocent until proven guilty but his actions are putting him at risk of being found guilty...I also don't believe he will have SYG defense for he wasn't in that much fear to pursue someone he didn't know, walking alone..knowing whether or not he too might have been armed with a weapon..He took a chance and made a grave error in judgement. He should own it..

 

[Lovelymountains]

Then you agree that Mr. Zimmerman is currently innocent, yes?

Of course. Under the law he is presumed innocent until proven guilty. This forum, however, is not a court of law.

 

[AJ Noiter]

Did you know that a 17 year old can enlist in the army with parential consent? They can also drive a 8000 pound vehicle capeable of killing another person if not driven responsibily.

I'm not ready to say that TM was not at fault just because he was 17.

Not just the army >.> some of us enlisted into the Air Force at 17 (turned 18 in the 3rd week of basic training.. made the rest of my flight mad because I got a piece of cake and they didn't)

 

[AJ Noiter]

Of course. Under the law he is presumed innocent until proven guilty. This forum, however, is not a court of law.

Yet you're proving your case that the innocent man is not innocent and I can't state that the innocent teenager may not be innocent?

 

[LambChop]

That would be the definition of assault. You could argue that there was "verbal assault" but I'd find it hard to believe that asking "What are you doing here?" is verbal assault.

I don't see anything wrong with GZ asking that question. What I have a problem with is the fact he never identified himself prior to that question when it was the easiest thing to do. GZ was never required to give TM his name just identify himself as someone with the NWP and he was inquiring if TM lived in one of the condos. That was all he had to do yet given the opportunity that we can see, twice, he failed to do so both times. When you follow someone the person being followed will assume the worst unless you enlighten them. Out of respect he owed TM that courtsey. If he could not do that he should have stayed with his car. And by not doing so it could have appeared to be an act of aggression on GZ's part by TM. jmo

 

[AJ Noiter]

I don't see anything wrong with GZ asking that question. What I have a problem with is the fact he never identified himself prior to that question when it was the easiest thing to do. GZ was never required to give TM his name just identify himself as someone with the NWP and he was inquiring if TM lived in one of the condos. That was all he had to do yet given the opportunity that we can see, twice, he failed to do so both times. When you follow someone the person being followed will assume the worst unless you enlighten them. Out of respect he owed TM that courtsey. If he could not do that he should have stayed with his car. And by not doing so it could have appeared to be an act of aggression on GZ's part by TM. jmo

I've said it before and I'll say it again. He did not have to identify himself, ever. Even when the police arrived he did not have to identify himself as he had the right to remain silent.

 

[AJ Noiter]

I don't believe I made that reference, so I'm a little confused at your post...

TM did not have to answer to any civilian...an office of the law, yes...but he could have ignored Mr. Sheriff and got him even angrier...

Treat others as you expect to be treated, is a golden rule for getting along with others in this world. Yet, GZ wants respect but doesn't give respect..his attack on the ATF agent, his DV with his ex fiance, tells me all I need to know about GZ, his actions and mentality...

AT the moment, he is innocent until proven guilty but his actions are putting him at risk of being found guilty...I also don't believe he will have SYG defense for he wasn't in that much fear to pursue someone he didn't know, walking alone..knowing whether or not he too might have been armed with a weapon..He took a chance and made a grave error in judgement. He should own it..

If you recall, my statement to you was something along the lines of "we don't know that Mr. Martin didn't assault Mr. Zimmerman," and you retorted with "But at the bond hearing they did say just that!" and continued to say that they had no evidence of who threw the first blow. By definition, whoever threw the first blow assaulted the other. You can not prove Mr. Martin's innocence at that point and I can not prove Mr. Zimmerman's innocence at that point.

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

Did you know that a 17 year old can enlist in the army with parential consent? They can also drive a 8000 pound vehicle capeable of killing another person if not driven responsibily.

I'm not ready to say that TM was not at fault just because he was 17.

Not just the army >.> some of us enlisted into the Air Force at 17 (turned 18 in the 3rd week of basic training.. made the rest of my flight mad because I got a piece of cake and they didn't)

And can marry too with parental consent...

AJ, I thank you for your dedication to our country and the liberties of other countries..I applaud our servicemen..so Thank you for that..


I believe an adult would have more self control than a teen would, which was my point.

Folks her like to argue with those who take a stand for the victim, TM..which I never saw happen here on a forum for the victims of crimes..I can't see how TM is at fault, talking on his phone, trying to get home..I believe this is all on GZ for not standing down as asked to by the dispatcher..he's at fault for not staying in the safety of his own vehicle, yet it's TM who didn't try hard enough or walk fast enough, or run fast enough, he somehow caused his injury?

Yes, I see it now, TM walked directly into the path of the bullet that was fired from the weapon of GZ's hands...yes, I see it now...

 

[Concerned Papa]

I'm not aware of any evidence whatsoever of TM starting a fight or confrontation with GZ. I'm aware of what an accused murderer and his agents have to say, in near choreographed similiarity, but not one witness has stated having seen TM start an attack.

There is no correlation between the instigator and the outcome of a fight.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XKxcasGpuI"]Punk Takes on Gulf War Vet and Gets Humiliated.avi - YouTube[/ame]

Good thing that punk didn't have a gun.

 

[LambChop]

Yet you're proving your case that the innocent man is not innocent and I can't state that the innocent teenager may not be innocent?

There is no evidence to prove TM was anything but innocent. GZ was chasing him for a suspected crime of which there was none. If TM tried to protect himself that is not a crime. You can't chase someone down for no reason (and we know GZ was profiling him as a suspect without sufficient cause) and then if they try to get away you claim he was now committing a crime because he resisted you. That makes no sense. If we are to assume that GZ is innocent until proven guilty by a court of law that has since filed 2nd degree murder charges against him, then we are obligated to do the same for TM because right now there is no evidence TM ever did anything wrong. Two people fighting on the ground does not prove who started the fighting and cannot be considered anything other than what it was fighting. jmo

 

[AngelWings444]

Yet you're proving your case that the innocent man is not innocent and I can't state that the innocent teenager may not be innocent?

There is a difference. GZ is charged with the murder of Trayvon. He is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. According to LE and the charging documents, Trayvon is the victim.

Trayvon is not charge with anything. GZ is. Trying to make him the criminal, and GZ the victim, on this forum, doesn't sit well with some, for obvious reasons, one being, this is a victim friendly forum.

JMO

 

[grammieto5]

That would be the definition of assault. You could argue that there was "verbal assault" but I'd find it hard to believe that asking "What are you doing here?" is verbal assault.

But yet you feel Trayvon asking GZ "why are you following me" a confrontation????

 

[LynnM]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. He did not have to identify himself, ever. Even when the police arrived he did not have to identify himself as he had the right to remain silent.

That's true but I don't think that is the point being made. No one is saying that Zimmerman violated a law by not identifying himself. But if we are going to try to reconstruct what happened, it's a meaningful point that goes to his state of mind.

If as a neighborhood watch volunteer he wanted to protect the neighborhood and he didn't know whether Trayvon belonged there, then the simplest way to find out would have been to ask him from the safety of his car, early on, and he didn't do that. According to the friend on the phone, he didn't answer Trayvon's question as to why he was following him. Why not? No, of course there is no law that says he should but in the first opportunity lost, he might have been able to reassure himself that all was well and continue to Target. In the second opportunity he might have defused a situation in which both people were clearly distrustful of each other.

I believe this is because he had already decided, in his mind, that just as he told the dispatcher, Trayvon was up to no good and there was no reason to consider that he was someone who belonged there minding his own business let alone think that he himself might appear to be a bad guy to Trayvon. In addition, his words about *advertiser censored**holes and punks show some anger IMO.

I believe this mindset that Trayvon was a criminal and his anger at others who 'always get away' set the stage for the deadly encounter. I believe that he was determined, not to see where Trayvon was, but to detain him to prevent him from getting away before law enforcement came. And I believe the detention was an illegal act.

What are your thoughts about why he failed to identify himself as neighborhood watch volunteer ( he need not have said his name)?

 

[AJ Noiter]

There is no evidence to prove TM was anything but innocent. GZ was chasing him for a suspected crime of which there was none. If TM tried to protect himself that is not a crime. You can't chase someone down for no reason (and we know GZ was profiling him as a suspect without sufficient cause) and then if they try to get away you claim he was now committing a crime because he resisted you. That makes no sense. If we are to assume that GZ is innocent until proven guilty by a court of law that has since filed 2nd degree murder charges against him, then we are obligated to do the same for TM because right now there is no evidence TM ever did anything wrong. Two people fighting on the ground does not prove who started the fighting and cannot be considered anything other than what it was fighting. jmo

I hate to say it but this is starting to become a circular argument between the two of us. Chasing someone is not an illegal action*, even if there were evidence to say he WAS chasing - as far as I know he was just "following." Profiling someone as a criminal is not illegal. You've proven my point. There is nothing to state who assaulted who, so we can not state factually that Mr. Martin was an "innocent teenager." Or, if we can, then we can also state "factually" that Mr. Zimmerman was just an "innocent man." It goes both ways.

* - I "chase" people without a real reason 3 times a week. There is a riverwalk here that stretches for miles and many mornings you'll find, what I estimate to be, marathon runners running the riverwalk. I try to keep up with them for no real reason.

 

[Lovelymountains]

Yet you're proving your case that the innocent man is not innocent and I can't state that the innocent teenager may not be innocent?

You may state whatever you wish to state. TM is not a defendant. His condition renders him unable to appear in court to assert his innocence. I try to form my opinion based on the evidence at hand but you have no obligation to do so. If you believe GZ's explanation with no evidence other than his word, that's your right. Our statements and opinions will have no effect whatsoever on Mr. Zimmerman's fate. I believe that GZ followed TM with the express purpose of detaining him, which is, btw, false imprisonment. I also believe that TM would not submit to this illegal detainment, and GZ killed him. That certainly did detain him. I base this on GZ's statements on the call to LE and his opining that "These *advertiser censored****les always get away," as well as his forming an opinion not based on anything except his bias that TM was on drugs and TM was not acting in a way of which GZ approved, so GZ determined he would take care of the matter.
I fervently hope that GZ is found guilty in State Court of 2nd degree murder, but, again, my opinion doesn't matter in the overall picture. I do believe, however, a "Not guilty" in State Court will not be the end of the matter as there are Federal Civil Rights Statutes which will apply and will, IMO, be brought into play in such an event.
So we agree to disagree and I wish you a pleasant day.

 

[Just K]

If you believe GZ, all I can say is really look at his character, his history and his own words. He is a paranoid, a liar, a weak man, and a failure in everything he attempted up until February 26, 2012. He just has somehow managed to get people to talk him out of situations that he creates. ALL OF THE ABOVE: IMO!!!