George Zimmerman /Trayvon Martin General Discussion #12 Wed July 10

[Donnareit]

TM was already by his dad's house and must have gone back to confront GZ, if you believe RJ's testimony, and why would TM be straddling GZ if he was trying to escape? He would have simply run. No way GZ could catch TM if he wanted to run away, adrenaline or not imo.

IMO I wouldn't try to run away from someone with a gun. I might try to hold them down and keep them from drawing the weapon; but more likely I would slump to the ground and beg for my life. :scared: I'm such a "girl" that way.
:truce:
:moo:

 

[marlap]

TM was already by his dad's house and must have gone back to confront GZ, if you believe RJ's testimony, and why would TM be straddling GZ if he was trying to escape? He would have simply run. No way GZ could catch TM if he wanted to run away, adrenaline or not imo.

IMO, I would totally agree unless GZ had shown his weapon, then I don't know if I would just run.

 

[William N]

TM was already by his dad's house and must have gone back to confront GZ, if you believe RJ's testimony, and why would TM be straddling GZ if he was trying to escape? He would have simply run. No way GZ could catch TM if he wanted to run away, adrenaline or not imo.

As some of us have pointed out throughout, TM could have ran back to the apartment. How was GZ going to catch an athletic teen with a running start?

The only explanation is that TM went back and confronted GZ.

 

[Perthgirl62]

Why is it always an assumption that GZ 'confronted' TM. Where is the evidence of that? RJ? That's what the state is pinning all their case on? One witness who has credibility issues already?

Everyone on the other side blanket statement's that GZ was the instigator without any proof of the matter. Getting out of a car is not instigating anything.

The only "evidence" defence have that TM was instigator is that of GZ. IMO

 

[Mrs.g]

TM was already by his dad's house and must have gone back to confront GZ, if you believe RJ's testimony, and why would TM be straddling GZ if he was trying to escape? He would have simply run. No way GZ could catch TM if he wanted to run away, adrenaline or not imo.

IMO, lets say if TM went to confront GZ... that's not a crime. So if you believe RJ's testimony you'd have to consider the "get off, get off" comment made by TM. So does that prove that GZ was the person who first put his hands on TM? Just wondering what you think.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

We know by RJ's testimony (If one believes her, and I do) that TM was "In back of" the house where he was visiting. Furthermore, RJ says she heard TM ask GZ why he was following him and GZ respond by asking why TM was there. She does not say she heard who threw the first punch. IMO TM had every right to ask why he was being followed. According to RJ this exchange took place "Behind" the house where TM was staying. That belies the theory that TM "Doubled back," to anywhere. She claims to have heard TM say, "Get off, get off." TM would not be telling himself to "Get off."

It's quite clear to me. IMO

No.. She said that the phone hung up after he said he was home and when he got back on the phone he was breathing heavy. Which means he was running, Moving somewhere. He says he is gone and then he says.. HE sees him and then confronts GZ.

That is the evidence. With the break in the call and the time and the heavy breathing, I doubt he was on his dad's porch doing push ups.


He went back to where GZ was walking through the T which explains how he sees him all of a sudden. And it also fits with GZ account that as he got to about the T he sees TM And that TM says what he said and then hit him as GZ said.

It fits the account when you piece it together based only on the facts.

 

[Snoods]

That could happen, but the probability of that happening must be taken into account, i.e. what % of all quick one punches ends in death? I would guess the likelihood is very, very low, and reasonable expectations remain that most of the millions of single punches that occur every minute every day do not result in death, even if an occasional one does. IMO

Fair enough. I was just pointing out that it can and does happen.

 

[Leilei]

So it turns out GZ was right about the drug use and TM did have a violent past and was comfortable with violence, yet that's somehow not coming in...even with all the evidence pointing to TM assaulting GZ? Is this judge serious? Imo

To be fair, neither is GZ's alleged violence or prescription drug use. IMO.

 

[cityslick]

We know by RJ's testimony (If one believes her, and I do) that TM was "In back of" the house where he was visiting. Furthermore, RJ says she heard TM ask GZ why he was following him and GZ respond by asking why TM was there. She does not say she heard who threw the first punch. IMO TM had every right to ask why he was being followed. According to RJ this exchange took place "Behind" the house where TM was staying. That belies the theory that TM "Doubled back," to anywhere. She claims to have heard TM say, "Get off, get off." TM would not be telling himself to "Get off."

It's quite clear to me. IMO

Would you convict based soley on her testimony and nothing else?

 

[logicalgirl]

Not only was he beating GZ, TM said "You're gonna die tonight, mothaf*****." No question in my mind, TM was the aggressor and GZ (the victim) shot him in self defense.

IMO GZ is quoting TM as making two of the corniest things out there in Grade B movies -"You're gonna die tonight Motha******" and "you got me" - no 17year old hip young kid would ever say stuff like that.

Just high drama for effect and not real at all. As a Canadian and anti-gun person I find this case horrendous but when I read/heard those GZ say those two things I actually laughed out loud.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

IMO, lets say if TM went to confront GZ... that's not a crime. So if you believe RJ's testimony you'd have to consider the "get off, get off" comment made by TM. So does that prove that GZ was the person who first put his hands on TM? Just wondering what you think.

It is. If he started the fight with GZ it is assault and led to the eventual fatal shot. And also then it does show that GZ did in fact act in self defense.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

I still think GZ was trying to hold him to wait for LE wherever he caught up to him.

I just strongly feel that TM had the right to try to get away any way he felt necessary.

IMO, previous fights TM may have been in are irrelevant to this case. I totally accept anyone who has a different view. That is just mine.

I think if he wanted to get away he would have run home, run somewhere else, and not have been on top of GZ for any reason imo.

 

[gauntlet]

IIRC there's a nurse on the jury. I've posted before about my thoughts on GZ's head injuries, or lack there of. I can only hope the nurse feels the same way as I do. I was listening to the yelling last night on the tape and there's no real change in the volume/tone etc no is there any sounds of 'impact' ie ow, ouch etc as TM 'apparently' hit GZ.. If your head was being hit against the pavement or you were being beat and taking impact, I don't believe for a second all someone would or could shout is help.

The defense has not shown this self-defense to me by any stretch of the imagination. I would at this stage go for manslaughter...

-------

ETA

I realise the DT don't have to prove anything, however they have not given reasonable doubt to me. I will always think it is suspicious GZ kept changing his mind about where the police should reach him once they arrived. GZ was out to follow TM, no doubt.

 

[m00c0w]

As some of us have pointed out throughout, TM could have ran back to the apartment. How was GZ going to catch an athletic teen with a running start?

The only explanation is that TM went back and confronted GZ.

Exactly. There were two minutes from the beginning of Zimmerman leaving his car, to hanging up with the NEN. That was two entire minutes for Martin to get gone, yet he somehow magically wound up where he was.

 

[marlap]

This is what divides this case. Because folks want to believe this, even though there is no evidence to support it.

There is no hard evidence to refute it either, just my opinion...

I totally respect yours.

 

[gxm]

We know by RJ's testimony (If one believes her, and I do) that TM was "In back of" the house where he was visiting. Furthermore, RJ says she heard TM ask GZ why he was following him and GZ respond by asking why TM was there. She does not say she heard who threw the first punch. IMO TM had every right to ask why he was being followed. According to RJ this exchange took place "Behind" the house where TM was staying. That belies the theory that TM "Doubled back," to anywhere. She claims to have heard TM say, "Get off, get off." TM would not be telling himself to "Get off."

It's quite clear to me. IMO

The back of the condo he was staying at is two units down from where the confrontation took place. The confrontation took place at the opposite end of the street. As for the words "get off," we have no idea what TM is referring to—for all we know, he was telling RJ to get off the phone or he was swatting at a fly. RJ can provide no visual to explain those words. IMO, given that she was listening over a cell phone, on a rainy night, I doubt she heard anything clearly. JMO. OMO. MOO.

 

[cityslick]

IMO I wouldn't try to run away from someone with a gun. I might try to hold them down and keep them from drawing the weapon; but more likely I would slump to the ground and beg for my life. :scared: I'm such a "girl" that way.
:truce:
:moo:

Yup, assuming TM knew GZ had a gun, which there is no evidence that shows he did.

 

[katiewonders]

So it turns out GZ was right about the drug use and TM did have a violent past and was comfortable with violence, yet that's somehow not coming in...even with all the evidence pointing to TM assaulting GZ? Is this judge serious? Imo

According to what I read on legal insurrection (thanks to the poster who pointed me to that site), the lawyers there think this was reversible error. Jeesh.

 

[rob]

A number of people on this forum discuss having witnessed fights, shootings, all kinds of violent things. Am I the only one who has never witnessed such violence? I live in a small town now, but I haven't always. I once lived in Washington DC and Philadelphia. Even there I never witnessed this kind of violence. I grant you it was many years ago, but still---never. I have never been abused, attacked, hit my head on the ground or floor or sidewalk. I once broke my arm but that was playing tennis and I fell.I've never broken the law and never even received a speeding ticket. I haven't smoked marijuana or used other illegal drugs. And my friends and family are more or less the same, except one of my nieces had a terrible automobile accident and was badly injured, but she recovered. No one in my family has ever been kidnapped or murdered.

So all of this is leading up to this question: Is it possible that I believe GZ is guilty because I have never seen a thing like this? I do believe GZ is not telling the truth about his encounter with TM and I believe TM unjustly lost his life. But maybe we bring our own life experiences into such circumstances and we are only able to see it from that point of view? Just wondering.

I totally get what you are saying. But sadly we live in a different world. When I was growing up, parents didn't kill their babies, and lie about it. Parents spanked their children for misbehaving. We slept in a house with the door unlocked. Children ran all over the neighborhood, for hours at a time with no thought of danger. That's all over. I have friends who came home from work and their home had been robbed and ran-sacked, others with their car stolen, others robbed in the parking lot of Walmart. You never know what's next. Although it has never happened to me, I see what effect it has on the people it happened to, and it makes me think twice.
In this country, we have the right to bear arms, and if you are not insane or a criminal, there should be no problem with it.
I carry a weapon for protection. If someone came too close to me, I would ask them to stop, stay back. Once it happens, its too late.
I live in a rural community, and sadly half of the homes have those little signs in the front yard with their security service printed on it. At first, I thought they were nuts, now I'm thinking about looking into it myself.
At our church, we now have people on security patrol during the services, because cars were broken into.
Sad, what life in this country is becoming.

 

[Mahouston69]

Yes there is per the STATE WITNESS RACHEL JEANTEL.

HE told me " HE AT THE BACK OF HIS DADDY's HOUSE"

Her exact words. under direct.. Not cross.

He was home. The phone hangs up. She calls him back he is breathing heavy and then he says that he sees GZ and then TM says.. " WHAT ARE YOU FOLLOWING ME FOR. "

All facts in evidence.

Bolded by me

Translation " Trayvon told me the man following him is at the back of his Dad's house"