George Zimmerman /Trayvon Martin General Discussion #7

[nnglas]

In my opinion LE or anyone in an authoratative role can get permission from a kid (especially one who is doing nothing wrong) fairly easy. Sadly, in these times we're in, that's becoming true for adults as well. The Fourth Amendment's protection is disappearing fast as people sort themselves into an "us" vs "them" mentality. And this case is a good example of this.

GZ, and many others living in these gated communities, believe that everone locked inside with them are good; outsiders who get into their little compounds MUST be the cause of whatever bad things happen. In reality these gated-residents have just as much domestic violence, child abuse, and overall fraudulent activity going on within the confines of their homes as do the general population.

George's address on his driver's license did not match up with where he lived so how long did he live there? The law gives limited time to get that change made in the system. An oversight or an attempt to hide his whereabouts? George mosies along looking into his neighbors' windows; he decides whose garage door is left open when no one is home; he knows who keeps their doors locked and who doesn't. A simple invasion of privacy or a peeping Tom? And George goes grocery shopping with a fully loaded 9mm pistol in an unsecured holster with a round in the chamber and the safety off. Just going out for some milk and eggs or a tragedy waiting to happen?

Just thinking out loud to myself and anybody else who can hear me.

It really is scary isn't it? TM could have been anybody's child. Walking around in the rain in a hoodie minding his own business. If I was his neighbors I would have been very frightened.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Lovelymountains]

I find it hard to believe TM could do all these things at the same time. Also if your nose and mouth are being held how you can scream so loud and clearly.

I also find it odd that a teenager without a gun would say "you are going to die to night mfer. How was he going to kill him by punching him?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree with that. And further, IMO, if anyone said that it wasn't TM. In his opening statement, the State said that there was none of GZ's DNA on TM's hands or elsewhere on his body. Although the rain might possibly wash it off (IMO not possible) it would not wash it from under his fingernails. There was none there, either, according to the State. IMO

 

[Hopeful One]

I didn't hear the detective say that Trayvon hadn't done anything suspicious.

I would call standing out in the rain, in people's yards, looking into windows, suspicious. Maybe it's because I'm a homeowner (not that you're not). When you have an investment in the neighborhood, then there's probably more of a tendency to care about what's happening there.

mtc

Where is the evidence he was looking in windows? Did GZ say this?

 

[Jane Jetson]

Well I just put a chocolate cake in the oven and I missed the witnesses name?! Can anyone help me??

Thanks!

Sorry, I was watching on the TV, but that's in the other room and it's off now. Does anyone have a live link? TIA! :seeya:

 

[Hopeful One]

Witness is Mark Osterman, GZ's BFF.

 

[Lovelymountains]

I never said that. The poster specifically said "those walking through their neighborhood that robbed several homes" and I pointed out you wouldn't know that. You could suspect them but what if you were wrong in your suspicions? What if the person you thought was a "suspect" was really another person? Unless you have PROOF that that person is indeed the perpetrator, which you wouldn't because if they were convicted they'd be in jail, you have no right to profile random people.

Police can't just go up to someone and arrest them because they "look" like a suspect or a criminal, they have to actually have proof that that person committed the crime so why should a civilian be able to just assume someone is a criminal and a "punk" just because of their own biases?

Sorry but the American justice system doesn't work that way.

Yes, you're right. There's that pesky Constitution again. IMO

 

[missmazzy]

This is GZ's friend? Current or former? Anyone know?

 

[Hopeful One]

Sorry, I was watching on the TV, but that's in the other room and it's off now. Does anyone have a live link? TIA! :seeya:

http://www.wesh.com/news/central-florida/trayvon-martin-extended-coverage/watch-george-zimmerman-trial-live

 

[Horace Finklestein]

So if you are walking home from a friends, or a store and you are wearing a sweat shirt with a hood that you pull up to protect you from the rain and you dare to look around as you walk ....LOOK OUT SOMEONE WHO IS A WANNA BE COP LIKE GZ MIGHT KILL YOU. WARNING.... Take off sweatshirt with hood, keep you head down and arms in the air to show you are not carrying anything suspicious. You might just make it home unless GZ is lurking.

Well there's more to it than that though. TM attacked GZ imo. He didn't just see TM and decide to start shooting.

 

[ncgramma]

OK, someone help me. Why isn't the testimony being solicited from the prosecution from Osterman not conncidered hearsay?

 

[jjenny]

I agree with that. And further, IMO, if anyone said that it wasn't TM. In his opening statement, the State said that there was none of GZ's DNA on TM's hands or elsewhere on his body. Although the rain might possibly wash it off (IMO not possible) it would not wash it from under his fingernails. There was none there, either, according to the State. IMO

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Per a number of witnesses, the two were fighting.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Let's review. My statements (all prefaced by saying it was my opinion):

The only evidence for self defense is Zimmerman's word and judgement... both of which have been shown to be false and questionable.

Fact. GZ is claiming that he NEEDED to shoot TM.

Despite Z's claim, Martin was not under the influence of drugs. Despite Z's claim, Martin did not have anything wrong with him, nor was he up to no good.

Fact. Martin was not on drugs, there was not "something wrong with him" as GZ claimed, and when confronted on this point GZ was unable to elaborate as to why he had said these things.

Despite Z's claim, Martin almost certainly did not return from behind the buildings at the T to circle Z's truck in a threatening manner.

Fact. This is the most preposterous thing GZ said the entire time. More, there is simply no way in hell this actually happened -- there wasn't time, GZ never mentioned it during his 911 call, Martin's friend didn't mention it, and it doesn't fit in with the rest of the story. GZ was making this up on the fly.

Despite Z's claim, Martin almost certainly did not approach Z with his hand in his waistband, then while holding something in his hand.

Questionable. Remember, TM ran away seconds after GZ made this claim on the phone. Note as well that while this was supposedly going on, what was REALLY happening was that Martin was talking on the phone with his friend.

Despite Z's claim, it is unbelievable that Z's did not remember the street name, and even more unbelievable that he was searching behind the buildings for a house number.

Questionable. Zimmerman was chasing Martin, trying to either detain him or to see where he went.

Despite Z's claim to the contrary, we know from the location of the fight that Z continued to pursue Martin all the way to the point of the fight.

Fact. The fight did not occur at the T intersection.


Despite Z's claim we know that Martin did not knock Z down and begin pounding his head on the sidewalk at the T intersection.

Fact. The fight did not occur at the T intersection.

Despite Z's claim, we know that Martin did not punch him in the face twenty times, or smother him, or muffle his cries, and it is questionable whether his head ever hit the sidewalk at all.

Fact. His face does not show the injuries even a fraction of this number of blows would cause. We know TM never tried to choke or smother him as there is no blood or DNA on TM's hands. There is no evidence that GZs head ever hit the sidewalk.

We know that there was a fight of some kind.

Fact. There was at least a scuffle of some kind.

We don't know who started it, we don't know who was winning, but we do know that neither party was particularly injured prior to the gunshot.

All facts. We do not know who touched who first. We do not know based on evidence who was winning. We DO know that neither party was particularly injured prior to GZ shooting TM.

We know that Zimmerman apparently never even tried to physically defend himself.

We know this from the physical evidence and GZs statements. We do not know WHY, but we can speculate.

We know that Martin was scared and had tried to avoid the fight altogether.

Fact. Both GZ and a witness confirm that Martin fled and Zimmerman pursued. The witness testified that Martin was frightened -- and he had good reason.

We know, based on physical evidence and witness testimony, that Zimmerman pursued Martin over and over and over again. He pursued him when he entered the property, he pursued at the clubhouse, he pursued down Twin Tree lane, he pursued him between the buildings, he pursued until they met.

Fact. Zimmerman admits to all of this up to the T intersection, and we know from the location of the fight that GZ continued to pursue him even there. We know this from both the physical evidence and witness testimony.

At SOME point Zimmerman must advance some kind of evidence to support his claim that this was self-defense. He's the one making this claim, and his team needs to support it in some way. So far they have not done so. So far all we have is the statement of a guy with (at best) terrible judgement and a track record for lying.

Fact.

Some people seem to forget that there is a dead kid, GZ shot him, and he has the OBLIGATION to present a reasonable justification for doing so. GZ told his story to the police, but as the evidence piled up it has become increasingly apparent that the story he told is full of inconsistencies.

The State's job here is not proving beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a crime -- we KNOW there was a crime. It is there job to show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman's excuse for committing this crime, his story, has holes in it.

IMO etc

I did not even go through your whole post but all the part in RED is your TAKE on what you THINK happened. Not facts in evidence..

FACT
GZ had injuries on his head..

OMO : I believe that TM put them there with great force. having your head banged feels unbelievable if you have ever felt it. I once dove into the ocean and hit sand and was knocked silly and it was soft and the water slowed me down...

So I see that as completely possible that his head was exploding from the bashing and he was in fear for his life..

You may feel differently. And that is fine but we need to make sure we state fact as fact and then put our slant on it as Opinion only..

I was schooled in that yesterday. Just because I think it is a fact, If I put any inferrence in it, It changes it to opinion..

Your post still read as opinion to me..

I just want us to be careful so we can discuss it without issues.

OMO

 

[JeannaT]

Please keep in mind George Zimmerman knew NOTHING about Trayvon when he shot him other than what he observed.

This is why the judge won't allow them in. George knew nothing about Tryavon so this information does not fact in George's decision making process.

Tricia, what I don't understand here, is why that evidence of his past can't be used when the jury is considering whether it's feasible that Trayvon was the attacker, or whether it would be completely unlikely that he would attack first.

For example, a history of aggressing against other people would be helpful to know about, or a history of in fact running for cover and avoiding conflict would be very helpful.

In my opinion, his past isn't all that relevant in clarifying why GZ found him suspicious - but it is VERY helpful in judging whether it's likely that GZ is telling the truth, that Trayvon attacked him.

 

[nnglas]

Well there's more to it than that though. TM attacked GZ imo. He didn't just see TM and decide to start shooting.

Just a question. Not being snarky. Do you think that it is ok to shoot someone who punches you in the face?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Just K]

In my opinion LE or anyone in an authoratative role can get permission from a kid (especially one who is doing nothing wrong) fairly easy. Sadly, in these times we're in, that's becoming true for adults as well. The Fourth Amendment's protection is disappearing fast as people sort themselves into an "us" vs "them" mentality. And this case is a good example of this.

GZ, and many others living in these gated communities, believe that everone locked inside with them are good; outsiders who get into their little compounds MUST be the cause of whatever bad things happen. In reality these gated-residents have just as much domestic violence, child abuse, and overall fraudulent activity going on within the confines of their homes as do the general population.

George's address on his driver's license did not match up with where he lived so how long did he live there? The law gives limited time to get that change made in the system. An oversight or an attempt to hide his whereabouts? George mosies along looking into his neighbors' windows; he decides whose garage door is left open when no one is home; he knows who keeps their doors locked and who doesn't. A simple invasion of privacy or a peeping Tom? And George goes grocery shopping with a fully loaded 9mm pistol in an unsecured holster with a round in the chamber and the safety off. Just going out for some milk and eggs or a tragedy waiting to happen?

Just thinking out loud to myself and anybody else who can hear me.

ITA!!! Just to Add: Hollow Point Bullets

 

[Hopeful One]

OK, someone help me. Why isn't the testimony being solicited from the prosecution from Osterman not conncidered hearsay?

I wondered that too. :waitasec:

 

[ncgramma]

I know Inves. Serino was demoted because of his handling of the Zimmerman case. But I'm unclear on the exact reason. Could someone enlighten me?
Thanks!

The answer to that is probably gonna open a whole can of worms that we best not get into.

 

[William N]

This case has so many people on either side. Haven't seen anything like it in quite awhile.

Love reading your opinion though. :seeya:

IMO

Which means IMO there is loads of reasonable doubt.

 

[JeannaT]

OK, someone help me. Why isn't the testimony being solicited from the prosecution from Osterman not conncidered hearsay?

I think it's because he's being asked to tell GZ's version of the events as GZ told them to him - this isn't being used as evidence of what actually happened. It's being used to determine whether GZ always told the same story to everyone consistently, which is at issue here.

 

[Hopeful One]

Wait - what book is this?