Breaking – Jeb Bush Backs Zimmerman Arrest in Killing/It's not George Zimmerman crying for help o

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


Thanks, I appreciate your comments.

I would have thought no priors if true would not be a reason to reduce the charges at this point, I could see if they have priors, it hurting someones chances, but that involves any ultimate charges a DA decides to bring and "priors" to me if they have any can only hurt. But if they have none, I don't understand why he seems to me to be given a get out of jail sooner card before he's even tried. Perhaps a better deal on sentencing but were not even close to that yet.

But then I'm not a lawyer, and frankly though sometimes the logic of that profession does not seem logical at all, (I know for a lot of lawyers its a mines bigger then your's contest), my background in science is a world that involves "prove it". Not bedazzle me with ones rapier charm. Certainly any attempt at that wouldn't work for me.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


I'm not sure if we are talking about the same conflict here, I believe you are speaking about his altercation with a cop who was enforcing underage drinking, I am speaking of the protective order on him from his former girlfriend for domestic abuse. After having a discussion with another member it would come down to what type of protective order that was and if it is in the public record.

As to what Jeb said being "ignorant"

He said:

"it's always good to review laws"

“This law does not apply to this particular circumstance… Stand your ground means stand your ground. It doesn’t mean chase after somebody who’s turned their back.”

“[The lack of arrest] doesn’t make sense to me… You’ve got to let the judicial process work. Hopefully it’s done at a pace that is respectful for people hurting.”

Now I assume it's the second quote that you think makes him "ignorant", because he was shot in the "front"? I really don't see how that applies, the root of what he was saying I believe is that, the fact someone has a gun does not imply that said person should be "actively" going into "possibly" more dangerous scenarios only to "rely" on said firearm if that situation goes bad. That would be what police do, not neighborhood watch members.

I also don't understand where your coming from on the shot in the chest front either since you have previously said

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by hapablab

 

Exactly. That is why Zimmerman doesn't stand a chance with the stand your ground defense.
If you look up past stand your ground cases, like the kid that stabbed the bully to death and was cleared of wrong doing, they showed that he tried to avoid the conflict. Zimmerman was the one pursuing so he definitely didn't try to avoid conflict. He sought it. He was in the wrong since the kid was just walking along minding his own business.

So am I wrong that you agree Zimmerman shouldn't be able to use "stand your ground" as a defense but if "Jeb Bush" says it he's "Ignorant"

reply to post by arbiture


The reason he hasn't been tried is because there may be no crime.
If it is self defense there is no crime, if there is no crime they can't arrest him. So since they know he shot the guy they actually have to prove that it wasn't self defense before they can even arrest him or bring him in on charges.

That is what people are having a hard time understanding. There is no proof that a crime was committed.
People are throwing a fit thinking the police just didn't arrest him and let him free, but in this case they have to investigate first. They don't bring you in first and then find charges.

reply to post by GhettoRice


He is ignorant because if he can't understand why there is a "lack of arrest" than he is.. well ignorant.

If he can't understand that there is no arrest because there may be no crime then what does he understand about how law works. I guess you and Jeb think that Zimmerman should be sitting in jail while they investigate the scene and determine whether a crime was committed or if it was justified. If it turned out justified of course Zimmerman could sue the city for locking him up without charges.

Starting to get it? There is no evidence that a crime was committed. There was never any doubt that he shot the teen, but if it was self defense they can't charge him. If they can't charge him they can't take him to jail.


I am glad you dug up that old post, keep reading through mine, you will see why I changed my mind. I originally thought of Zimmerman was guilty. That post was before more evidence came out. That was one of my very first posts on the topic. I changed my position after more evidence came out. At the time I made that post it wasn't out that the kid jumped Zimmerman and that Zimmerman had damage. I thought Zimmerman tried to detain the kid, now it doesn't look that way. So yes, he is ignorant, I no longer believe what I said in that post (which is one of my very first, around a hundred pages of comments have been added since that one). When I made that post, I didn't realize that Zimmerman had lost sight of the kid and the kid had waited on him, meaning he regained his ability to use the defense. At the time I posted that I only had parts of the 911 call. I thought Zimmerman followed the kid all the way up to the confrontation.. in fact that isn't what happened.

If you are going to dig into old posts you should at least acknowledge that I have posted maybe a hundred posts since that one on this topic and my opinion has changed. At least you can't claim I support Zimmerman because I am biased or racist, because I didn't always support him.

Yes you are wrong, I do not agree anymore. Jeb Bush is ignorant because he just made his comments and all the evidence made available to me since, is now available to him. That post was from the first or second day this was a story.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by GhettoRice

 

Last I knew following someone was not a crime. "Stand your ground" simply applies against whoever initiates violence first. Which I'm sure the police are investigating.. I wish politicians would stop trying to pretend their judge and jury here.

(following a suspicious person, also called "Observe and report" is kind of .. I don't know .. the whole point of a neighborhood watch?)

edit on 3/31/2012 by Rockpuck because: (no reason given)

Letting a guy get on top of you seems to be an odd time to draw your side arm.
I find it hard to believe that Zimmerman wouldn't have pulled it out if he felt that threatened,
if not to keep Martin from getting too close. I have had a gun pulled on me three times
and it was used in that fashion in all three times, to control my movement. I have
also seen a gun pulled on others multiple times, the same function is true, a gun's
second job (hopefully first) is as a deterrent.

What does seem plausible is Zimmerman bit off more than he could chew, started losing
the fight and took the easy way out.

reply to post by braindeadconservatives


The kid had no damage other than the gunshot wound. Likely Zimmerman didn't start a fight. As you said, why would he get physical and risk losing a fight when he could pull his gun. Most likely he was jumped by the kid.

Honestly.. that is most likely.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by braindeadconservatives

 

The kid had no damage other than the gunshot wound. Likely Zimmerman didn't start a fight. As you said, why would he get physical and risk losing a fight when he could pull his gun. Most likely he was jumped by the kid.

Honestly.. that is most likely.

If he was a hot head, hot heads like fighting... From prior documentation.

I find it difficult that an acutely suspicious and hyper vigilant person who is engaged in
being aware as a pass-time/profession is going to get jumped in his own neighborhood,
especially since he has bothered to follow Martin and call the cops.

What is Martin's motive? You don't go out, buy and ice tea, Skittles when you are planning
or in the mood to jump someone and then beat them to death, do you???

Originally posted by braindeadconservatives
I find it difficult that an acutely suspicious and hyper vigilant person who is engaged in
being aware as a pass-time/profession is going to get jumped in his own neighborhood,
especially since he has bothered to follow Martin and call the cops.

That is a very insightful comment. I've had some good insights into this case myself, but this one you made takes the cake.

Zimmerman's claim that he had "turned around" and was heading back to his SUV when he got jumped just doesn't make a lick of sense. Treyvon's female friend on the phone told Treyvon to run because he thought someone was following him. Treyvon told her on the phone he would walk, not run.

So if Zimmerman was truly walking away, what could possibly have been Treyvon's motive to "jump" Zimmerman? Not only that, but what you said too, how could it even have been possible? Zimmerman already felt he was looking for a potentially dangerous criminal suspect in his neighborhood, so much so that he called 9/11 and decided the threat was serious enough to have gone against Police request not to pursue the suspect.

So, in that state of mind, how could Treyvon have possibly snuck up on Zimmerman?

There is not motive, therefore Zimmerman's story is not credible, and he should be arrested and charged with murder.

reply to post by braindeadconservatives


Domestic disputes tend to have a lot more emotion involved, I wouldn't even factor that psychology into this.

His motive? What was his motive for not just going home when he had the chance (and yes he had the chance, he was within sight of his house as I have pointed out NUMEROUS times, and he had several minutes after he lost Zimmerman to make that 70 yard, 30 second trek). Everything you said is pointless. First off, just because he had an ice tea and skittles for someone else, doesn't mean that was his sole purpose for going out. Second, even if it was that doesn't say anything about his personality (which you might be able to guess isn't enough to determine who he is or what he might do and for what reason).

Maybe he wanted to get the jump on a guy he thought was after him. You guys take stupid little things and make more out of it than what it is. He had arizona tea, so what? I bet some killers have enjoyed that beverage as well.

Getting the guy before he gets you mentality is plenty of motive.

Why do you think getting jumped in his own neighborhood is so unlikely? That is just an unfounded belief. It could happen to anyone. You act like Zimmerman was some super killer and the kid was a baby. That is what the media has done to you guys.

Zimmerman lost sight of the kid, the kid was a football player running, but you don't think it is more likely that the kid was the one that found Zimmerman? Even though he was extremely close to his house, had time to get there, and had reason to evade supposedly being afraid? Sorry, it's near impossible to swallow.

reply to post by Cryptonomicon


There are so many things wrong with your posts I don't even know where to being.

First he didn't go against any police requests, second there wasn't an OPERATOR request for him not to follow.
Third we have no evidence that he continued following him until he caught up with him (he didn't he followed for a second after he was told he didn't have to and then he lost sight of the kid and turned his attention back to the operator).

Finally, and again, the kid lost Zimmerman, the girlfriend is likely lying in this situation because it doesn't make sense that Zimmerman would lie to the operator in real time about the kid running, so the kid, running, had time to make it home after losing Zimmerman, yet he decided not to go there despite it being within sight. Why? Because he likely waited on Zimmerman and jumped him. If you say that Zimmerman was lying about the kid running you are implying that he fabricated reality on the phone and had premeditated killing the kid, but then making the call at all would make no sense because there would be less question if he called afterward just saying he killed a kid that jumped him. Also we know the kid did fight Zimmerman as he had damage and it was recorded by several people (unless you believe there was a conspiracy involving dozens) so it stands to reason the kid didn't run all the way home because he stayed back to jump the guy following him.

I rest my case for the night.

reply to post by popsmayhem


I think perhaps.. He refers to the fact that Mr. Zimmerman felt the need to follow a teenager based on some obscure perception that he was comitting a crime.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

This wasn't Treyvon's neighborhood. He doesn't have a territorial motive to defend it.

You also seem to be coming to the conclusion that Treyvon had a chance to get home but made the decision not to. How on Earth can you fabricate such an important conclusion? Did it not occur to you that he didn't make it home because Zimmerman had in fact tracked the kid down before he could?

You make Treyvon out to be the aggressor, but it is Zimmerman with the gun (now known to be illegally) hunting around the neighborhood for a black kid against 911 orders not to.

Everything points to Zimmerman being the aggressor, but you somehow conclude Treyvon was the aggressor, never mind the fact that it's Treyvon who is dead.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
First he didn't go against any police requests, second there wasn't an OPERATOR request for him not to follow.

You aren't qualified to be discussing this because you obviously haven't heard the 911 recordings of the 911 dispatcher telling him not to pursue after he tells 911 that he is pursuing. This fact alone discredits anything you say about this case, let alone your conclusions.

Making stuff up as you go? You should pick another hobby.

reply to post by Cryptonomicon


I will tell you how I came to this conclusion.
Ok from the entrance to Trayvons house is not incredibly far.
I have worked this out with both the timeline of events which are time stamped (via the calls) and the map.
When Zimmerman lost sight of Trayvon it is marked on the phone call, he continues talking to the operator for a bit after losing sight, several minutes pass between then and when people call about the struggle. However when Martin begins to run and loses Zimmerman he is at a distance of between 70 and 100 yards from the house his dad's gf lives in. A distance he has covered many times as a football player. It would probably take him 30 seconds or less, but even if he had a whole minute he could have been there before Zimmerman was off the phone, let alone the 5-7 minutes before they met and struggled.
He waited. If he was afraid, why? Why with his house within sight? If I was scared, but I saw that beacon of safety, my home I would book it.
It is very suspect. Don't buy into the spin and hype. Look into it yourself.

Maybe evidence will change, but for now, it looks like Zimmerman defended himself to me.
I have switched sides on this case once, so I am not saying I won't again, but as it stands I think Zimmerman defended himself.

Zimmerman called and said the teen started to run around 7 o clock. At 7 25 the kid was shot. It was probably a 5 minute walk from the front gate, and about a 20 second run from where Martin was killed to where he was staying. 25 minutes is an awful long time to get home. He was never stopped by Zimmerman. He waited.

Most likely at around 7:10 when Martin was talking to his girlfriend he was hiding waiting on Zimmerman. When she said she was telling him to run and not to "walk" I think it is more likely she was telling him not to hide and wait on the guy, but to run. Of course that would blow the case to tell the police.

one of the timeline sources. admittedly the one I used before gave a shorter window, but still ample time for the kid to get home.

You can find overhead maps of where this went down, showing the projected routes they both took, where Martin died, and how close the place he was staying at was.


Also as a sidenote, and this is just a thought, don't factor it into my true opinion, or the above info, but I think it's a bit weird that the girlfriend has chosen to stay anonymous. They could turn her into a symbol, she would get massive amounts of sympathetic attention. Attention that most 16 year olds crave. I think there is a reason they aren't wanting her outed and aren't wanting her talking (except once on the phone with only the lawyer asking her questions).

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by GhettoRice

 

Last I knew following someone was not a crime

Depending on the circumstances, following someone could be viewed as harassment.

It appears from the article, the PFA was in 2005. Most last 6 months to a year. Not sure why that is pertinent? If he doesn't have a current PFA against him, he can legally carry a gun.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

Maybe evidence will change, but for now, it looks like Zimmerman defended himself to me. I have switched sides on this case once, so I am not saying I won't again, but as it stands I think Zimmerman defended himself.

How can you say he defended himself when he was the aggressor?

He was the one that chased Martin against the advice of the dispatcher.
He had no legal authority to stop or question anyone.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by braindeadconservatives

 

Domestic disputes tend to have a lot more emotion involved, I wouldn't even factor that psychology into this.

His motive? What was his motive for not just going home when he had the chance (and yes he had the chance, he was within sight of his house as I have pointed out NUMEROUS times, and he had several minutes after he lost Zimmerman to make that 70 yard, 30 second trek).

Well I recall liking to be outside when I was 17, are you gonna assume being outside
is symptom to some larger criminal inclination? I think it is unreasonable to do so.

Everything you said is pointless. First off, just because he had an ice tea and skittles for someone else, doesn't mean that was his sole purpose for going out.

Having an Iced Tea in one hand is not conducive to jumping and attempting to murder another person
with your bare hands. You are reaching in much of your attempt to plant malicious intent, what he was
doing does provide insight to his motive. If he had a screwdriver and some gloves on him, I would be
suspect of him, but he did not.

Maybe he wanted to get the jump on a guy he thought was after him. You guys take stupid little things and make more out of it than what it is. He had arizona tea, so what? I bet some killers have enjoyed that beverage as well.

Having a drink bottle in your hand is a hinderance when you are going to fight. Psychologically
speaking, why would you hinder 50% of your upper body fighting capability when you are looking
to use and need 100% of your fists in a violent act?

It makes NO sense.

Getting the guy before he gets you mentality is plenty of motive.

Is it???

Most people don't like to fight and engage in violence, do you have evidence in Martin's
past that establishes a proclivity to violence?

Because this pattern is established with Zimmerman

Why do you think getting jumped in his own neighborhood is so unlikely? That is just an unfounded belief.

So Zimmerman was so clueless, he could not here the approach of a 6'3 person, even though he was
disturbed and vigilant enough to call the police? I don't buy that either, where was Martin hiding?

It could happen to anyone. You act like Zimmerman was some super killer and the kid was a baby. That is what the media has done to you guys.

Same could be said about Zimmerman, a big fat baby and Martin the closeted hatchet murderer...

A domestic violence charge means nothing... I was charged with DV for telling my gf to F off.... It was later dropped. People get charged with it all the time who did nothing wrong. Many states have a program because of that reason, that if it is a 1st offense you can get it wiped from your record after the gov takes all your money. Facts are facts, a thug was shot dead, that is that. Ohh do not forget when he was suspended from school, they found a large flathead screwdriver in his backpack along with 10+ pieces of womans jewelry... POS was out robbing after all.. If Zimmerman did not kill him, a home owner on his next burglary would have.


U

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


OK, but it seems logical that if you shoot someone not armed, self defense? He gave that up when he went after the kid after being told not to. Still, there is the classic argument if you use deadly force and the person on the receiving end can't respond, the greater burden is up to the person using such force. Or its a meaningless law that allows any idiot to play cop-for-a-day.

This guys history with the local cops alone should have raised more then a few eye brows. HE USED deadly force and until its demonstrated he was justified, he should be under the legal microscope. As far as committing a crime, its on the 911 tape that he did the opposite of what he was told to do and any "rational"person would NOT have pursued someone threatening. His actions were he thought he had an excuse to use a ill thought out law and the local cops backed him up. Just brilliant. And an invitation to have anyone shoot anyone and kill them saying "it was self defense".

Really? Then prove it or be careful you don't scare some poor sol because you don't look acceptable in any state with such an asinine law. As with the right to have arms comes a huge responsibility and one of them does permit most lawful citizens to carry a concealed weapon,ostensibly for protection and you don't need the idiot law Florida has. Just go through a background check, prove you are trained in using and keeping the weapon safe, and you to can pack em.

Hell I'm licensed to carry a concealed weapon in most states if I chose to. I rarely ever had in over 25 years since licensed. I also have very good security people far better at combat then me, so its not an issue.

I know a lot of people can't afford the kind of protection I have, but I also rarely ever consider such firepower prudent unless traveling in certain places overseas.There also very good because they blend in so well, as they should. But people who think they need to carry can go through some basic checks to do so. Its just almost never needed. No wacky laws required.