George Zimmerman to be charged in Trayvon Martin shooting, official says

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by LErickson
As long as you are cool with the idea that I am going to shoot them if I feel like I am threatened while following them. You are following along and not just reacting one post at a time, right?

If by following along with your post you are referring to your comparison of an apple to a smurf then sure. Your argument is not based on what actually occured, unless you can provide us with a source that states Zimmerman followed Martin with the intent of shooting him because he felt threatened.

If Zimmerman felt threatened then why would he follow Martin?
If Martin felt threatened then why did he not call 911?

Good question you asked ..... 'If Zimmerman felt threatened then why would he follow Martin?'

You really should watch the bond hearing. Listen for yourself at the 23:15 mark. So Zimmerman did tell police he was scared yet he followed anyway. Interesting, wouldn't you say?

Prosecution - 'Did he, uh, Mr. Zimmerman, the defendant at one point claim to the police that he was scared because Mr. Martin started circling his car?

Investigator - 'Yes'

Prosecutor - 'But despite, according to Mr. Zimmerman he was so scared he still got out of the car and chased Mr. Martin, correct?'

Investigator - 'He went after him, yes'

Zimmerman Bond Hearing

reply to post by pizzanazi75

Prosecution - 'Did he, uh, Mr. Zimmerman, the defendant at one point claim to the police that he was scared because Mr. Martin started circling his car?

Sounds like neither of them were scared. Or harboring tendencies towards politeness.

Therein lies the problem that night.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by pizzanazi75

 

Prosecution - 'Did he, uh, Mr. Zimmerman, the defendant at one point claim to the police that he was scared because Mr. Martin started circling his car?

Sounds like neither of them were scared. Or harboring tendencies towards politeness.

Therein lies the problem that night.

No, it sounds like Zimmerman told police he was scared. How can you say different?

Harboring tendencies toward politeness? Yeah following a kid and shooting him is definitely 'harboring tendencies toward politeness.'

reply to post by pizzanazi75

If Martin circled Zimmerman's vehicle, he apparently wasn't scared.

My remark about politeness refers to the fact that this whole situation would not have occurred if both had been polite people. Zimmerman could have had reservations about a stranger being in the gated community that he lived in, drove up to him and politely asked if he had any business in the area. Trayvon could have politely replied that he was on his was to his father's fiancé's house down the street.

Sorry if my observation riled you up.

BTW:

No, it sounds like Zimmerman told police he was scared. How can you say different?

I didn't.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by pizzanazi75

 

If Martin circled Zimmerman's vehicle, he apparently wasn't scared.

My remark about politeness refers to the fact that this whole situation would not have occurred if both had been polite people. Zimmerman could have had reservations about a stranger being in the gated community that he lived in, drove up to him and politely asked if he had any business in the area. Trayvon could have politely replied that he was on his was to his father's fiancé's house down the street.

Sorry if my observation riled you up.

Yes it could have been. And according Zimmerman's own father' account of what Zimmerman told him Trayvon asked Zimmerman 'why are you following me, do you have a problem?' Zimmerman reply 'no, i don't have a problem'...starts at the 2:20 mark....funny, that was a nice oppurtunity for Zimmerman to be polite and not lie to the face of the person he was about to kill. He did indeed have a problem, yet according to his account to his father he told Trayvon he didn't have a problem. I would say I have a problem with someone I had just called the police on, wouldn't you agree.

George Zimmerman's Father Speaks Out On All The Hate His Son Is Getting

Trayvon wasn't the one following someone around the neighborhood for no reason other than his own preconceived notions he was under no obligation to be 'polite'. He was being followed by in the dark by a man who he had seen watching him in an SUV....do you teach your children to be polite to them?

And, responding to your 'observation doesn't mean I was 'riled' up as you like to put it, it simply means I was responding to your post. Hyperbole much?

reply to post by pizzanazi75

And, responding to your 'observation doesn't mean I was 'riled' up as you like to put it, it simply means I was responding to your post.

Hmmmmm.

Hyperbole much?

Maybe sometimes. In this case, I was just observing.
I guess it is possible that you don't notice what other people see as venom coming from your posts.

reply to post by pizzanazi75


Yet Zimmerman called 911 and Martin did not.

So now its possible for a man of Zimmermans build / weight / stature etc to not place a person of Martins build / height / weight / stature in fear?

If thats the case then is it not possible that Martin could have confronted Zimmerman?

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by pizzanazi75

 

Yet Zimmerman called 911 and Martin did not.

So now its possible for a man of Zimmermans build / weight / stature etc to not place a person of Martins build / height / weight / stature in fear?

If thats the case then is it not possible that Martin could have confronted Zimmerman?

This is what happens when I provide the investigators actual words about what Zimmerman has told police. You discount them as well and try and twist the situation to fit what YOU want it to be not what the evidence says it is. The investigators have seen all of his taped interviews, we have not, the one on the stand states that his story has changed and he has made statements that are not backed up by the evidence. The investigator would gain nothing by lying about that on the stand, so I am going to trust in his word more than yours.

I said it in the other thread, I don't have the time or desire to deal with you, other than to point out your lies and misleading statements when you make them daily.

reply to post by pizzanazi75


and the investigator listed on the PC swore Zimmerman confronted Martin and the fight ensued.

He then testified he has no knowledge / evidence that supports that statement.

I have no idea how you arrived at your response based on my post. I asked you a hypothetical and you once again turned it into somthing completely different.

Please cite your source where I am a liar. I am getting tired of that being your only defense being you cant support your claims with facts / sources.

Seriously.. your liar liar pants on fire routine has moved beyond hysterical to just sad.

Originally posted by pizzanazi75

Yes it could have been. And according Zimmerman's own father' account of what Zimmerman told him Trayvon asked Zimmerman 'why are you following me, do you have a problem?' Zimmerman reply 'no, i don't have a problem'...starts at the 2:20 mark....funny, that was a nice oppurtunity for Zimmerman to be polite and not lie to the face of the person he was about to kill. He did indeed have a problem, yet according to his account to his father he told Trayvon he didn't have a problem. I would say I have a problem with someone I had just called the police on, wouldn't you agree.

so that tosses the "zimmerman was ambushed and sucker punched by trayvon" hypothesis out the window!! of course zimmerman had a problem, after all he called 911 on a "f'in ahole punk" remember?

but then of course this testimony wont be used in court and zimmerman will have plenty of time to give alternate stories in his defense, of course his father made up this whole story of what his son told him.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by pizzanazi75

 

and the investigator listed on the PC swore Zimmerman confronted Martin and the fight ensued.

He then testified he has no knowledge / evidence that supports that statement.

I have no idea how you arrived at your response based on my post. I asked you a hypothetical and you once again turned it into somthing completely different.

Please cite your source where I am a liar. I am getting tired of that being your only defense being you cant support your claims with facts / sources.

Seriously.. your liar liar pants on fire routine has moved beyond hysterical to just sad.

I never said your pants were on fire.....are you insinuating they are? I did call you a liar, because I have caught you in several lies, as have others. So that shoe fit. I have never mentioned your pants or fire.

Ive proved you lied at least 2 times in the past, if you would like to review those post feel free to go find them. Im not the only one who has, several others have as well.

And ill leave you with this, since you are so fixated on who had first physical contact.....In the bond hearing the investigator has stated the 911 call has been analyzed by the FBI, how do you know that the prosecution hasn't had confirmation that it is Trayvon screaming. We had 2 experts so far say it wasn't Zimmerman (remember that was one of the lies I caught you in...you said one expert said it was Zimmerman screaming, remember now? Im sure you don't) screaming, so if the prosecution knows for sure that it was Trayvon screaming then its not gonna make a hill of beans who made first contact. Please tell me how the defense will be able to explain away the fact that Zimmerman shot an unarmed teenager that was screaming for his life? You can't explain that and neither can he. I suspect that is why the prosecution is confident in 2nd degree murder charges and is not so concerned about first contact. They already know he followed him, they already know that he presumed Trayvon an 'a'hole' and a 'f'ing punk'......this is all the evidence you guys like to overlook. Im sure you will continue to overlook it again.

Don't bother responding, I won't be answering back til I catch you the next time you try to mislead or lie about the case.

Originally posted by conspiracy nut

Originally posted by pizzanazi75

Yes it could have been. And according Zimmerman's own father' account of what Zimmerman told him Trayvon asked Zimmerman 'why are you following me, do you have a problem?' Zimmerman reply 'no, i don't have a problem'...starts at the 2:20 mark....funny, that was a nice oppurtunity for Zimmerman to be polite and not lie to the face of the person he was about to kill. He did indeed have a problem, yet according to his account to his father he told Trayvon he didn't have a problem. I would say I have a problem with someone I had just called the police on, wouldn't you agree.

so that tosses the "zimmerman was ambushed and sucker punched by trayvon" hypothesis out the window!! of course zimmerman had a problem, after all he called 911 on a "f'in ahole punk" remember?

but then of course this testimony wont be used in court and zimmerman will have plenty of time to give alternate stories in his defense, of course his father made up this whole story of what his son told him.

I think alot of things toss out his theory of being ambushed and sucker punched...... lol

Im not sure they won't be used in court. Ive heard some lawyers say it will be used, because some hearsay evidence is allowed in testimony, its usually up to the judge and the type of testimony, so we will see.

But like they said in the bond hearing they have multiple taped interviews with him that show that his story changed and he started answering 'i don't remember' when asked questions that contradicted his previous statements......Those for sure will be used in the trial. I can't wait to see those.

I also can't wait to hear how people will try to explain away his own words. So far all we have is his 911 call, and interviews from his dad, father, and a few mystery friends. And so far with just that information it is very apparent that there are huge holes in Zimmermans story. If he was truly smart he never would have let anyone speak on his behalf and he would have had his camp remain silent.

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

The reason why he can use self defense is because as the lead investigator admitted he cant prove Zimmerman didnt stop following him and was returning to his truck.

This doesn't matter. It shouldn't be up to investigator to prove whether Zimmerman acted in self defense, it is up to Zimmerman and Zimmerman alone. He clearly had prior motive when he decided to get out of his truck in the first place the persue Trayvon who he believed was running away from him, he had a loaded gun, there is no evidence that Trayvon was breaking any laws and no evidence that Trayvon attacked first.

If you take the life of some unarmed person with a gun, a person you don't know on a public street, you need to demonstrate your innocence, it is not the other way around. What kind of justice system would we have if murders can simply declare self defense with absolutely no obligation to prove it?

This leads to the possibility that Treyvon returned to confront him making this a case of self defense.

Again, there is nothing out there (atleast released to the public) to demonstrate that Trayvon started the confrontation. There are claims that Trayvon doubled back to Zimmerman, but the fact is, we don't know the exact details of his movements that night, only Zimmerman's accounts. Right now Trayvon's exact movements are been accounted for, we'll have the opportunity to see this presented in the courts.

And contrary to your beliefs he is Innocent until proven guilty

No I don't think he is innocent, because I already know he was the one who shot and killed Trayvon. We also know that he had prior motive for starting the confrontation in the first place given the police audio. Zimmerman needs to demonstrate his innocence. Unfortunately given the twisted justice system in Florida, I get the feeling he'll get away with it.

Originally posted by LErickson

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

The reason why he can use self defense is because as the lead investigator admitted he cant prove Zimmerman didnt stop following him and was returning to his truck. This leads to the possibility that Treyvon returned to confront him making this a case of self defense. And believe me O'Mara will argue exactly that because thats the reason he asked the question in the first place. All he has to do is convince 1 juror that Treyvon returned after the 911 call and this case is over.

So I can shoot anyone I want and claim they were going to kill me and then you have to prove that they were not trying to kill me in order to get me on charges?

Yep, this here is the logic being used. I get the feeling that if Zimmerman is released without any sentence (and I get a strong feeling he would), this case will be used by other murderers in future cases.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


Since people seem confused ill try to explain this.Because the way self defense works it changes the rules.In our legal system you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. You have the right to defend yourself with lethal force if you deem your life is in danger,This defense goes all the way back to common law.For Zimmerman the defense must only be asserted, and the prosecution has the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense is not applicable.

Now if the prosecutor tears apart his self defense claim hes going to jail for murder. Since we know Treyvon was shot and died all the court is trying to decide is if he was murdered or was it an act of self defense. So far the states case seems very weak based off the affidavit and there lead investigators comments on the stand.Unless new evidence comes out hes going to walk.

Firstly forgive me because im writing this from my cell, i should be working but ATS once again distracted me from things i should be doing.

To be blunt, im tired of everyone jumping so quick to one side or the other, people who say "i know hes guilty" or i know hes innocent". If theres one thing we know its that all the details of a case will not be made availabke to the public until the end outcome if ever. So for everyone making assumptions or proclaiming one side or another i have to say shame on you, i expect members of ATS to come to their decisions with a little more rational and patience before making bold statements such as "i know". The fact of the matter is no one knows but the the two parties who wete there and thats it. Now in my OPINION which i feel is fairly rational. Yes Zimmerman is an idiot. He should never have gotten out of the car to begin with. And no matter the law in FL they should have arrested him in the beggining as procedure and maybe this whole controversy could have been avoided. I dont see anything to point that he intentionally followed him just to shoot him. And i think alot of people believe that yes criminals often get away and his statement could be taken in or out of context in many ways. And what really is irritating is the race thing, the guys mixed for christ sake. I mean at first look would you honestly say the guys white? But this is all irrelevant. The whole thing comes down to let it play out. And he should be prosecuted on what they can prove and not hearsay or possible trivial things that could be argued in either side. I do think he should get in some trouble. Not life in prison unless they can prove it was done maliciously. And people keep saying he shot an unarmed kid. Well i dont know how it went down but if there was a struggle and they wete fighting then isnt it obvious yhe struggle would be over the wepon that was present? If thats how it went down and he did get zimmermans gun and shot him , makes you wonder how this would play out no?

On one last note before i go back to work, i cant figure out how to insert quotea from my cell but the following is something i read on here and a responce to it
QUOTE. "This doesn't matter. It shouldn't be up to investigator to prove whether Zimmerman acted in self defense, it is up to Zimmerman and Zimmerman alone. He clearly had prior motive when he decided to get out of his truck in the first place the persue Trayvon who he believed was running away from him, he had a loaded gun, there is no evidence that Trayvon was breaking any laws and no evidence that Trayvon attacked first.

If you take the life of some unarmed person with a gun, a person you don't know on a public street, you need to demonstrate your innocence, it is not the other way around. What kind of justice system would we have if murders can simply declare self defense with absolutely no obligation to prove it? END QUOTE

This is an irrational idea. Now im not a lawyer, maybe some of you are but doesnt the burden fall on the state to prove guilt? I thought that was one of the big things in our country, innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof does not fall on the defendent but it does the prosecution. Otherwise anyone accused would be forced to prove their innocence according to you. Maybe we should take our justice system back to the witch hunts and see if he burns cause arent witches made of wood? Then we'd know his guilt if he burned right?

Oh and btw has anyone heard about the african american father who shot the caucasion father about a month prior to this in FL who was let go on ybe stand your ground law? I have yet to confirm this but i was told about it and sent a link i have yet to read cause frankly this case has already occupied to much of my time. But if it is true gor all those who say this case was race related then mayne that one was too? Who knows, if i was at a pc i would have researched before mentioning but had to throw that in there too. Back to work!
"

Zimmerman's dad should sue the media!!!!
I'll jump onboard that train!

These lying, arrogant, hate mungering,agitating and instigating 'Ink Cowards' needs to be put into place,once and for all.

Let's bring down the anti-American,Marxist (AP) media and their co-conspirator's!

reply to post by GmoS719


Lol, I think the right question to ask is isnt it an ignorant world, or country rather, when the masses listen to what the biased media has to say on a certain subject instead of waiting and seeing how the event plays out? Because thats what everyone is doing...this is not a cut-and-dry case in which we can all watch from the moment it happens and voice that "oh your wrong, your wrong, I know what actually happened even though I wasnt there". We all are going to have opinions on the matter, as true with any other subject, but the fact remains that we are not the ones who ultimately chose what happens so there is no need to sit here and make stupid comments where we compare them to someone who killed their 2 year old baby and went out and patried for a month...your a fool for doing that. Its one thing to be opioniated, its another to be bashful because of what you believe after simply watching the news, which is not aruguable when I say that it is in fact biased. Thank you. Oh and no more one sentence replies, I seen you had a few taken down...watch out for that.



-TrollerTrollzo

Originally posted by dragonridr
You have the right to defend yourself with lethal force if you deem your life is in danger,

Considering he was the one with a loaded gun, and Trayvon was unarmed, I still fail to see where his life was in danger? The fact that Trayvon may have ambushed is a theory, a scenario, a claim made by Zimmerman and Zimmerman alone. There is no solid evidence behind it. We already know that Zimmerman got out of his car and persued Trayvon who he believed was running away from him. 'Defense' doesn't apply if Zimmerman chose to put himself in a situation like this. I will certainly agree that due to Florida's twisted laws, he will most likely get away with merely making this excuse, but in the end we only have his claims (unless other evidence pops up during the trial).

Unless new evidence comes out hes going to walk.

I'm of the belief that there is still evidence out there, but I get the feeling he'll walk.

I'm not sure what kind of law protects a murderer from not having to demonstrate his innocence, this doesn't make sense sorry. If you take the life of somebody, especially if that other person was unarmed, was not on your property, was not breaking any laws, and especially considering that you had motive prior to persue this individual, I fail to see where you're innocence is assumed, unless you've clearly demonstrated this. Zimmerman hasn't done so at all, other than his words, and a picture that indicates he was involved in a confrontation. Maybe his defense team is holding out on evidence, we'll have to wait and see.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


Well sounds to me you prefer the Chinese legal system. There the state will make a list of charges and you have to prove them wrong.So lets say the state said you were a subversive and was going to jail from plotting to blow up a building. In china the individual has to prove the state wrong i personally wouldn't want to go down that road.But hey if you do by all means there's plenty of country's that have a legal system you seem to approve of.