The Zimmerman Trial

Originally posted by conspiracy nut

Originally posted by ButterCookie

Originally posted by roadgravel

Originally posted by FlyersFan
reply to post by conspiracy nut

 

All reasons why I am in the manslaughter camp at this point. He didn't identify himself as neighborhood watch to Martin. He didn't stay in his car. He followed Martin. He was armed even though neighborhood watch people are told not to. All those things are legal for him to do ... but they were the opposite of what he should have done and so the situation happened. All legal .. so I don't know if he can be convicted of manslaughter. That's why I say he's at least morally responsible.

I agree!!

That seems to be the sentiment: the criminals have the upper hand, and law-abiding citizens should not 'get in their way'.



Interesting point but if TM started it then that doesn't matter. GZ had the right to walk around and look at someone on the property.

Are people now to be afraid to live their life because of thugs. The gangs are already doing that to some communities. Don't go out because they could be trouble.

the thing is trayvon wasn't committing any crime! george zimmerman was doing his neighborhood watch duty, he reported a "suspicious" person, he should have left it at that. he disobeyed 2 parts of his neighborhood watch duties, 1. he was armed, 2. he followed trayvon. zimmerman had criminal law classes he should have known full well that he WAS NOT A COP, and should not have been out patrolling the neighborhood.

Unless Martin jumped Z, at which point it becomes self-defense. Not a cop or not...all of Z's actions were legal (according to Z's account) and there has been little presented that supports otherwise.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by kdyam

 

If you are grabbing someone's bald head to forcibly slam it against the ground, the chances not one nail would scrape the surface of that head seems remarkably slim.

In my case, I chew my nails, so finding anything under them would be unlikely no matter what.

I would like to know the condition of Martin's nails...length etc, as this would be as important as whether there was DNA or not under his nails.

If self defense is enough to keep murder2 from sticking I am fairly sure it would also exclude manslaughter from sticking as well.

I read that from some legal eagles.

Originally posted by roadgravel

...
he WAS NOT A COP, and should not have been out patrolling the neighborhood.

Maybe it is time for a movement to end or make it against the law to have neighborhood watches. Facts will probably show that watches have never reduced crime.

Ridiculous statement.

Common sense would tell you that if people are watching and involved there would be less crime than if everyone were acting like the monkeys of hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.

Yeah...let's introduce MORE legislation taking away our rights and freedoms which supposedly make us safer and actually do the opposite. Let's start making up facts while we are at it.

The Police are not there to protect us...they are there to fill out the paperwork after crap happens. Try calling 911 a few times over a few months to report trespassers on private property...you will be told that trespassing is not important enough for 911. When you point out that vehicles on the property have been broken into the cop will tell so that that is not 911 material either. This was my experience with a retirement home and "yutes" who would congregate late at night in the parking lot. Police did not want to be bothered....

Bottom line: dont call 911 to prevent a crime. Call 911 once the crime as been committed.

Originally posted by bbracken677

Originally posted by roadgravel
In order to be permitted to carry a firearm a person should know the law well. In fact, that is part of the permit process, learning the law.

And, according to law, the nature of the injuries are not pertinent to self-defense. One does not need to wait until you are almost dead to pull the trigger...one only has to have reasonable fear for one's safety in order to defend oneself.

Everyone keeps referring to Z's meager injuries as though the seriousness of the injuries determines whether it can be considered self-defense. Not true. Established in court today.

Yes, I agree.

Knowledge or lack there of doesn't add to guilt or innocence in this case. Seems legit if the actions that night are anywhere near stated.

reply to post by bbracken677


That was meant as sarcasm, hence the

Why would some state patrolling the neighborhood watching is bad and a cop only activity. NW has prevented crime.

Originally posted by roadgravel
reply to post by bbracken677

 

That was meant as sarcasm, hence the

Why would some state patrolling the neighborhood watching is bad and a cop only activity. NW has prevented crime.

Sorry about that...I took you for serious. I am sick and tired of meaningless legislation that fails to accomplish the aim.

I could go into our HOV lanes here in Dallas and what a complete and total joke and waste of money they have become. Classic case of a good idea implemented stupidly and accomplishes the opposite of what was intended. I am growing impatient and intolerant of ignorant, stupid govt actions.

reply to post by bbracken677

I hear ya. Seems we are getting more and more less useful or narrow laws in an effort to please small groups of people. I suppose they mean well but lets go with benefit to the whole.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by MrWendal

 

She said he was "beside" his house AND he stayed on the phone with her for several minutes after saying that.

And who is this "she"? The "discredited witness who you called a lair? Now suddenly she is truthful and should be taken at her word when what she says fits your theory?

So you are saying to me he took off running to safety but then quit before he got there? He got beside his house, but couldn't have made it inside in the several minutes he stayed on the phone with the girl?

Again, you hold onto this term of "several minutes" like it is the gospel although you claim the witness who said it is a liar and unbelievable. So I have to ask you, in your opinion, is she believable or is she a liar? Just how long is "several minutes"? Did she she hold onto a stop watch and time the length of Trayvon's waiting?

The point is, even if he was "beside" his house, the several minutes he stayed on the phone would have been ample time to make it inside.

I have already addressed this point, twice.

Also the mom or Tracy's girlfriend one said he was on the porch (another inconsistency on their side).

Inconsistency? Perhaps you can tell me at what point Tracy's girlfriend or the Mom (Both of whom were not actually there), testified in front of this Jury and made this statement?

That tells me either he ran home and waited rather than going inside OR he ran to find an advantageous place to wait rather than running to safety because he was scared.

Scared of what? If your post in this thread are to be believed, what was Trayvon scared of?

You can argue, but you know evidence and common sense are on my side.

Yes, and so are making things up as you go along...such as the "cough syrup" argument that is not backed up by any evidence whatsoever.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by MrWendal

 

No I will not "come on" in a regular drug panel test they DO NOT test for DXM.
They would have to order special tests for that. I am NOT making things up as I go along. It is also very telling that his unopened drink and "friends" skittles were two of the three ingredients used in a "watermelon lean" a drink in hip hop culture made with watermelon ice tea or purple drink, skittles or jolly ranchers, and certain types cough syrup that I wont name.

edit on 3-7-2013 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)

Except you forget the main ingredient for such a thing... Codeine. Which was not found in his system. So yes, you are making this up as you go along and speculating.

Funny how you accuse him of using skittles and iced tea to make a drug, but yet the candy was unopened, the tea was unopened. Clearly it was not used for anything you suggest and there was a young man on the witness stand who testified that he asked for the Skittles and Trayvon had bought them for him.

But don't let a little thing like facts get in the way of your speculation that you are attempting to pass off as facts.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
reply to post by IvanAstikov

 

Ahhhh ... okay. I didn't get that Zimmerman had said Martin held the gun.
I didn't catch that when the police interviews with him were played.
I can't picture Martin getting a hold of the gun and letting go ..... that doesn't make sense.

Do we have a link to Zimmermans comment that Martin held the gun?
Anyone ....???? I'd like to read it. Thanks ahead of time.

I am not sure if Zimmerman said it, but his "best friend" claims and testified that Zimmerman said it.

Osterman said Zimmerman felt Martin grab either his gun or the holster.

"That’s when he had to -- he freed one of his hands and got the gun. He either broke contact or knocked Trayvon’s hand away, and then he drew it," said Osterman.

Source

reply to post by MrWendal


Wrong. The "legal" version is made with otc, publically available products.

Check youtube.

It is just as potent, if not moreso.

reply to post by MrWendal

Inconsistency? Perhaps you can tell me at what point Tracy's
girlfriend or the Mom (Both of whom were not actually there),
testified in front of this Jury and made this statement?

Show me where either the mother or the girlfriend testified in front of a jury they were not there.

You make that statement as fact.

I'll wait.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
If self defense is enough to keep murder2 from sticking I am fairly sure it would also exclude manslaughter from sticking as well.

I read that from some legal eagles.

You are correct. If you may remember, last night, I expressed some confusion over a post that I had read about being able to press forward with a manslaughter conviction. I was able to seek a bit more clarity on that today.

When they seek murder 2 charges on willful ill will or a depraved mind, as they have, the manslaughter negotiations are off the table automatically, as manslaughter cannot be sought under those grounds, it rules it out. At least that is my understanding. The prosecution will actually have to drop, reduce, the charges.

The law gets a bit confusing when you start going down the ranks, ruling in/out, but that is my takeaway from the discussion.

The best they can get without murder 2 is I believe justifiable homicide, which falls under self defense.

Homicide and murder being two different things.

A person can die by homicide, but not be murdered.

There is a good, short article you can look for, if interested, about why the media calls it a killing, and certain media had to stop calling it murder. Until it is ajudicated as murder, it is not able to be labeled as such. So, for now, it is a killing.

www.poynter.org...

Why journalists call Trayvon
Martin death a shooting, but not
a murder

(Double Post)

Originally posted by roadgravel

Originally posted by FlyersFan
reply to post by conspiracy nut

 

All reasons why I am in the manslaughter camp at this point. He didn't identify himself as neighborhood watch to Martin. He didn't stay in his car. He followed Martin. He was armed even though neighborhood watch people are told not to. All those things are legal for him to do ... but they were the opposite of what he should have done and so the situation happened. All legal .. so I don't know if he can be convicted of manslaughter. That's why I say he's at least morally responsible.

Interesting point but if TM started it then that doesn't matter. GZ had the right to walk around and look at someone on the property.

Are people now to be afraid to live their life because of thugs. The gangs are already doing that to some communities. Don't go out because they could be trouble.

I agree!!

Even as a I continue to bring facts to this debate with my peers and family ( who are all on the Trayvon side), they insist that Trayvon was justified in attacking Zimmerman because he was being followed.

What??

Me: It has pretty much established that Trayvon was on the top of Zimmerman, throwing blows

Relative: Well, yes. He had the right to beat him up. Zimmerman shouldn't have been following him.

Me: Is it against the law to follow someone?

Relative: That isn't important. He was right to beat him up for following him.

Me: But he did nothing unlawful. After all, he was the Neighborhood Watch, monitoring unfamiliar persons on the property.

Relative: Well.......hmmmm....well......

Me: Would you have the right to assault someone that was following and you?

Relative: Yep.

Me. Wow...how?

Relative: Because I wouldn't like anyone following me

Me: True, but does that give you the legal right to assault them?

Relative: Whatever...I'm done having this discussion.

reply to post by ButterCookie


We heard someone out in the world say GZ was guilty because he went home, got his gun and came back to the area to shoot TM.

Where does this stuff surface......

Originally posted by roadgravel
reply to post by bbracken677

 

That was meant as sarcasm, hence the

Why would some state patrolling the neighborhood watching is bad and a cop only activity. NW has prevented crime.

Its as if privatized security is being punished and public security is being promoted.

More Nanny State promotion.

Originally posted by Libertygal
reply to post by MrWendal

 

Inconsistency? Perhaps you can tell me at what point Tracy's
girlfriend or the Mom (Both of whom were not actually there),
testified in front of this Jury and made this statement?

Show me where either the mother or the girlfriend testified in front of a jury they were not there.

You make that statement as fact.

I'll wait.

Well first off, they have not testified (which was my point), secondly, it is common knowledge that they were not there at the time of the incident. Tracy's girlfriend was out with Tracy and the Mom was in Miami. Perhaps you forget that the she sent Trayvon to stay with his father to begin with?

Originally posted by Libertygal
reply to post by MrWendal

 

Wrong. The "legal" version is made with otc, publically available products.

Check youtube.

It is just as potent, if not moreso.

And I will say again, what evidence do you have that the products bought were for this use? The skittles were unopened, and there was testimony from a young man who said he asked Trayvon to get him some skittles. The Iced Tea was unopened.

So what exactly is the point people are trying to make with this besides making more assumptions and trying to pass it off as some type of fact?