The Zimmerman Trial

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by NotAnAspie

 

There was no time. Unless you mean he should have wandered around the whole area with his gun drawn like a cop in a movie. Otherwise he had no time to pull it. He was ambushed, had he had his gun drawn it probably wouldn't have stopped it and he may very well be dead.

Your points are way off the mark.

If you think about it this case may backfire on the anti gun crowd if they try to use the logic that Z should have flashed his gun.

That could be spun around and make pushing legislation for open carry here in Florida.

It is just a observation.

Originally posted by ButterCookie
I am watching the coverage from the Medical Examiner from this morning...

The Medical Examiner states that NO ONE knows more about Trayvon's autopsy more than he does, then the Defense slams dunk by saying "Except that you don't know ANYTHING about it, remember?" Then the Medical Examiner says, "Yes."

LOL

Oh my god did that actually happen? I must've missed that part... did the courtroom burst out laughing???

that is just sad

Originally posted by AlexG141989

Originally posted by ButterCookie
I am watching the coverage from the Medical Examiner from this morning...

The Medical Examiner states that NO ONE knows more about Trayvon's autopsy more than he does, then the Defense slams dunk by saying "Except that you don't know ANYTHING about it, remember?" Then the Medical Examiner says, "Yes."

LOL

Oh my god did that actually happen? I must've missed that part... did the courtroom burst out laughing???

that is just sad

LOL. Surely some looked away and snickered. I cried laughing.

Here it is at 43:25

Here is the Motion and Rebuttal for Acquittal:

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow

Originally posted by NotAnAspie
Had Martin been the initial threat, the fact that Zimmerman had a gun means if he had used it correctly for self defensive.... NO CONTACT WOULD HAVE EVER TAKEN PLACE.

No way, that is soooo wrong. First Martin was the initial threat, but aside from that YOU DON't PULL YOUR GUN UNLESS YOU INTEND TO USE IT. You don't pull your gun to keep someone at a distance, cops might, but citizens aren't cops. Zimmerman absolutely correctly used his gun for defense.

"you don't pull your gun out unless you intend to use it"...is not a gun law, it's a rule of thumb that is very poorly worded.

What it means is "You don't pull your gun out unless you are PREPARED to use it if you have to".... because if you are not prepared to pull the trigger and injure/possibly kill another human then you might get your gun taken from you and wind up being shot with your own gun, which is why if you are in danger it is best to pull your weapon at a safer distance and not try to do it up close.

I'm finding it very hard to follow your train of thought.

That rule of thumb does not mean "Oh, well I pulled my gun out... now I have to shoot the guy because that's the rule" Yes, you DO pull your gun out to keep someone at a distance... cop or no cop, because it is meant for self defense use and if you are in danger it is much better to pull your gun out as the danger is approaching and you feel the imminent threat than it would be to wait until they are right on you and pull the gun out and them not see it or them try to grab it and there essentially not be a chance for warning or to keep an accident from happening.

Keeping someone at a safe distance is the NUMBER ONE out of just a handful of reasons to use a gun.... for ANYONE. Numeral uno... no question about it.

It's ALWAYS better to use it as a warning than to intend to take a life or even injure someone... you just don't go around waving it and trying to scare people when there is no obvious threat. Instances of threats are totally different. In that situation, you become the keeper of safety in a chaotic moment, as opposed to the breaker of safety by being chaotic in an otherwise normal situation by pulling it out for no reason. When there is no threat and a gun is pulled, people become afraid in the area. When there is a danger and a gun is pulled in response, people in the area become RELIEVED to see someone pull in effort to control the threat.

When a person cannot tell the difference in these instances, that is a flaw in comprehension and if a person has that flaw, they need to stay out of situations like this in all aspect if possible.

Another problem I have with your statement is the fact that while Zimmerman is not a police officer, he was stalking this guy as though he was staking him out like a cop.... and it is being repeated over and over how he was engaging as a neighborhood watchman. The least he could have done was attempt to use proper procedure.

Thirdly, the area where he was supposedly ambushed was near homes that were not close to his but close to Martin's so even if he did get ambushed, it's his own fault for snooping around the kids house looking for him. I'd personally want to show him what happens when you mess with people too and follow them to their home, but in that area it really doesn't appear to me that he could have been easily ambushed... unless Zimmerman is really THAT slow. It's not like they were in the jungle. So what do you mean by "ambushed" that he jumped out from around the corner of a house while Zimmerman was on the sidewalk? MORE than enough time to draw a weapon if that is the case. If Martin startled him when he appeared after losing him while he was pursuing him, it's his own damn fault for stalking him.... seeing as he is not a cop.

reply to post by NotAnAspie


No.. sorry you are wrong. You don't pull it out unless you are going to use it. If he had pulled it out and Martin still jumped him then Martin would have had a gun right off the bat. If the cops came up to Zimmerman holding a gun on a guy they might shoot him. It's just not a good idea.

Plus you are working off this premise of your own design. The fact Zimmerman was on his way back to his truck and not looking for Martin when Martin surprised him.

reply to post by NotAnAspie


He wasn't stalking the guy, he didn't even really know where he went. He was looking for him and then quit and was on his way back when Martin confronted and attacked him.

reply to post by NotAnAspie

It's ALWAYS better to use it as a warning than to intend to take a life or even injure someone...

I totally agree with this, but it seems like it'll be impossible for some people to ever change their minds on this matter. The concept that you HAVE to shoot if you draw your weapon, or your actions are illegal, seem insane to me. It's like the old samurai thing where if you withdraw your sword, you have to get some blood on it, ie. dumb.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


Considering all what you know now, why is it so implausible for you that George would have at least been trying to find Trayvon to point out his location to cops, rather than find an address to meet the cops at and say "I don't know where he went?"? How satisfying do you think that scenario would have been for George?

reply to post by IvanAstikov


You've got it backwars. It's not like a rule that if your gun comes out it has to be fired, it's meant so that it never comes out unless it's certain it needs to be used.

It's impossible to argue with you guys because you have the craziest logic and misunderstandings.

reply to post by IvanAstikov


When have I EVER said anything other than that. I have NEVER said I thought he was trying to find an address. I said earlier in this thread that I believe he said that because, despite the shooting being completely justified, he was terrified of having shot someone and afraid of being in trouble. I think he was definitely looking and trying to see if he could see Trayvon, but I believe he had given up and was on his way back to his truck when Martin jumped him.

You're entire argument is based on what you think a person you have never met is like and assumptions you have made about his motives for every action. My argument is based entirey on evidence.

reply to post by IvanAstikov

a neighborhood watchman legally following a suspicious person isn't 'depraved mind' or 'ill will'. If you want to see depraved mind or ill will then look to that fella Castro who kidnapped Amanda Berry and held her and those two other women prisoner for 10 years. THAT is a depraved mind and ill will. Zimmerman didn't display anything even close to 'depraved mind or ill will'.

The prosecution reached too far. Manslaughter is hard enough in this case to prove.
Murder 2 is impossible.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


Hey, you don't have to take my word that Zimmerman is a murderer, just have a listen to Mark O Mara in the following youtube vid of one of his numerous press conferences. Skip straight to the 5.10 mark to hear him say quite clearly "every murder case I have I talk to the murdered person's mother..."

www.youtube.com...

Bit of a telling Freudian slip, dontchathink?

reply to post by FlyersFan

Manslaughter would be easy. Murder 2 is definitely still doable. So far Zimmerman fans have been proven wrong about him getting arrested, wrong about him getting instant immunity and wrong about him getting an acquittal. When are you guys just going to admit you might be wrong about his guilt?




ps. Re George's NW duties v Going to Target duties, there's evidence that Shellie Zimmerman phoned George at 6.48pm that evening. Why would she need to phone him then if he was at home with her preparing to do his weekly shopping, is the question that information raises. Perhaps you have a perfectly reasonable explanation?

reply to post by IvanAstikov


'you guys'?? Look .. just because someone can see that Murder 2 is inappropriate doesn't make someone a 'zimmerman fan'.

- I am of the opinion that both Martin and Zimmerman had 'attitudes' and made some serious mistakes that evening; that the state should have gone with Manslaughter instead of murder 2; that the state has done a lousy job OR that they did the best they could with pretty much no evidence; that we will not ever know the truth of what happened; and that a person shouldn't be convicted for murder 2 (or manslaughter) on the case we've seen so far. There are no substantial facts that can convict a person ... just a lot of emotion, rhetoric, and assumptions of lies (from both sides).

That hardly makes someone a 'zimmerman fan'. Ya' know??

Originally posted by FlyersFan
reply to post by IvanAstikov

 

'you guys'?? Look .. just because someone can see that Murder 2 is inappropriate doesn't make someone a 'zimmerman fan'.

True, but I don't think you have actually had to donate money to his fighting fund to be considered a supporter, and I use the word "fan" more in that context, than in the "fanatic" one. Although there are definitely some who fall in the latter category, and that applies to both sides. I try not to cater to what fanatics think and aim my comments to the more critical thinkers. If you don't think you fall in the group of "you guys," you needn't feel included in the criticism.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Exactly. People are too emotional about this. Or at least too emotional to realize that what actually happened isn't going to convict or acquit Zimmerman. It's all about what can be proven in court and what the jury thinks. And, as far as I can see, Murder 2 has not been proven.

I'm one of those crazy people that was satisfied when OJ Simpson was found not guilty. Not because I think he didn't do it, but because they didn't prove it in court. The courtroom is a whole different reality than our normal lives.

Just to get it on 'paper', I think Zimmerman had his gun drawn pretty much as soon as he got out of the car. I think he carried it in his hand the entire time, and later said it was a flashlight that didn't work, just in case someone saw him carrying something. Simply because it doesn't make sense otherwise. Why would this wanna-be cop walk into a dark, rainy area after a "suspect" that he doesn't know, doesn't trust and who may be armed himself? There is NO WAY he casually walked through that area, turned around, and walked back past the "T" like he was out for a Sunday stroll - without carefully being aware of his surroundings - giving Martin a chance to "jump out" and confront him. That is a huge lie.

I think he found Martin, a scuffle ensued and Zimmerman fell down, Martin jumped on top and Z shot the kid in cold blood the first chance he got. Later he acted surprised to find out Martin was dead, but in reality, he knew he hit the heart, because that's exactly where he aimed. Zimmerman didn't go through all that training, try to be a cop, ask to ride with the cops, take all those classes, have a CCP, and then walk into a dark area with his firearm holstered. There is no way I'll ever believe that.

But can the prosecution prove that story? It doesn't appear so. So, now it comes to what can be proven in court or what can cause the jury to have reasonable doubt about his self-defense claim. That's the State's only chance. And I hope like hell they can do it.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I believe Zimmerman shot him after taking note that there was no witnesses still outside who could clearly see it, because he knew live or dead, he was going to have a lot of explaining to do, and he decided that it'd be easier if there was one less witness, especially one who could contest his actions prior to them coming into physical contact.

There is NO WAY he casually walked through that area, turned around, and walked back past the "T" like he was out for a Sunday stroll - without carefully being aware of his surroundings - giving Martin a chance to "jump out" and confront him. That is a huge lie.

It's either true and makes him the most incompetent NW/cop wannabe ever, or it's a lie and then, who's to say what else he has lied about. Either way, he won't even get a job doing security at a nursing home after this.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Yep. Totally agree. If we start throwing people in prison for life even though their guilt can't be proven in court then we are in big trouble because this country will turn into 'mob rule' and innocent people will end up in jail or dead because of popular belief instead of facts. It's dangerous ....

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


thats a good story for a crime novel
Maybe GZ is even a MurderKwonDo black belt?

I think it happened the way GZ says, evidence support it as well - all that fictional mindset of what could have happened will never be proven but its good as entertainment.

There is alot of evidence that support the Z's story, facts you just cant ignore in a courtroom, and thats what its all about when it comes down
Is it morally wrong what he did, even if he told the truth? in my mind yes -
should he be put in jail, even if he told the truth? in my mind absolutely
Hes own action led to the death of a young man - legally he have a decent chance of being innocent
Blame the law - not that people