The Zimmerman Trial

reply to post by FlyersFan


I wouldn't find it relevant to the investigation because I already believe he profiled the kid because he was black, but like I said, I probably would have, too, I'm embarrassed to admit. To be honest, I probably wouldn't poo-poo it. I have a bit of a different outlook on racism than you do, I think.

Originally posted by Helious
Primarily to collect revenue for infractions committed within their jurisdiction. Subsequently to provide service and protection to the community as a WHOLE. It has already been ruled in higher courts that police officers have no specific duty, contractually or implied to protect you as a private citizen. That is fact.

Well on this point I agree with you, but let us not twist our words. I never said anything about protecting, and neither did you. Your exact words were "Real Americans can police themselves". Policing and protecting are two different things.

Your thinking with emotion and letting your own logic fail you. He was traveling though a neighborhood that was not his own, that had problems with crime in general and while I do not fully expect his behavior to conform to what I would think would be reasonable because everyone has there own mind and thought process I would think that conversation of some sort would have been a preface to the confrontation if it had not been for Martins proven racism.

There is some logic failing here, but not on my part Sir. The neighborhood was not his own, but he stayed there. Does he have to live there in order to use a known cut through to go and from the store? No.

You claim Trayvon Martin is racist, and you may be right. Maybe he disliked White people. So what? What would have stopped Zimmerman from identifying himself as neighborhood watch? Nothing but himself. Let us assume Zimmerman's account is 100% accurate. When asked "Whats your problem?" I would not have replied "I dont have a problem", I would have said, "I am in charge of then neighborhood watch, I don't recognize you and you seem lost, can I help?" Which would be an outright lie, I am not there to help I am there to check you out and find out what you are doing, but it is a way to put my "suspect" at ease and gain information. Much the same way Cops attempt to create dialog. They try to create a rapport, it is very simple and it works as well today as it did 50 years ago.

It's a high crime area, communities in these types of situations very often police themselves. A mall, a park or a store is an acknowledged place of public gathering and can not and should not be compared to a residential setting. Nobody should be picking people who seem "out of place" out at a mall, a park or a store. The situation and evaluation is much different in a neighborhood that has frequent crime. The question of the nature of your business there is more relevant and valid.

Trayvon did not seem out of place. His only crime was that Zimmerman did not recognize him, which is not a crime at all.

Say what you wish. Soon, jury members of Zimmermans peers will acquit him of any wrong doing thus proving me right in my sentiment and logic. For once, perhaps, the American justice system will do something that it rarely does, dole out justice.

Maybe they will acquit him, maybe they wont. In any event, no matter what they do, it would not prove you right or me right. Funny thing is, I don't care about being right. I find it sad that you do.

EDIT: Btw, I removed you from my friends list for the "small mindedness comment" that was uncalled for and I can assure you that I don't have a "small mind".

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

When any person attempts to race bait, I will call that small mindedness every single time. Sorry if that offends you. As far as removing me from your friends list, I am sure I will not lose a second of sleep over it.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by MrWendal

 

I already explained why. The fear he felt was enough, the damage, and alleged words was just the icing on the cake.

So in other words, you will once again ignore a very direct and pointed question rather than explain your position.

Can't say I am shocked, you have reacted the same way previously in this thread. I suppose that is what happens when someone marries themselves to an idea and refuses to acknowledge anything that is outside of that idea.

reply to post by MrWendal


Yeah I have reacted the same way because I have answered the same quesrions in depth probably 5 times each in the 100+ pages.

reply to post by MrWendal


Also.. it doesn't matter that Good didn't lift a finger, and you seem to be missing the point. If Martin had been screaming for help (he wasn't) then he likely would have stopped when Good spoke.

Zimmerman may have shot because Martin reached, maybe he just shot to end the beating, either way was justified and he did shoot after the neighbor left him to be beat. Literally seconds after. Although Martin (who by the prosecutions lame story was screaming for help and then ignored it when it came YEAH RIGHT) could have gone for the gun in hopes to shoot and run off after the neighbor informed him he'd have to stop beecause he was calling the police and Martin definitely wasn't going to talk to them.
I do know zimmerman shot SECONDS after Good didn't help.

I actually kow it was justified same as I know it was Zimmermans voice. The science may not be their to prove it well eough for the court, but having heard both Martin and Zimmermans voice it's obvious. And it's backed up by a ton of stuff. Zimmerman saying he was screaming (with no way to know he was recorded on the phone), his family knowing it was him, Trayvons dad saying it wasn't his son initially, the fact that the screams were for help yet when Good was there Martin didn't stop the beating, he was in no need of help. Finally the simple fact that the one beig beaten is naturally the most likely to be screaming for help.

answer, do you reaaaally believee it was Martin rather than Zimmerman?

As for Zimmerman would say anything.. that doesn't mesh with the prosecutions cold blooded killer theory. Why would he say something that could be disproven by witnesses and possibly, if recorded voice analysis if it were recorded. He would have to consider that.

He knows Good saw them and spoke to them, if it went to trial and he lied about himself screaming he could be outed. He could have not mentioned it if it weren't him, he had no idea it was on tape, but instead he told people.

I am saying it was without doubt Zimmerman screaming. I think there is enough to prove it and I think anyone that disagrees is being willfully ignorant.

I ask again, do yo really believe it was Martin rather than Zmmerman?

reply to post by IvanAstikov


No.. sorry that shot actually makes total sense without any aim or luck. It was so close and was the natural first place you'd aim when someone is on top of you. Either the gut or the heart. I would actually say how could you MISS the heart at that distance.

Also that ME was a quack and you misunderstood him anyway. Alive does not equal conscious. Also the first thing the police did was try to revive Martin so no he was ot alive while they were discussing things.

reply to post by GrantedBail


Way to downplay the incident. The witness was ignoring questions and giving answers that had nothing to do with the question. He. was working off a script for the prosecution. The defense SHOULDN'T have let him go that long. Then he refused to answer any questions and said he couldn't remember anything after defense rightly got a copy of his notes. He answered questions with "could be" and non sense. He was a hostile witness and would have been called one if the judge wasn't completely biased. Having him as a hostile witness would have allowed the defense to ask leading questions without having to ask the judge so she wasn't going to let that happen.

reply to post by GrantedBail

What has been presented at trial was that George lied about his awareness of the laws regarding lethal force and the application thereof in self-defense.

No he said he didn’t know about SYG on a TV show which had been a term the media started publicizing after this. Some knew about it but not all. Many people knew it as the castle doctrine. And to be clear self-defense which the defense claims is not the same as SYG/castle doctrine.

You want to mince terms and give the guy the benefit of the doubt, go ahead. I don't buy it.

You don’t have to the jury does. And if you want to send people to jail for lying on TV your state will be empty.

He had to take classes for his CCW permit.
He knew. That is just so gratuitous to even assume that he didn't know what Hannity was talking about.

If that is your thinking I can see how you are confused. So what if he took CCW classes so did I. You should honestly look into what those classes are and not assume about them. You have some serious misconceptions there.

What I take issue with is the way Zimmerman pursued Trayvon

Something that is legal to do is what you take issue with?

and when he was getting thumped in a fight, that I believe was instigated by George, he decided to shoot a boy

.

Well the prosecution hasn’t proven George instigated a fight but they lend credence to George that Martin did.
You said you support self defense so why are you on Martins side who was attacking George?

You said

Just because I live in "Commiefornia" doesn't mean I am not hip to self-defense laws. Nor does it mean that I don't support them. I may be liberal but I am all about the second amendment, and ferociously defend that right. I don't have to live in Florida to sympathize with how y'all feel about standing your ground. I am OK with all of that.

This is a clear case of self defense but for some reason you do not seem to understand what that means. It does not mean a victim need wait till they are almost dead to defend themselves. I hope you understand that maybe in Commiefornia but not here.

I have a problem with that, a big one. Now had George been in his garage and Trayvon confronted Zimmerman and he used lethal force, I would have his back.

So if was a home invasion you would be on Georges side. We have stricter laws on home invasion here but this is a self defense case and WE CAN DEFEND OURSELVES BY ANY MEANS WITH EQUAL OR GREATOR FORCE in Florida. So basically that means if you start a fight with someone here we can kill you. Sucks for criminals but not us law abiding folks.

Just an update, the Crump deposition was allegedly moved to 2pm today.

Some are wont to think he will not show, so we shall see.

The secret response team headed by Thomas Battles, a man from Atlanta, Federal Mediator, is headed to Florida on Tuesday. The meeting among LEO and others will take place in an attempt to quell potential racial tensions in the area based on the outcome of the trial.

www.miamiherald.com...

They are called "Peacemakers", part of a secret Federal agency response team designed for situations where they expect racial outbursts (riots), in social situations such as the Zimmerman trial.

Think of if as something akin to the grief counselors they send out to schools in an area when something traumatic happens.

The federal mediator works for the U.S. Department of Justice Community Relations Service
(CRS), a stealth federal operation that works to defuse community anger hardening along the fault
lines of race, color and national origin.

The mediators are called the peacemakers.

(snip)

Battles, southeastern regional director of the CRS, acted as a trusted third party, gathering
opposing factions to address the simmering tension by developing reconciliation strategies. He
worked with city and civic leaders to allow the protests, but in peaceful manner. He also worked
with the city to create its nine-point plan that aims to improve race and police relations, and
tapped into the city’s faith community to help guide the healing.

The meeting is closed, intended for city planners, LEO, etc.

The Media Advisory has a typo on the date:


www.co.miami-dade.fl.us...


Interesting though, something that has been in planning for months, dated for Tuesday, July 9th. The Prosecution rested their case the Friday before. A motion for aquittal was made, and of course denied Friday, keeping the judge, jury, and trial, on schedule for the Tuesday meeting.

Battles is cutting it a bit close. What would have happened had the judge approved the motion for aquittal?

Here is the Friday presser with Mark O'Mara after the defense rested. They will be doing 3-4 more depositions this weekend, including Crumps at 2pm today, perhaps the real DeDe too? That remains to be seen! Stay tuned!







Apologies, I got the wrong video. This time I am sure it is the correct one.

Lots discussed in the video, including the Crump depo, the introduction of the toxicology report next week, and more.

reply to post by Grimpachi


I've been away for awhile. Sup Grim.

You quoted this " WE CAN DEFEND OURSELVES BY ANY MEANS WITH EQUAL OR GREATOR FORCE in Florida. So basically that means if you start a fight with someone here we can kill you. Sucks for criminals but not us law abiding folks. "

How does that keep honest people honest.

Correct me if I'm wrong in the understanding of what you said but to me it reads......Regardless if your a criminal or a law abiding folk, if a fight is started each of them are protected by law to shoot to kill.

Is that how the law works there?

I guess what I'm asking is how do you keep the law abiding folk from becoming criminals. Or does the law do just that ?

reply to post by PLASIFISK


Hey Plasifisk.

I probably wasn’t very clear on that my bad.

A person here can defend themselves by any means available from there attacker.

However I will give an example that doesn’t apply.

Say there is a bar fight or argument and either party leaves then goes to their car and comes back with a weapon. Regardless of who instigated it before once contact was broken the person who came back with a weapon would then be the attacker and would no longer have the right to use deadly force.

BTW you can’t take guns into bars legally anyway.

It does get a little tricky as far as law goes to clarify though we can use equal or greater force to stop any attack on our person be it with or without weapons but here is where it must end. Once that person is in retreat or no longer attacking you cannot continue fighting them. You have to back off and end that confrontation.

In this case we know that George was on the ground with nowhere left to go we have a witness who stated that Martin was on top continuing the assault. SYG does not even need to apply here because with the self-defense law he can legally use any force necessary to stop his attacker.

If George had continued firing or had even started hitting after Martin fell from the shot George would have been considered the attacker.

SYG and self-defense are two different issues here in Florida many people get them confused with this subject.

With this case no one can corroborate who the initial attacker was so it comes down to who you believe it was but it doesn’t matter to much because we know that George was in the defensive position with nowhere to retreat and he did what he felt was necessary to end the assault on his person. That is why the county didn’t want to prosecute the evidence that is there is in his favor.

On a side note I remember when castle doctrine was first established in FL there was a shooting down the road from me. In that case a guy had come to another’s home and was banging on the door yelling and threatening the home owner. The homeowner shot and killed the guy through the door and because of castle doctrine he was never charged.

I have read that if you are even walking down the sidewalk and if someone comes up to you then verbally threatens you at that point you can legally shoot them. ---- Moral is don't make threats or attack people here they have the right to shoot under SYG. Oh and whoever is the shooter better hope someone can back up their story or you may wind up in court.

What is that saying...a armed society is a polite society.

reply to post by PLASIFISK

Originally posted by PLASIFISK
You quoted this " WE CAN DEFEND OURSELVES BY ANY MEANS WITH EQUAL OR GREATOR FORCE in Florida. So basically that means if you start a fight with someone here we can kill you. "

That's not true.

Use of Force

Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

reply to post by Libertygal

That's really interesting information. It would make sense that they'd be gearing up in case of a 'not guilty' verdict. The area down there ... and perhaps cities in general .. are extra prone to outbursts in this hot part of summer. The schools around here (I'm in a city ... ) had 'Trayvon Martin Day' back when this all happened and the kids wore hoodies to school. I thought it was premature, considering we didn't (and still don't) know what happened. A generic 'hoodie' day would have been appropriate ... but whatever ... the point is that there is sympathy towards the Martin side of all this and the cities may get uptight about 2 weeks from now and it'll come at the high heat point of summer ...

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Actually that is true what you just quoted does not say it has to be equal so yes we can use greater force than our attacker.

That is why I said it basically says we can kill our attackers.

From your own quote.

However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another

At that point it will be up to the police to decide if you BELIEVED that such force was necessary. I guess the police would have to prove what a person was thinking at the time.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Thanks for linking to that code section. It reminded me of Georges' professor that testified first, the one that said he taught the self defense in his class, and how it applied to them as residents in Florida. I was only able to catch some of his testimony, but in reading some of the recaps, I kept running across something I have been meaning to look further into, as it applies to Georges' case, and your link brought it back to tbe foreground again.

Particularly, this code section:

Source

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification
described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available
to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the
commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or
herself, unless:

Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes


(a)


that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm
and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to
escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to
cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact
with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or
she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the
assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.

I find this particular code interesting, because the professor himself brought this up in questiong, that even if a person is an aggressor, under certain circumstances, they can still use, and claim, self defense.

In the courtroom circumstance that George is in now, per the opinion of some on ATS, George is still seen as the aggressor.

So, lets say for the sake of argument, this was the case.

George followed Trayvon. Legal.

He confronted Trayvon. Legal.

He grabs Trayvons' shirt. Not legal.

Trayvon punches him in the nose, George falls to the ground.

He was getting his arse whipped.

He threw no punches, Trayvon was on top, pummelling him. He calls for help.

Legally, the circumstances, as per what the professor said, things are fluid and can change, the tables turned and now George considers himself in danger.

The moment Trayvon made a move for his gun, it became a struggle between life and death. Someone was not walking away.

George is still covered under the self defense law.

" (b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact
with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or
she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the
assailant continues or resumes the use of force."

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by MrWendal

 

Yeah I have reacted the same way because I have answered the same quesrions in depth probably 5 times each in the 100+ pages.

Actually no sir, you never answered the question. However, I can understand missing the question, it has been a long thread and so many replies back and forth so I will post it again...

And it was Zimmerman's voice on the call.

You don't know this. You can not possible know this to be fact. Just like I do not know who was screaming. Fact is, you have two Mothers both saying it is their son. So what makes one any more credible than the other? You have a brother saying it is Trayvon. What makes him not credible that you can outright dismiss his testimony? I would love an answer to BOTH of these questions.

reply to post by FlyersFan


I agree. From what I understand, cities from Chicago, to NY, LA, Atlanta, Miami, Tampa, some in Alabama, etc., have hired extra police forces. Some up to 800 extra officers. They have stocked up on riot gear, ammo (can you say DHS purchases now become somewhat clearer?) and have emergency planning and preparedness plans for riots they have been working on.

While many believe George will be convicted, many are still of the opinion that riots will happen, regardless of the outcome. I think they will, as well. However, there was a lot of talk during the elections, and nothing happened either way.

Obviously, this is different. The points that are confusing to me are the actions taking place behind the scene. Paricularly, Mayor Tripplett. On one hand, he has been one of the major instigators of race issues, and could and should have handled things in a much different manner than he did.

Now, he wants to work with a secret federal agency to quell racial tensions?

He could have done that by not inviting Al Sharpton and Jessie Jacskson to Florida for a media circus. A lot if what was in the public could have happened in private, but it was taken to the public to allegedly "soothe" them.

It angers me in a rather large way that the black community is viewed as a writhing mass of virtual animals that need to be "soothed", pandered to, or pampered in any form or fashion. The media laps it up, and pushes that agenda, and somehow, it's okay?

I just fail to understand why. If a public figure were to treat or pander to white "masses" in such a manner, there would be a huge uproar.

It is not about the preferential treatment, it is about how our public figures view us, respectively.

Whites are "a group of teabaggers" and blacks are "masses of angry people". And this comes from leaders of each groups respective colors?

Well, regardless, the Peacemakers are coming, and who has ever heard of this stealth CRS group that has been around for 30 years? They are cited for working on major race issues in the country, but, I suppose since they are stealth is why we never heard of them.

So, the Miami Herald busts their cover?

And who said this wasn't about race? The prosecution?

Pants on fire?

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
Also.. it doesn't matter that Good didn't lift a finger, and you seem to be missing the point. If Martin had been screaming for help (he wasn't) then he likely would have stopped when Good spoke.

This is not always the case, but I can understand why you would think that. Fact is, in the heat of the moment, one can easily not hear anything.

Zimmerman may have shot because Martin reached, maybe he just shot to end the beating, either way was justified and he did shoot after the neighbor left him to be beat. Literally seconds after.

This point is debatable. As I have said before, I go to a bar and pick a fight and during the course of that fight that I started, I am getting beat up. I can not shoot to stop the beating and then claim self defense. Why? Because I started that fight. That is ultimately the issue here. Which is why there has been so much debate over who threw the first punch, or if that fight could have been started by Zimmerman following Trayvon.

Although Martin (who by the prosecutions lame story was screaming for help and then ignored it when it came YEAH RIGHT) could have gone for the gun in hopes to shoot and run off after the neighbor informed him he'd have to stop beecause he was calling the police and Martin definitely wasn't going to talk to them. I do know zimmerman shot SECONDS after Good didn't help.

Wait a second... so first help arrived and Trayvon would have stopped if he needed help, but then you go on to say Good didnt help? So which one is it? Do you not see the contradiction here? If Trayvon needed help- Good was there to help but if it was Zimmerman who needed help- he was abandoned by Good? Clarify this stance please...although I do agree Good was no help regardless of who was screaming for it, and he could have ended the whole thing if he had any guts at all.

I actually kow it was justified same as I know it was Zimmermans voice. The science may not be their to prove it well eough for the court, but having heard both Martin and Zimmermans voice it's obvious.

So you know this from hearing both voices while no one else in the Country does?

And it's backed up by a ton of stuff. Zimmerman saying he was screaming (with no way to know he was recorded on the phone), his family knowing it was him, Trayvons dad saying it wasn't his son initially, the fact that the screams were for help yet when Good was there Martin didn't stop the beating, he was in no need of help. Finally the simple fact that the one beig beaten is naturally the most likely to be screaming for help.

Actually it is not back up by squat! IF Trayvon was screaming, Zimmerman knew it. He knew other people heard it. He knew this the second Good stepped out of his back porch. IF Zimmerman was not screaming- he knew he had to account for the screaming that people heard. He would not have had to have known it was recorded by the 911 call.

Your next point is interesting cause again you discount and ignore the testimony. You are quick to point out that Zimmerman's family say it was George and evidence that it was. You ignore the Mother of Trayvon who has said from day one it was her son screaming. So again I ask, what makes one more credible than the other?

The one being beaten, common sense tells us would probably be screaming for help. That is a very fair point and I agree with you on this. However, why it is out of the realm of possibility to you that a person fighting a man who is armed would not scream for help?

answer, do you reaaaally believee it was Martin rather than Zimmerman?

I don't know. I will sit here and pretend to know. I don't know these people from the man on the moon. As I have said before, I know you better than I know Trayvon Martin or George Zimmerman, yet I am in no position to describe your voice, screaming for help, in a high stress situation. What I do know is that people in high stress situations tend to have a higher pitched voice than normal, so it could very well be Zimmerman. On the other side of that coin, I can also understand how a person fighting against another person is armed, would also scream for help.

Out of room, continued in next post...

As for Zimmerman would say anything.. that doesn't mesh with the prosecutions cold blooded killer theory. Why would he say something that could be disproven by witnesses and possibly, if recorded voice analysis if it were recorded. He would have to consider that.

And yet, there is no way to prove or disprove it. As far as the "cold blooded killer" theory, I have already stated I do not believe Zimmerman is a cold blooded killer. I do not believe he set out to kill anyone. I do believe Zimmerman found himself in a situation that escalated out of control very quickly.

He knows Good saw them and spoke to them, if it went to trial and he lied about himself screaming he could be outed. He could have not mentioned it if it weren't him, he had no idea it was on tape, but instead he told people.

I have already addressed this point, no sense in beating a dead horse.

I am saying it was without doubt Zimmerman screaming. I think there is enough to prove it and I think anyone that disagrees is being willfully ignorant.

I am saying there is no way you can possibly know this to be 100% factual and anyone who claims they know it 100% is being willfully foolish.

I ask again, do yo really believe it was Martin rather than Zmmerman?

Again- I don't know. I can not tell you whose voice it was. I do not know what either individual sounds like screaming for help in a high stress situation such as this. It could be either- but I am more inclined to think it was Zimmerman. However, that does not make it a fact cause it can not be proven either way.

reply to post by MrWendal

This point is debatable. As I have said before, I go to a bar and pick a fight and during the course of that fight that I started, I am getting beat up. I can not shoot to stop the beating and then claim self defense. Why?

Sorry but actually you can as Libertygal showed. Remember as long as you are trying to withdraw. A fight is fluid.

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification
described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available
to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the
commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or
herself, unless:

Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes


(a)


that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm
and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to
escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to
cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact
with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or
she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the
assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.

However as I said before you can’t legally carry a gun into a bar under a ccw permit.
But I was just going on your premise for illustration purpose.