The Zimmerman Trial

reply to post by jrod


Why wouldn't he want to kill him? Trayvon was supposedly just beating the crap out of him and had just told him he was going to die." He'd be entitled to be angry and vengeful at that point. At that stage, if he's told the truth about what happened, he's got every right to respond with extreme prejudice, so the question is, why didn't he? It's not because he had any underlying sympathy for assholes who attacked him out of the dark.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by hounddoghowlie

 

George doesn't have to be like Bundy for him to have done things that people don't expect from him, and are completely out of his character as they perceive it.

then why not say it that way instead of try toSENSUALIZE it by using bundy as a example.
you have nothing to show your bias other than, pure SENSATIONALIZING of your specualations, and think people are to blind to see it.

Originally posted by tjack
If anything, GZ firing only a single shot goes against the whole "wannabe cop" image, after all, how many times have we heard of a LEO (or group of them) firing a single shot at a perp. They usually empty the mag! And sometimes reload and do it again!

Exactly right. GZ wasn't following officer training if he only fired 1 shot. If he was targeting and profiling and enraged, why didn't he empty the clip?

reply to post by UnBreakable


It's definitely not because he was being considerate for Trayvon's well-being, as his next action was to jump on Trayvon's back - and it wasn't to administer first aid knowing his assailant was no longer a threat.

I like this witness. She cut through the prosecutions line of questioning like a hot knife through butter. She kept away from the spin of the comment I cant say here that zimmerman said on the phone. she said he said it in a way that it was not alarming, excited, or with anger. she even compared the way it was said with the way her kids say it when they do.

reply to post by hounddoghowlie


It's not sensationalising - it's called trying to use a well known example to illustrate a point. If I'd mentioned somebody I know that did things that nobody ever expected they'd do, everybody would just say, "Who he?"

reply to post by ugie1028

she said he said it in a way that it was not alarming, excited, or with anger

Bernie should have said "So, are you saying that George sounded cool, calm and collected, despite moments earlier supposedly having had a burglary suspect circling his car?"

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by UnBreakable

 

It's definitely not because he was being considerate for Trayvon's well-being, as his next action was to jump on Trayvon's back - and it wasn't to administer first aid knowing his assailant was no longer a threat.

I never said he was considerate of TM's well being, as TM just got finished pummeling his head into the ground and reaching for the firearm. My point is GZ didn't follow the protocol of an officers training if in fact he is the "wannabe cop" as he is being portrayed.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by hounddoghowlie

 

It's not sensationalising - it's called trying to use a well known example to illustrate a point. If I'd mentioned somebody I know that did things that nobody ever expected they'd do, everybody would just say, "Who he?"

blah, blah, blah, blah, go tell that to someone who doesn't know any better. or do i need to go pull up your" fecking goon " post to show the pattern your using.

reply to post by UnBreakable


Wait? Not only are you doubting that he killed Trayvon Martin when he didn't really need to, but you also doubt that he is a wannabe-cop? Seriously? You don't think him also saying he wanted to be a prosecutor and a judge was just him hedging his bets?

reply to post by hounddoghowlie


You do know that "goon" is a common term for the local criminal element in that neighbourhood, don't you? I'm not using it in replacement for another word, if that's what you are implying?

reply to post by FlyersFan


But... George didn't even know Trayvon was dead until Det. Singleton told him at Sanford police station. Or, so he says. How can anyone truly believe anything he has said that mitigates him at this stage?

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by hounddoghowlie

 

You do know that "goon" is a common term for the local criminal element in that neighbourhood, don't you? I'm not using it in replacement for another word, if that's what you are implying?

why did you leave "fecking"out? just wait i'll go pull it and show just how you said and what you were implying.

Its sad really that we are being subjected to this trial for fear of racial violence...And mark my words, he will be found not guilty, there is is not enough evidence either way for the jury to have NO doubt. If there is ANY doubt what so ever you must acquit or you are using emotion and not truth or justice So there will be violence anyways, they should have just let this go away from the beginning and nothing would have happened. Now its going to be so in our faces it will be worse off.

Dont let emotion get in the way of justice, if you put emotion aside, you will clearly see that Zimmerman can not be found guilty if there is any justice left in this country, and I have my doubts at times believe me.

If Zimmerman wanted to just shoot him, this would have been way easy to do so, just confront him in the dark, make sure he faced him and emptied the clip. No way no how anyone with a gun and wanting to use it would take the chance of getting into a fight and hope they get the chance to use it in the middle or after, too many variables. Shoot first and ask questions later would have been the method used. This is not what happened plain and simple.

reply to post by hounddoghowlie


Look, before you even go where I'm sure you are going, it has never been confirmed exactly what George said there, and "goon," "coon" and "punk" are still all in the running.

reply to post by Wiz4769


The claim isn't that he got out of his car with the intention to kill Trayvon. The claim is that he got out of his car with ill-intent and then ended up killing him.

Back to the trial

The defence bringing on a Vietnam vet with ptsd was a great move. I hope nobody drops a heavy book on the floor.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by UnBreakable

 

Wait? Not only are you doubting that he killed Trayvon Martin when he didn't really need to, but you also doubt that he is a wannabe-cop? Seriously? You don't think him also saying he wanted to be a prosecutor and a judge was just him hedging his bets?

Again, you're bending my words to fit your anti-GZ agenda. He never followed up on the police application process after the first application was rejected due to credit problems. Even the state's own witness attested to the fact that he never reapplied after solving credit problems, also he said lots of people apply but never make it. Again, he didn't handle the situation as an officer would have learned in training, firing twice as stated by the Federal Air Marshall defense witness this morning. Don't you think a "wannabe cop" would have followed law enforcement training procedures in the hopes of showing real cops he could handle the situation? Face facts, the state has not disproven GZ's account of events. It's a straight self-defense case, and he should walk based on the trial so far.

reply to post by IvanAstikov


the time of the recording the witness was commenting on wasn't the time you're referencing too.

point = invalid.

reply to post by UnBreakable


There is no neccessity for him to have had a pending application to join the police force, for him to be a wannabe-cop.

What's the likely-hood of GZ testifying in this case?

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by UnBreakable

 

There is no neccessity for him to have had a pending application to join the police force, for him to be a wannabe-cop.

For the third time, for someone who's supposedly a wannabe cop, he didn't exhibit any kind of law enforcement protocol at the moment of the shooting.