The Zimmerman Trial

Originally posted by drock905
This is what I don't get...

Can't you say that according to Florida law TM was just "standing his ground" ?

Maybe he felt his life was threatened?

maybe he did, then why did he go past the house he was staying in and go back to where the source of his fear was.
why didn't he go inside and call 911 himself.

reply to post by MuzzleBreak

if zimmerman gets a not guilty verdict it will be because of lack of evidence similar to the oj and casey anthony case.

That is the point. Someone should not be convicted unless the evidence proves guilt. That is how the system is meant to work.

reply to post by Grimpachi


you know i forgot about that.
she did say she heard the noise, didn't she.

Originally posted by hounddoghowlie
*snip*
THIS IS WHERE I THINK RACHEL JEANTEL WAS HOLDING BACK. AND WAS BEING SO COMBATIVE.
you could see it in her eyes and in her body language, she was not telling the truth and trying not to spill the beans on TM. this girl was not dumb. under educated my a@@, she has street smarts and knows exactly how to play off authority figures.

i think TM told her he was going back and beat down that cracker, and she heard more than she is letting on to.

i also wonder if she is even the one he was talking to, there is talk that she is not dee dee. i wonder if she filled in for her. but that's neither here nor there she is the one the was on the stand and her word is all we have and it was not very credible.

edit on 11-7-2013 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-7-2013 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-7-2013 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)

Agree on the other points, but snipped to address these -

Jeantel was definitely holding back, and so untrustworthy that if she stated the sky was blue, I would go outside to see what color it had become instead. IF she was the one on the phone, then she surely lied. I would bet millions that TM told her he was going to attack the guy for observing him casing houses. What she admitted to shows she's not telling the truth.

Was it the actual person? Interesting question! TWO nicknames, supposedly, and the lie about her age to martin's mother, support that possibility. Maybe he really was talking to a 16-yr-old.

Originally posted by hounddoghowlie
you know something else i just thought about.

how could TM dad find out that she was the last one he spoke to? if FDLE had the phone for a year?
GZ lawyer said this when he and the judge were arguing about the text and pictures.

what did they ask them for the phone? and if it was password protected did he not give them the password?
and if he didin't, why not, wouldn't he want to help the law solve the case?

My best guess there is that the authorities either shared the information, or gave him access to the phone, causing a real problem in the evidence chain! Remember, many texts were deleted, and they claim someone else could have done it. We do know that Jeantel was interviewed in the HOME of Martin's mother, with the mother sitting beside her. We also know that the entire family and some others were allowed to listen to a lo of recordings with NO law enforcement present. From the beginning, the State, with help from the "Justice" Dept., has been very biased, hiding evidence, influencing witnesses, and trying to so brainwash the public that no fair jury could be found.

Originally posted by ugie1028
reply to post by hounddoghowlie

 

on my cellphone bill, it shows everyone I've called by phone number.

maybe thats how he found it?

maybe, but i thought some where when i was reading about crump, it was said his dad figured out the pass word.
i maybe wrong, but i seem to remember something being said about it.

At least we got a new racial epitaph at of this thing...."white Hispanic".

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

We also know that the entire family and some others were allowed to listen to a lo of recordings with NO law enforcement present.

glad you said something about this, remember when the city manger was on the stand and named everyone who was in the office. except one!

wonder who that could have been. didn't everyone think it was strange he could name everybody except one person. and he was involved with every aspect of this of this meeting. hell he was the chief of police boss.
he is the one who told the chief he didn't need to be there.

reply to post by hounddoghowlie


Maybe it was someone from the obama administration. Wouldn't be surprised at this point.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by hounddoghowlie

 

Maybe it was someone from the obama administration. Wouldn't be surprised at this point.

first thought i had.
could it have been holder. anybody know where he was that day.

reply to post by hounddoghowlie


Yes, but didnt it take forensics like a year to break in? didnt the cell phone TM had get taken by the cops that night or days/weeks later? That im not clear on.

reply to post by ugie1028


i'm not sure either, there has been so much put out on the web and in the msm. but i know TM's dad made contact with her.

gonna have to search and see if i can find it.

Originally posted by inquisitive1977
*snip*
I am raising an interracial kid and if someone ever saw them in the street and started following them for no reason whatsoever other than they thought they looked suspicious. You better believe if I ever find someone stalking my kid with absolutely no reason they will be hospitalized in the least or dead at the most, unless they manage to kill me or convince me they did not intend any harm (which would be difficult after I see them stalking my child). I, just like most adults, would assume the worst when an actual much larger adult follows a child and believe they have only evil intent.

So, you would assault someone for walking, as Martin did. You cannot attack a person because you think they look suspicious. If you were to attack someone for walking behind your child, you would be guilty of a crime. Actually attacking your child? Go for it. That, I could understand, and would agree is right and just. For walking in the same area? Not even close. You can see someone you believe is suspicious, and you can, and should, observe them, but you cannot attack them simply because they are walking in the same place, the same direction, as your child. I am very protective of my kids, and anyone that actually did try to harm one of them would be very sorry, but attacking for following? You would be arrested, and unable to be there for your child. That's not a good idea. I can understand the emotions, but you have to have a valid reason to go after someone.

Originally posted by inquisitive1977
That fear alone, that I can imagine Travon had, justified him "sucker" punching Zimmerman who was larger. He would have no chance to win any fight without surprise.I don't think Zimmerman intentionally did something wrong but he DID do something wrong.

So, Martin can punch a person based on nothing but fear and racism, but Zimmerman can't even report someone based on their actions without being labeled the aggressor? That's not even close to right. I get the idea that the only real reason you feel Martin was a victim is his age. Had he been 19, would you still, seeing all the facts, defend his actions? How about 21? 17 is old enough to know better. He could have been inside. He could have called 911. He instead returned to the area and attacked another person. If my son did that, and lived, I would clean his clock myself! He was only a year older than Martin at the time this occurred, too.

Originally posted by inquisitive1977
This whole thing seems to be so blown out of proportion that it has become a powder keg, where so many people want to claim racism if you believe Zimmerman is innocent or it seems people claim others are compensating too much for past racism if you believe the opposite and it doesn't have to be either.

The racial elements were first brought in by people that made it an issue that Martin was black. had this been a white teen, and everything else the same, Zimmerman would never have been charged, and that would have been RIGHT. The only racist comments proven, however, came from Martin himself, and his friend on the phone. Who taught these two that a white person was automatically "creepy", and must be a "rapist" or something, simply for being in the same place at night? How is that sort of attitude not considered as bad as some we saw back before the civil rights movement?

Originally posted by inquisitive1977
We always seem to be looking for reasons to hate, I don't want to be a part of encouraging that so I need to stay out of this thread since I do have strong feelings on this which ultimately don't matter, the only thing that matters is the jury. Not that I don't mind having real debates, I love it and try to take both sides into account. I may be a little biased here even if I believe it is for completely valid reasons though and need to stay away from this thread..

I don't think the people here that believe Zimmerman is innocent are doing so based on any hate. Now, I haven't read all 200+ pages, so I could have missed something, but most certainly don't talk that way. For myself, I don't care about the color of either person, only about their actions and attitudes. I have had friends of many races. My maid of honor was black, and my daughter called hers her "cousin". This is about the facts in evidence. If Zimmerman was black, and Martin white, my opinions would not change. Sometimes, teens do things they should not do. Some even kill one another. It's terrible thing, but true. Martin being a teen doesn't mean he was necessarily innocent. Nor does it excuse his commission of a crime. He wasn't a small child, as many tried to claim at the beginning of this fiasco. The pictures of him at 12 were not accurate representations of him at the time this happened. Take your time responding. Not a rush.

Has anyone mentioned anywhere that Trevon was committing a felony when he was killed? Felony assault and battery.

The prosecution never showed that Mr Martin was trying to defend himself and never disputed Zimms claim that Martin struck the first blow and continued the assault.

Originally posted by drock905
This is what I don't get...

Can't you say that according to Florida law TM was just "standing his ground" ?

Maybe he felt his life was threatened?

No, because Trayvon had plenty of time to avoid any kind of confrontation and he was the one that approached Zimmerman.

Trayvon ran home, then instead of going in home and staying there and staying alive he waited outside and confronted and attacked Zimmerman. How could it be considered Stand Your Ground if you are the one that approaches the person and attacks? He didn't feel threatened at all. His actions tell us that.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
Yes Martins actions indicate that he saw Zimmerman as easy meat, small and not much of a threat.

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
you zimmerman supporters are spouting a ton of speculation. my speculation is that zimmermans entire account of what happened is fishy and not believable, his credibility is zero in my opinion after all his inconsistencies. we are supposed to believe his side after all his false statements? it's a damn shame we can't here trayvons version of events because he is dead. if zimmerman gets a not guilty verdict it will be because of lack of evidence similar to the oj and casey anthony case.

Didn't watch the OJ thing, but in the Casey Anthony trial they could not even prove a murder, much less who might have done it. Zimmerman doesn't have to prove anything. Under the Constitution, we are all innocent till proven guilty, no the other way around. The state not only failed to prove their case, as required for a conviction, but many of their witnesses supported the defense.

Originally posted by drock905
This is what I don't get...

Can't you say that according to Florida law TM was just "standing his ground" ?

Maybe he felt his life was threatened?

No, because he wasn't attacked. You can't assault someone for following you. Zimmerman was attacked, and had a right to defend his life.

Originally posted by hounddoghowlie
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

 

We also know that the entire family and some others were allowed to listen to a lo of recordings with NO law enforcement present.

glad you said something about this, remember when the city manger was on the stand and named everyone who was in the office. except one!

wonder who that could have been. didn't everyone think it was strange he could name everybody except one person. and he was involved with every aspect of this of this meeting. hell he was the chief of police boss.
he is the one who told the chief he didn't need to be there.

I missed that bit!

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by hounddoghowlie

 

Maybe it was someone from the obama administration. Wouldn't be surprised at this point.

Neither would I! First thought I had, upon reading about it here. We know they paid for demonstrations.

Originally posted by Logarock
Has anyone mentioned anywhere that Trevon was committing a felony when he was killed? Felony assault and battery.

The prosecution never showed that Mr Martin was trying to defend himself and never disputed Zimms claim that Martin struck the first blow and continued the assault.

Maybe not in those exact words, but most know that's the case. Those defending Martin still ignore this, preferring the "innocent child" claims. Had martin won, and Zimmerman had died, or been hospitalized (unlikely with Martin going for the gun), then Martin would have been tried as an adult.

reply to post by hounddoghowlie


The only way I think he would be able to see who he called before he died was the phone itself, the phone bill call records, or access to the NSA database.

I dont think the phone was tampered with if it was pass-worded. if they took the phone the night he died then thats a different story. I wonder if the device was tampered with. Which gives me a little theory.

If Tracy Martin was able to unlock TM's phone then he could've been the one to delete the text messages the data forensics witness talked about. He was stating that the data was deleted but was still on the drive. The data wasn't over-written yet.

He says this after 12:30

Originally posted by roadgravel
reply to post by MuzzleBreak

 

if zimmerman gets a not guilty verdict it will be because of lack of evidence similar to the oj and casey anthony case.

That is the point. Someone should not be convicted unless the evidence proves guilt. That is how the system is meant to work.

The system would have worked if the police had treated Trayvon's death scene as a murder scene, rather than the scene where a heroic but bumbling neighbourhood watchman killed a black thug with one shot to the heart, and the neighbourhood lived happily ever after.

It's the kind of story that myths and legends are born from, for some.

reply to post by Logarock


There is not one scrap of evidence that backs up Zimmerman's claim that Trayvon's fist ever hit his nose. Witnesses to snapshots and aural snippets of the fight are not confirmation of what happened at the beginning and the end, the 2 most important parts of the struggle. However it started, we know how it finished, and Zimmerman needs a very good reason to be in that position. Claiming it was because he was an ineffective but good-hearted NW guy just doesn't cut it, and if Sanford police station had any concept of shame, they would pack up shop and close for good, before they are shut down by others.

reply to post by IvanAstikov




You act like the police didn't investigate. They collected evidence, interviewed witnesses, and did what they were supposed to. They did their job perfectly and that's why they knew the it was self defense and prety much a trial would go just like this one has gone. There was one or two tat wanted to charge Zimmerman but they were over ruled because there was no evidence to contradict Zimmermans testimony.

The M.E. did a botched job which is unfortunate because if he had done his job right from the start the evidence would likely have supported Zimmermans case and he would have DNA off the knuckles. That's what happens when you charge a guy for a crime he didn't commit a month and a half after he'd been cleared. You obviously don't know anything about the case or what happened though. Here in the states we followed from the start.