Unarmed black 17 year old shot by Neighborhood watch captain in gated community...

[Londo_Jowo]

I just don't see the evidence that backs the 2nd degree murder charge (severely lacks proof GZ acted with a depraved mind) nor enough that backs a manslaughter charge. I suspect it will be very difficult at best to get 12 jurors that will feel either charge can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Guess we'll have to see how good the prosecution is during the trial as the burden of proof is upon them. Well, provided the case makes it to trial.

 

[NeoV]

Geo - what you are talking about is ANOTHER one of Zimmerman's inconsistencies.

His written statement to the police - on the night of the shooting - says TM punched him 1 time. The rest of the altercation was TM trying to cover Z's mouth/nose, and pushing Z back down to the ground when he tried to sit up.

Sounds more like self defense, though, if you change the story to being repeatedly punched...right?

 

[Tom]

I still agree it sounds a bit improbable but the more that has come to light about TM's character and style, I find it more believable. Not saying it doesn't still sort of strike me as a bit hard to swallow but... I think a big part of that is that the whole situation is so far outside of most peoples' experience.

And there is absolutely stuff that could come out and shake my confidence in GZ, it just hasn't happened.

Something I don't get about the efforts to portray Martin as a thug..

it doesn't really matter. Its not legal to kill thugs.

And Martin could be a normal kid who over-reacted and caused Zimmerman to act in self-defense.

So, whats the point >?

 

[RampantAndroid]

Geo - what you are talking about is ANOTHER one of Zimmerman's inconsistencies.

His written statement to the police - on the night of the shooting - says TM punched him 1 time. The rest of the altercation was TM trying to cover Z's mouth/nose, and pushing Z back down to the ground when he tried to sit up.

Sounds more like self defense, though, if you change the story to being repeatedly punched...right?

Because the wounds on Z are consistent with a single punch..............

 

[Geosurface]

Geo - what you are talking about is ANOTHER one of Zimmerman's inconsistencies.

His written statement to the police - on the night of the shooting - says TM punched him 1 time. The rest of the altercation was TM trying to cover Z's mouth/nose, and pushing Z back down to the ground when he tried to sit up.

Sounds more like self defense, though, if you change the story to being repeatedly punched...right?

repeated punches / head slams fit the injuries better than one.

you have to consider that when a person is telling the same story multiple times they will leave elements out in one telling they remember in another, etc. You know this. Ideally when in such a serious situation as he was in, would you want to make sure every detail was present and identical between all times you told it? Totally. Is this realistic? Not really, no. Especially when you are talking about a man who clearly did not feel as on the defensive or as leery of the police as he should have.

He was still in that mindset of "cops are my buddies!" which I'm sure he's been quite effectively disabused of now.

I think he felt like he could tell it in a more casual tone like he would tell it to someone in his personal life. I don't think his guard was up. In fact I know it wasn't, know how I know? He had no attorney present and he gave repeated accounts of it in that way.

Can you explain to me why someone with criminal justice schooling would forgo and attorney if they thought they'd done anything wrong?

 

[Tom]

repeated punches / head slams fit the injuries better than one.

you have to consider that when a person is telling the same story multiple times they will leave elements out in one telling they remember in another, etc. You know this. Ideally when in such a serious situation as he was in, would you want to make sure every detail was present and identical between all times you told it? Totally. Is this realistic? Not really, no. Especially when you are talking about a man who clearly did not feel as on the defensive or as leery of the police as he should have.

He was still in that mindset of "cops are my buddies!" which I'm sure he's been quite effectively disabused of now.

I think he felt like he could tell it in a more casual tone like he would tell it to someone in his personal life. I don't think his guard was up. In fact I know it wasn't, know how I know? He had no attorney present and he gave repeated accounts of it in that way.

Can you explain to me why someone with criminal justice schooling would forgo and attorney if they thought they'd done anything wrong?

that's easy. same reason he thought he knew how to be a cop. and fool somebody by talking in code about finances.

 

[Infohawk]

And Martin could be a normal kid who over-reacted and caused Zimmerman to act in self-defense.

So, whats the point >?

That's a pretty big point. In that case Zimmerman shouldn't be in jail.

 

[Tom]

That's a pretty big point. In that case Zimmerman shouldn't be in jail.

You missed MY point. His guilt or innocence has nothing to do with Martin being a thug.

He could be guilty even if Martin was a thug.

He could be innocent by reason of self-defense even if Martin was a normal kid.

My post wasn't about which is the truth of the matter.

 

[NeoV]

"Can you explain to me why someone with criminal justice schooling would forgo and attorney if they thought they'd done anything wrong?"

I can think of a few.

1 - he's an idiot.
2 - he thinks he is smarter than he really is
3 - why in that case would he think his wife lying to a judge is ok?
4 - this is the same guy who, when his world was collapsing around him - reached out to Sean Hannity....


So Geo - just so we are clear - when people testify in court - or talk to the police - it's ok if they get their facts/stories wrong?

I'd say the injuries to his face are consistent with one punch that may or may not have broken his nose. No fat/bloodied lip, was there? Not sure it matters - other than again pointing out discrepancies in his stories.

 

[Geosurface]

So Geo - just so we are clear - when people testify in court - or talk to the police - it's ok if they get their facts/stories wrong?

What I'm saying is that a normal human understanding of the natural variance you can expect to find when the same account is given multiple times, days or weeks apart, about an incredibly stressful, hectic event is appropriate to have.

Moral of the story, don't talk to the police.

 

[micrometers]

One thing about the new stuff.

"You got me" could also be interpreted as "you shot me"

 

[NeoV]

"What I'm saying is that a normal human understanding of the natural variance you can expect to find when the same account is given multiple times, days or weeks apart, about an incredibly stressful, hectic event is appropriate to have."

So in other words....testimony is irrelevant...got it.

 

[micrometers]

He very well could have been justified in the assault. You guys keep talking about justification for killing trayvon as being Zimmerman's fear for his safety.

Does Trayvon not get the same right? He very well could have feared for his safety with a stranger following him around at night. Obviously it wasn't the police. So who was it? What could they possibly want with him that they'd follow after him in the black of night?

And in that case, who's fear for their safety trumps the other? The guy who is first to fear for their safety? or the guy who made the other person fear for their safety who then got their ass kicked and then feared for their safety despite instigating an altercation w\ the other person in the first place?

I've said it before, but it sounds like Martin was out for vengeance, not just self-defense. His actions, from Zimmerman's account, go far beyond simple self-defense.

 

[Geosurface]

"What I'm saying is that a normal human understanding of the natural variance you can expect to find when the same account is given multiple times, days or weeks apart, about an incredibly stressful, hectic event is appropriate to have."

So in other words....testimony is irrelevant...got it.

No it is not irrelevant but the sort of thing they should be looking for is something like ... well you said he drew his knife but we found the knife still closed in his pocket.

Or, you said he pulled a knife on you and took a swing but in your earlier statement you made no mention of a knife and we found no knife on him.

Or, you said you had no insurance policy on your wife but we found that you took out a rather large life insurance policy on her only one month before her death.

Not misremembering the exact details of a conversation with dispatch or the exact quote of what Trayvon said "you're gonna die tonight" with and without MF, etc. Or exactly how many times you were punched and for how long an attempt to muffle your screams was made or how effective that attempt was.

Fights are hectic. Fights where you're dazed and terrified are all the moreso.

Seemingly the ultimate determination of the SPD lined up with what I'm saying, that the inconsistencies in his testimony did not rise to the level of charging him.

 

[Tom]

I've said it before, but it sounds like Martin was out for vengeance, not just self-defense. His actions, from Zimmerman's account, go far beyond simple self-defense.

Vengeance ? Vengeance for what ?

The evidence is, he wanted some skittles.

If Zimmerman's story makes no sense, it might not be true.

 

[Infohawk]

Vengeance ? Vengeance for what ?

The evidence is, he wanted some skittles.

It seems like in the same breath people are upset that this is a profiling case and then they act like Trayvon had no reason to be mad. Considering the reaction of a lot of the African-American community, doesn't it seem natural that Travyon would be mad he was being profiled?

 

[Tom]

No it is not irrelevant but the sort of thing they should be looking for is something like ... well you said he drew his knife but we found the knife still closed in his pocket.

Or, you said he pulled a knife on you and took a swing but in your earlier statement you made no mention of a knife and we found no knife on him.

Or, you said you had no insurance policy on your wife but we found that you took out a rather large life insurance policy on her only one month before her death.

Not misremembering the exact details of a conversation with dispatch or the exact quote of what Trayvon said "you're gonna die tonight" with and without MF, etc. Or exactly how many times you were punched and for how long an attempt to muffle your screams was made or how effective that attempt was.

Fights are hectic. Fights where you're dazed and terrified are all the moreso.

Seemingly the ultimate determination of the SPD lined up with what I'm saying, that the inconsistencies in his testimony did not rise to the level of charging him.

except they did not, not charge him. they passed it on. you're equating that with something it doesn't mean, ie they accepted his story.

 

[micrometers]

Vengeance ? Vengeance for what ?

The evidence is, he wanted some skittles.

If Zimmerman's story makes no sense, it might not be true.

vengeance for following him. I can sorta understand. Like, imagine you're in the big city and there's this dude who is following you around block after block. Wouldn't you confront him?

 

[Tom]

It seems like in the same breath people are upset that this is a profiling case and then they act like Trayvon had no reason to be mad. Considering the reaction of a lot of the African-American community, doesn't it seem natural that Travyon would be mad he was being profiled?

maybe.

But we know Zimmerman was mad, we don't have to speculate about his motive if there was a fight.

So why look for reasons for it to be Martin's fault when we have evidence right in front us about Zimmerman ?

 

[micrometers]

maybe.

But we know Zimmerman was mad, we don't have to speculate about his motive if there was a fight.

So why look for reasons for it to be Martin's fault when we have evidence right in front us about Zimmerman ?

1. Zimmerman sustained a beating
2. we have Zimmerman's account of it which hasn't been grossly contradicted by objective facts (maybe something minor here or there)
3. No really good witnesses. Most people only saw fragments of the event.

I suspect that more happened, and if Martin had lived we would have a very different story. But we don't know.

 

[spidey07]

maybe.

But we know Zimmerman was mad, we don't have to speculate about his motive if there was a fight.

So why look for reasons for it to be Martin's fault when we have evidence right in front us about Zimmerman ?

Because of physical evidence and multiple eye witness accounts of martin beating zimmerman on his back.

that right there, and that alone = lawful self defense. Read the law, know it, take a CCDW class and advanced NRA class as I did and you'll understand the laws of your state extremely well. The sheriff and states attorney along with a lawyer familiar with your states laws will explain it all.

That is what makes this such an easy and clear cut case of self defense. There is no doubt.

 

[waggy]

SpatiallyAware has always treated the "assault" on the bus driver as unimpeachable truth, despite the scarcity of evidence supporting it.

It's interesting how you yourself previously said that the "you're going to die tonight" quote sounded improbable, but now you seem to think it makes perfect sense. It would appear there is literally nothing that could shake your confidence in Mr. Zimmerman at this point.

I do not beleieve Z at all on the claim that TM said "you're going to die tonight" . at least not in the context Z claims. it really does not make sense.


but it sure fits in with a self defense claim..

 

[Tom]

1. Zimmerman sustained a beating
2. we have Zimmerman's account of it which hasn't been grossly contradicted by objective facts (maybe something minor here or there)
3. No really good witnesses. Most people only saw fragments of the event.

I suspect that more happened, and if Martin had lived we would have a very different story. But we don't know.

1. means nothing by itself.
2. self-serving and credibility not established.
3. true. some witnesses differ with Zimmerman's account, I think.

I've addressed your points, you didn't respond to mine ?

Is it a fact that Zimmerman expresses animosity towards Martin on the police call tape ?

 

[umbrella39]

I side with the defense based on current evidence and testimonies, but does anyone else feel that GZ could've been in a much better position had he not said that TM told him "You're going to die tonight" when he was on top of him?

I have a REAL hard time believing that TM would say something like that. Not only is it ridiculous, but GZ had nothing to gain by mentioning it.

It's hard to distinguish when he is telling the truth or lying but I have never believed that line being said. I don't think the statement in and of itself will discredit his story. I am still not sure we have heard everything GZ said or still has to say and that is the wild card. I would hate to be his lawyer.

 

[xj0hnx]

Xjohn - sorry to hear you were shot - but I'm guessing that's very different from being on the other end of the trigger.

Actually, it's not that incredibly different at all. Ever heard of the fog of war? You also have to take into account, Zimmerman was being attacked, so he was on both sides at the same time. Having been on both sides of the gun, Iraq, I can tell you that honestly, neither side is fun, and the feeling and haze is pretty similar.