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

[lotus503]

Every day people are killed under 'worse' circumstances with far FAR less facts that prove self-defense.


What detail is so important that you feel personally compelled to come in and defend this obvious thug from getting exactly what he asked for? Or is it just black and white as I suspected?


?

I am not defending Martin as much as I am pointing out where you lie and make false claims. You confuse me pointing out the issues with your data and opinion as fact crap, with defense of someone.

Martin doesnt need defending hes dead, Zimmerman needs defending he is the one facing murder 2, while folks like OC newbie and Londo have no problem defending zimmerman based on the evidence and facts.


You think you are defending zimmerman by posting rumors, speculation and other nonsense as forgone conclusions.

 

[lotus503]

Yes and no.


In a normal case without all this media hype? GZ would have a slam dunk self defense case according to the currently released public evidence without a need to go further than the evidence of two eye witness testimonies that were not GZ. Both testimonies place TM on top of GZ hitting him and both are on record stating GZ was the one asking for help before the shot was fired. That right there is enough in a self defense case normally.

But because of the media and political circus that surrounded this case, the defense team has to make sure it is 100% covered from every angle. They are looking to PROVE innocence in this case where normally that is not needed. Since evidence besides GZ's testimony is lacking of who started the fight, the defense is looking for character evidence to further bolster the self defense claim. With character evidence, which the judge said could be used, the defense team is looking to provide even further GZ's claim of who attack whom first. It is circumstantial evidence, but circumstantial evidence can be used in court in the right way.

This is also why the defense is going after Crump. They are trying to provide and find evidence of witness coaching/tampering in the case of Dee Dee. They are looking for evidence in TM's past records to see what his RECENT character was. If the defense can provide evidence, even if it's just additional circumstantial evidence, of TM's recent propensity for either violence, criminal mischief, or both; and evidence of Crump's tampering with witness testimony then the defense is going to blow the prosecutions case out of the water. They will be able to prove with as much certainty as they can with the evidence that is available GZ's innocence beyond a doubt. That is the game plan that I can logically deduce.

Even if the above circumstantial evidence is not found, such as a record of TM's propensity for violence or criminal mischief, that doesn't mean the prosecution has a case with the current evidence they have. The point is to prove to the PUBLIC beyond a reasonable doubt that GZ is innocent so that he can get on with his life after this trial once found innocent.

I think you touch on a few things in this post.

But the last paragraph is the most compelling. I think the defense is spending too much time and resource on the public opinion side. Only I dont think its so Zimmerman can lead a normal life after the legal process concludes but rather because they need the public to fund his defense.


Both witnesses have stated they dont know if it was Zimmerman screaming only assumed it, based on various factors.

I would bet money that both Zimmermans actions prior the the 26th and Martins have Zero bearing on the legal case.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

LOL, did you not listen to John's recorded police interview? There was nothing "uncertain" in that interview. And he wasn't the only one either.

Actually he is correct, listen to the 2nd interview with the FDLE. John said he wasn't sure if TM was still striking GZ or restraining him. Also he said he felt that the person on the bottom would be the one screaming but he could not see his face clearly.

Though he did not change his statement concerning who was on top and he also said that GZ appeared to the struggling to get free.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I would bet money that both Zimmermans actions prior the the 26th and Martins have Zero bearing on the legal case.

I wouldn't take that bet as I too think that everything prior to 2/26/12 will be determined to be irrelevant and not allowed by Judge Nelson.

 

[Druidx]

Guess you didn't read the guidline/rules given to GZ and all others present quote a couple of pages back...not surprising...since you asked which guidlines GZ didn't follow.

here ya go NOTE: GZ called this person to setup the NW)

Not surprising that you didn't read it either since I asked you to prove he confronted anyone.
As far as getting out of the car, it's a moot point. Their handbook talks about people using their jogs as a way to watch the neighborhood. GZ considered his dog walks as part of his neighborhood watch time.

You claimed he broke neighborhood watch rules because of the gun. I said there was no such guideline in the Sanford NW book. You claim your still right because what someone said after the fact which has zero to do with it because as we both know, he was on his way to the store when this happened. Are you going to claim just because he participated in the local NW it prevented him from ever using his CC permit? It's up to you how much you want to argue like Airdata. You also said I was wrong about the location of the abrasion on TM's hand. How did that work out for you?

 

[SpatiallyAware]

I am not defending Martin as much as I am pointing out where you lie and make false claims. You confuse me pointing out the issues with your data and opinion as fact crap, with defense of someone.

Martin doesnt need defending hes dead, Zimmerman needs defending he is the one facing murder 2, while folks like OC newbie and Londo have no problem defending zimmerman based on the evidence and facts.


You think you are defending zimmerman by posting rumors, speculation and other nonsense as forgone conclusions.

So no, you can't answer it? Neither can your crumptonite buddies.

Every day people are killed under 'worse' circumstances with far FAR less facts that prove self-defense.

What detail is so important that you feel personally compelled to come in and defend this obvious thug from getting exactly what he asked for? Or is it just black and white as I suspected?



I can tell you why I'm doing it, it's due to a totally innocent man and upstanding member of his community being lynch mobbed by people who must have some sort of bias.

All of the major news channels have figured this out, why haven't you?

 

[soundforbjt]

Not surprising that you didn't read it either since I asked you to prove he confronted anyone.
As far as getting out of the car, it's a moot point. Their handbook talks about people using their jogs as a way to watch the neighborhood. GZ considered his dog walks as part of his neighborhood watch time.

You claimed he broke neighborhood watch rules because of the gun. I said there was no such guideline in the Sanford NW book. You claim your still right because what someone said after the fact which has zero to do with it because as we both know, he was on his way to the store when this happened. Are you going to claim just because he participated in the local NW it prevented him from ever using his CC permit? It's up to you how much you want to argue like Airdata. You also said I was wrong about the location of the abrasion on TM's hand. How did that work out for you?

The police explained it at the meeting setup by GZ and he was there to hear it...he was also studying criminal law. If anyone should have known the rules, it was GZ.

This is from page three of the Sanford handbook (it's been scrubbed from Sanford's official site; http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/...atch-Materials-DO-NOT-GET-PHYSICALLY-INVOLVED

You will add your “eyes and ears” to those of the Police Department which cannot be everywhere, all the time, by keeping a watchful eye and open ear to what is happening in your neighborhood. You will extend their ability to provide security by reporting anything unusual or suspicious, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, so they can follow up on your leads. What you will
not do is get physically involved with any activity you report or apprehension of any suspicious persons. This is the job of the law enforcement agency.

Finally from here :http://www.charlestownmd.org/oldsite/pdfs/Neighborhood%20Watch%20Manual.pdf

DO NOT ATTEMPT TO APPREHEND A PERSON COMMITTING A CRIME OR TO INVESTIGATE A SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY. [...]
Patrol members should be trained by law enforcement. It
should be emphasized to members that they do not possess
police powers and they shall not carry weapons or pursue vehicles. They should also be cautioned to alert police or deputies when encountering strange activity. MEMBERS SHOULD NEVER CONFRONT SUSPICIOUS PERSONS WHO COULD BE ARMED AND DANGEROUS. [...]
The purpose of community patrol is to observe and report
only. Patrol members should not leave their vehicle or
become involved with a suspect. [...]
Patrol members should not challenge anyone. The patrol’s
visual presence should be a deterrent to most criminal
activity. [...]
Patrol members do not carry weapons. [...]

GZ "confronted" TM when the verbal exchange began.

 

[Druidx]

John does not know for sure (He couldn't see) who was screaming and no one saw actual punches being thrown.

Yep he saw no punches being thrown because TM's back was to him. John saw what he described as a Bam Bam Bam motion which he thought could be TM hitting GZ. What do you think it was, TM tickling GZ?

He also thought it was common sense that the person on the bottom was the one screaming for help since the one on top didn't do anything when he came out and yelled for them to stop or he was going to call the police.

The defense doesn't need to prove what happened the state does. People are in denial if they don't think this hurts the states case.

 

[OCNewbie]

Team Zimmerman :

OH, yeah, you're right... Zimmerman did plenty of things that were wrong, dumb, against regulations, etc.

But it wasn't illegal!!!

You momos amuse me.

You guys fail to understand the concept of a person being negligent. GZ did all sorts of things prior to the actual killing that prove his negligence in the matter.

Is it illegal for him to break from neighborhood watch guidelines? No, not illegal. Not until he kills somebody as a result of his gross negligence. Then it simply becomes another piece of evidence against him showing that he knew better than to do what he did, but he did so anyhow.

That's what the case is about. It's about GZ doing all of the wrong things and killing somebody as a result.

All these arguments you're making sound tailor-made for a civil suit. The criminal case has to take place first though, and that's why it's important to focus on what crimes (hence the term "criminal") GZ violated when debating how the criminal case will play out. If GZ doesn't win immunity, then his non-illegal, but debatably "irrational", "irresponsible", and/or "reckless" actions may become more pertinent. As of now, it would be "irrational" to sidestep the fact that GZ has been charged with only a single crime and ignore the fact that all his other actions were NOT illegal, or he would have been charged for them.

Keep all those arguments you've been offering at the ready though, because if/when there is a civil suit/trial, they might actually become relevant.

 

[Druidx]

This is from page three of the Sanford handbook (it's been scrubbed from Sanford's official site; http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/...atch-Materials-DO-NOT-GET-PHYSICALLY-INVOLVED


Finally from here :http://www.charlestownmd.org/oldsite/pdfs/Neighborhood Watch Manual.pdf

More like airdata at every post.
You imply he broke the rules so I asked you to prove he confronted TM, You can't so you just keep repeating yourself because you don't want to admit you were wrong.
Observe and report, that is exactly what he did. When TM ran off he was no longer a threat. You ignore when and where it happened, an area we known TM just ran from just moments before.

As I previously said, airdata constantly lied about violating the NW rules concerning the gun because it was under the Sadford NW not the national NW guidelines. Then you go and do the exact same thing by using the national NW guidelines which are different.

 

[soundforbjt]

More like airdata at every post.
You imply he broke the rules so I asked you to prove he confronted TM, You can't so you just keep repeating yourself because you don't want to admit you were wrong.
Observe and report, that is exactly what he did. When TM ran off he was no longer a threat. You ignore when and where it happened, an area we known TM just ran from just moments before.

Please More like Spaitial with every post...

con·front
/kənˈfrənt/


Verb

• Meet (someone) face to face with hostile or argumentative intent.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Please More like Spaitial with every post...

Proof that GZ was the one that had the hostile or argumentative intent. Based on the wounds it appears to be the other way around and TM was the one that had the hostile or argumentative intent.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

Absolutely false with the confronting nonsense... And it was already officially stated (fbi?) that there is no evidence of zimmerman 'stalking' trayvon.

The entire notion is ridiculous. Out of the mountains of evidence (circumstantial and otherwise....) nothing whatosever showed zimmerman to be racist or bias towards trayvon in any other way other than as someone casing homes and on drugs, and your cherub martyr was a drug dealer wrapped up in stolen property.

 

[Druidx]

Please More like Spaitial with every post...

Good job, I address exactly why you were wrong, You on the other hand did not.

You claim GZ confronted TM because of a verbal exchange. Who initiated the verbal exchange? According to the States star witness it was TM who initiated the verbal exchange.

Since you feel the need to post definitions, another classic airdata tactic when he couldn't argue the facts.
Let's give a good example of "confront"
I confront you about your earlier claim I was wrong about the location of the abrasions on TM's hand. I said it was on the flat of his finger exactly where you would expect it when someone makes a fist.

I also confronted you about your earlier claim of GZ violating NW watch rules about the gun when there was no such rule. Your answer, quote a different groups rules which are irrelevant to what you claimed.

 

[OCNewbie]

Meet (someone) face to face with hostile or argumentative intent.

That is still up in the air, and hinges entirely on what DeeDee says in court, and how much weight the judge and/or jury give her testimony (how credible she comes across as).

Like Druid said above, it's also important to identify who initiated the "confrontation"

 

[soundforbjt]

Proof that GZ was the one that had the hostile or argumentative intent. Based on the wounds it appears to be the other way around and TM was the one that had the hostile or argumentative intent.

Witnesses heard more arguing than the three phrases GZ or DeeDee mentions.

 

[spidey07]

You can keep what if'ing as zimmerman being the initial aggressor or "starting" a confrontation. Let me repeat florida self defense law, even if zimmerman provoked use of force he would still meet all the exceptions to use deadly force when he is on his back, mounted and prevented from retreat with his attacker on top of him.


Based on the evidence and facts of this case, zimmerman's actions CANNOT BE ANYTHING OTHER THAN SELF DEFENSE. All the evidence actually PROVES self defense with ZERO evidence disproving self defense. The law and the evidence makes it clear there is no other justice to be done than to free zimmerman and grant immunity per state law.

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:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes 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.

 

[soundforbjt]

Good job, I address exactly why you were wrong, You on the other hand did not.

You claim GZ confronted TM because of a verbal exchange. Who initiated the verbal exchange? According to the States star witness it was TM who initiated the verbal exchange.

Since you feel the need to post definitions, another classic airdata tactic when he couldn't argue the facts.
Let's give a good example of "confront"
I confront you about your earlier claim I was wrong about the location of the abrasions on TM's hand. I said it was on the flat of his finger exactly where you would expect it when someone makes a fist.

I also confronted you about your earlier claim of GZ violating NW watch rules about the gun when there was no such rule. Your answer, quote a different groups rules which are irrelevant to what you claimed.

You must have missed in my statement where I said "iirc".
And I can't help Sanford scrubbed the rules from their website. Please show me the "jogging patrol" you claimed.

 

[soundforbjt]

You can keep what if'ing as zimmerman being the initial aggressor or "starting" a confrontation. Let me repeat florida self defense law, even if zimmerman provoked use of force he would still meet all the exceptions to use deadly force when he is on his back, mounted and preventing retreat with his attacker on top of him.


Based on the evidence and facts of this case, zimmerman's actions CANNOT BE ANYTHING OTHER THAN SELF DEFENSE. All the evidence actually PROVES self defense with ZERO evidence disproving self defense.

Spidey, are you part of the prosecution team?

If not, you have no idea if they can prove it or not.

edit: what part of this (which does come from Sanford's NW handbook didn't pertain to GZ's actions that night?

What you will
not do is get physically involved with any activity you report or apprehension of any suspicious persons. This is the job of the law enforcement agency.

 

[spidey07]

Spidey, are you part of the prosecution team?

If not, you have no idea if they can prove it or not.

Based on the evidence of this case and the known facts the ONLY way the prosecution would have a case is if zimmerman comitted a foricble felony.

No such forcible felony was named in the affidavit, nor was he charged with one.

I don't have to be part of the prosecution to show, with zero doubt, zimmerman acted in self defense.

 

[werepossum]

No, zimmerman saw trayvon casing houses. That is firsthand eyewitness statements. We already know trayvon deals with known stolen property and carries burglary tools, you really think a jury is going to ignore that? LOL


And trayvon was a drug dealer. You can try and derail that fact all you want, but it is what it is. Your boy is a thug, and society doesn't care about drug dealing home invading thugs getting shot by an innocent upstanding member of the community.

Let us hope the jury ignores all that because it's unproven innuendo not directly related to this case. DVC gave us his learned opinion that none of this will be admissible. Therefore the only way the jury will ever learn about any of this is that they've encountered it outside the trial, and if juries consider what they see on television or here on the Internet they'll likely think Zimmerman shot a twelve year old black kid in the back as he was walking home from school.

Actually... I'm not the one missing anything

I'm citing things straight from the police report and from the neighborhood watch guidelines.

Zimmerman was done when he hung up the phone w\ police. That was it. They told him they didn't need him to follow. They didn't expect a rational person to leave the safety of their car, let alone refuse to return there and wait for police to arrive to do their jobs.

The jokes on you. Go read the police report & the neighborhood watch guidelines. And then the most important part is the fact that Zimmerman knew better than to leave his car as he'd been in the situation many times before where he didn't leave his car.

You DO realize that this same police report was issued when Zimmerman was arrested, taken in, interviewed, and ultimate found to have committed no crime, right? Seems difficult to believe that anything in that report will prove Zimmerman guilty of murder when the report wasn't even enough to bring any charges.

So lets summarize the thread.

• Trayvon should have ran home because there was an armed assailant on the loose who was an imminent threat to him.
• George Zimmreman acted irattionally, recklessly, and irresponsibly in dealing with the situation at hand.... but despite all of his poor decisions... he didan't actually break a law. He just showed that he was a dumb ass who probably should never have been licensed to own or carry a firearm to begin with.
• Trayvon was once found to have jewelery and a screw driver which he claimed was not even his. He had no charges pressed against him and no crime was proven to happen.
• George Zimmerman left his car to follow/chase Trayvon. After the dispatcher told him they didn't need him to follow, Zimmerman spent the next 2-3 minutes " not following " but somehow still managed to meet up w\ Trayvon despite the fact he was " Not following " according to the prosecution testifiying under oath that they had no evidence he continued to follow.
  He simply spent 2-3 minutes getting the nerve to go back to his car from which he was only 10-15 seconds away from when he acknowledge following Trayvon.... But there's no proof he was following him still. He just had his flash light in hand walking around because he was not following or looking for anybody.
• The only evidence Trayvon went after Zimmerman is from a witness who's testimony would also prove Zimmerman gave a false statement to police and whatever related tampering with evidence charges would go along with it.

I'm not sure if you're alleging that Zimmerman beat up himself after murdering Martin or that Zimmerman's nose spontaneously exploded, but there is rather a lot of evidence that Martin went after Zimmerman. As to encountering Martin without following him, that seems pretty straightforward: Zimmerman was looking to see where Martin had gone. Martin hadn't gone anywhere except into the shadows because his primary concern was not getting away, but simply being free to talk to his girl without parents or siblings around. At that point either Zimmerman sees and confronts Martin, or Martin sees and confronts Zimmerman, or they happen upon each other; we don't know which, but it appears that legally there isn't any difference anyway.

You seem to think Zimmerman has some obligation to stay safe in his truck, relegating the freedom of the outdoors to the thugs. Let each man or woman huddle alone and just hope the predators prey on someone else. Some feel the same way about Martin, that he had some requirement to run home if he sees someone watching him. Neither is true.

There are some very important lessons here - what your clothing and mannerisms say to others, the consequences of our assumptions based on others' clothing and mannerisms, the value of basic politeness, the added weight of responsibility when going armed - but I'll be damned if a huge part of our nation isn't determined to avoid them at all costs. If one takes either the position that Martin was a thug better off dead or that Zimmerman is a deranged murderer, one is embracing ignorance. I sure hope it's comforting 'cause it's damned ugly to watch.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Witnesses heard more arguing than the three phrases GZ or DeeDee mentions.

Yet there's no proof that GZ was the one to start the verbal confrontation or physical altercation.

 

[spidey07]

Let us hope the jury ignores all that because it's unproven innuendo not directly related to this case. DVC gave us his learned opinion that none of this will be admissible. Therefore the only way the jury will ever learn about any of this is that they've encountered it outside the trial, and if juries consider what they see on television or here on the Internet they'll likely think Zimmerman shot a twelve year old black kid in the back as he was walking home from school.


You DO realize that this same police report was issued when Zimmerman was arrested, taken in, interviewed, and ultimate found to have committed no crime, right? Seems difficult to believe that anything in that report will prove Zimmerman guilty of murder when the report wasn't even enough to bring any charges.


I'm not sure if you're alleging that Zimmerman beat up himself after murdering Martin or that Zimmerman's nose spontaneously exploded, but there is rather a lot of evidence that Martin went after Zimmerman. As to encountering Martin without following him, that seems pretty straightforward: Zimmerman was looking to see where Martin had gone. Martin hadn't gone anywhere except into the shadows because his primary concern was not getting away, but simply being free to talk to his girl without parents or siblings around. At that point either Zimmerman sees and confronts Martin, or Martin sees and confronts Zimmerman, or they happen upon each other; we don't know which, but it appears that legally there isn't any difference anyway.

You seem to think Zimmerman has some obligation to stay safe in his truck, relegating the freedom of the outdoors to the thugs. Let each man or woman huddle alone and just hope the predators prey on someone else. Some feel the same way about Martin, that he had some requirement to run home if he sees someone watching him. Neither is true.

There are some very important lessons here - what your clothing and mannerisms say to others, the consequences of our assumptions based on others' clothing and mannerisms, the value of basic politeness, the added weight of responsibility when going armed - but I'll be damned if a huge part of our nation isn't determined to avoid them at all costs. If one takes either the position that Martin was a thug better off dead or that Zimmerman is a deranged murderer, one is embracing ignorance. I sure hope it's comforting 'cause it's damned ugly to watch.

He is better off dead. When you brutally and viciously attack another the natural course of action should be your victim shoots you. Again, these are natural rights no man can take away.

Slims ACTIONS that night (committing a brutal, vicious forcible felony forcing his victim to truly fear for his life) are what made him a thug who deserved to get ventilated and nothing else.

"teaching" that kind of "respect" doesn't fly in America. You brutally, viciously take another to the ground and pound their head into the sidewalk you should get dead for victiming and inflicting that kind of fear that the only reasonable recourse is to shoot to safe your life.

 

[Tom]

Yet there's no proof that GZ was the one to start the verbal confrontation or physical altercation.

Depends what you mean by proof and "start".

There's certainly evidence that GZ had some level of hostility towards Martin. And that he was willing to go to some lengths to not let him get away.

And there's evidence that Martin belonged in the area and wasn't doing anything at all unusual for ateenager, acquiring snacks and talking to a girl on the phone.

In fact the facts are so stark that its incomprehensible to me that anyone would really blame Martin for the fact they had an encounter.

Now that still leaves open the question of the severity of Zimmerman's injuries as well as the believability of his statements neither of which I think can be resolved without a trial.

 

[spidey07]

Depends what you mean by proof and "start".

There's certainly evidence that GZ had some level of hostility towards Martin. And that he was willing to go to some lengths to not let him get away.

And there's evidence that Martin belonged in the area and wasn't doing anything at all unusual for ateenager, acquiring snacks and talking to a girl on the phone.

In fact the facts are so stark that its incomprehensible to me that anyone would really blame Martin for the fact they had an encounter.

Now that still leaves open the question of the severity of Zimmerman's injuries as well as the believability of his statements neither of which I think can be resolved without a trial.

So you feel the felony aggravated assault and battery by Martin was ok? That Zimmerman was asking for the felony beatdown?

The perfect analogy in all this is you believe rape of a woman is ok if she was asking for it.

And that is not a hyperbole or straw man. It is exactly comparable according to law and basic human decency.

Oh, and rape or sexual assault are forcible felonies. The same as aggravated battery. Both are forcible felonies. Same according to law.