Black Teen Shot, Killed By Neighborhood Watch

We don't know Zimmerman. People are not putting things into context. Zimmerman might be a crazy lunatic. But what we have here is a neighborhood that suffered a lot of burglary's.
More like you're not putting things into context. One of the burglars was caught, arrested, and charged. The only reason why the other burglars weren't arrested was because there wasn't sufficient proof. You know what race the other burglars were? White. They were just a bunch of friends doing a few b&e's.

Neighborhood watch were on alert, Zimmerman was apart of neighborhood watch. Following or monitoring a suspicious person in the area was technically part of his neighborhood watch role, i don't see the issue.
There was no formal Neighborhood Watch group in the neighborhood. Zimmerman appointed himself in charge of it because he was the only one interested and the Home Owner's Association just went with it. For someone whining about context, you sure do take a lot out of it.

Harrassing people would be a problem, but you don't expect somebody to start attacking you.
So you admit that Zimmerman was harassing Martin.

Yes the dispatcher told him not to follow. However he was already out of the car following at this point.
Since he's already followed him in a car, he might as well follow him on foot. :rofl:

Now the teen was known to smoke pot. Pot makes people paranoid. He told his friend on the phone a creepy ass cracker is following me
Martin had trace amounts in his system and his last hit could've been as much as a week before his murder. Not to mention that THC levels were too low to be considered intoxicated. He could've passed any drug test for employment because most tests fail you at around 50ng/mL, not the 1.5-7ng/mL in his blood.

So we have a paranoid teen on edge that somebody is following him, and we do not know for sure, but it seems like when approaching by GZ, lashed out and ended up being on top of GZ pummeling him. From this point does GZ do nothing? He simply had to defend himself.
Pure speculation on your part. We don't and will never know who struck first nor do we know if Martin was pummeling Zimmerman because of lack of physical evidence on Martin's hands and wrists.

Maybe if he didn't have a gun he wouldn't have been so assured to go up to this guy. Maybe if he wasn't so angry about recent burglary's he wouldn't have been so impulsive not to wait for police. But those facts are irrelevant as to the crime itself.
It's actually pretty relevant when determining intent and culpability. Zimmerman jaywalking is irrelevant; not killing a kid he was 100% wrong about.

People say unarmed child, but a 17 yr old is capable of beating a person up pretty bad. Most likely GZ was angry, and the guy was also scared or on alert so the conversation quickly turned violent, but the fact is if your head is being smashed against concrete and you have no means to stop it, what do you do?
More conjecture. There is no proof that Zimmerman's head was smashed on concrete nor does it explain Martin's complete lack of history of violence compared to Zimmerman's.

Overall that's what the jury has to decide on. The other stuff is largely irrelevant. All the racial crap really has stirred this whole case. GZ is hispanic not white. GZ didn't shoot the guy because he was black(i don't think anyway) and it was more, dress sense, recent happenenings, and his role that led him to follow the guy rather than racial profilling.
If Zimmerman didn't call the cops everytime he saw a black male in the neighborhood that he didn't know, I'd be on your side with this, but there weren't exactly a lot of calls about white males he didn't know, which is problematic because some of the alleged burglars were...you know...white. This added to the obscene amount of calls about unknown black males in the months leading to the killing as well as telling his neighbors to watch out for black males leads me to the conclusion that Zimmerman has some racial biases against black males and has negative attributes associated with that demographic. So yeah, there's a pretty strong case for Zimmerman racially profiling Martin when again, we know that Zimmerman was completely wrong in his assumptions.

Edited media coverage, bandwagon, and racist views of black people have led this into a different direction. Society cannot encourage people to hide behind curtains calling the police. People have to defend themselves and their community. While GZ should have handled this differently, and his interview saying he wouldn't have done anything differently was pretty surprising, the basic principle of a man being out there, looking to stop crime isn't a bad one.
Looks like someone has a hero-complex going on here.
 
I thought that once you were established as the aggressor, you waive your right to claim self defense. If this conflict requires an aggressor, it would have to be Zimmerman wouldn't it?



I think the best way to explain this is via an example. We are at a bar and I start taunting you. Things get heated, we exchange "pleasantries" but before anything happens I walk out. At the onset I was the aggressor but once I walked away I've stopped being one. At this point if you attack me in the parking lot, you now have become the aggressor and I can claim self defense. At least that's what GZ's attys have tried to establish.
 
I didn't realize he claimed to be walking away. I don't believe that but I'm not on the jury.



It was merely an illustrative example not an exact comparison/analogy.

I think the argument is that once TM was out of GZ'S line of sight that the scenario reset itself. So when GZ walked out of his car to get a better view of TM he was not the aggressor. At least that's their argument.
 
There a thousands of subdivisions just like the Retreat at Twin Lakes. Middle-class people looking for an oasis amidst the chaos. They won't find it behind gates. It doesn't work. If they want what you have, they'll take it.

The subdivision was completed in 2004 and at the height of the housing boom the homes went for the low $300 thousands. Today they are listed in the low $100 thousands. Homeowners had 2-3 years to plunk down roots before many were foreclosed on or left. After that, many homes could not be sold and were rented. Not exactly a situation in which neighborhood cohesion forms.

George Zimmerman was an anomaly. He was a renter, as far as I can tell, who was very big on civic engagement. According to Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam, a liberal advocate for diversity, has found that "the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects." This neighborhood no doubt had this problem, but Zimmerman tried to change it. For his troubles, he gets malicious prosecution on a self-defense case that should have never been brought to trial.

Whether eight burglaries in one summer should put a neighborhood of 250+ homes on edge is subjective I guess. As for whether a 17-year-old black "kid" would ever be walking on the grass and looking into homes, possibly under the influence of drugs, I'm sure it never happens.

Maybe it was a coincidence that when the police recovered my stolen car, the radio was tuned to the local hip-hop station, the interior smelled faintly of marijuana, and some kind of grape drink was found underneath the driver's seat. $160 to get it out of impound, $500 to fix the steering wheel column and ignition. I guess I'll just chalk it up to the diversity tax we all have to pay. It is so worth it to be exposed to this wonderful fucking hood culture whether the enriched individual is black, white or brown.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Now the teen was known to smoke pot. Pot makes people paranoid. He told his friend on the phone a creepy ass cracker is following me

So we have a paranoid teen on edge that somebody is following him
Please explain exactly how Martin was being paranoid. It's an established and undisputed fact that Zimmerman was, in fact, following him. That makes his comment to his friend observation, not paranoia.

 
This appears to be the only context where law and order types are willing to go easy on someone based entirely on what they say. I can't imagine why...

 
Please explain exactly how Martin was being paranoid. It's an established and undisputed fact that Zimmerman was, in fact, following him. That makes his comment to his friend observation, not paranoia.
Pot makes people paranoid. If you give somebody paranoid fuel it can spiral into other things. Hence some creepy ass cracker following him could make his mind think a zillion paranoid reasons for this. Which may or may not have contributed to his pyshical altercation.

 
Yah, assuming that's how it works, I'm stunned it's legal.

You go to trial for vehicular manslaughter, but it's discovered the guy jumped out in front of your car according to witnesses and you could prevent the death, so the State realizes they don't have you there. But after that's established, you get charged with a hate crime because the guy was Eskimo, you get tickets for a burnt out brake light and a rolling stop you made three blocks up the road, and the jury says your breath stinks.

I'm just amazed that our legal system allows for things to be charged, then later in the trial, the State can add lesser charges so they hope they can get you on something. Like I said, Zimmerman trial aside, imagine it's someone with the public perception of innocence. Hearing this bullshit go down would have us up in arms, and IMO, rightfully so.
Every charge encompasses the lower charges as well as circumstances that make it a higher charge. Assault is threatening to kick someone's ass. Battery is kicking someone's ass. Battery, by definition, is also assault but a higher charge because it meets a higher threshold.

Murder 1 is also Murder 2, 3, manslaughter, etc. etc. etc. all the way down the line to assault. Rather than have every imaginable charge brought every single time, the highest charge is brought. If the threshold doesn't look like it's going to be met, the prosecution can also request that lesser charges be considered.

It can work in the defendant's favor as well. They can (and very often do) plead out to a "lesser charge" than the one being brought, even during the trial. This happens even though, by using the logic that this lesser charge thing is bullshit, it shouldn't be available any more.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I just tuned in, but the defense is giving their closing arguments now. I was a smart move to not let West anywhere near this thing. O'Mara is gonna have about 3 hours.

- More technical difficulties.

- The defense says for 4 minutes doing literally nothing to show how long than time span is. I'm guessing to emphasize how much time Martin had to get home. This could work against them because Zimmerman had just as much time to get back to his truck and wait for the cops. Trying to say that Martin seeked out a confrontation directly contradicts Jeantel's testimony.

- According to O'Mara, you can run a mile in 4 minutes.

- i think he just said that Zimmerman's story makes sense if you ignore all the evidence to the contrary.

- O'Mara: "It's insane nonsense to think that Martin was the one screaming for 40 seconds. You'd think my client was torturing or something. Now let me explain to you why it would be perfectly normal for my client to be the one screaming."

- O'Mara is just kinda rambling now about the witnesses.

- The Chewbacca defense is in full effect.

- O'Mara just showed a screencap from the 7-11 footage to show martin looking as scary as possible. Stay classy, O'Mara.

- O'Mara is trying to convince the jurors to think like scared white people afraid of the hooded menace of black youth. Tell me again how this isn't about race?

- "Armed with the sidewalk"

 - 'Omara brought  GIANT CHUNK OF CONCRETE into the courtroom. Are you serious?

- The defense is done. John Guy is giving the state's rebuttal close.

- He's pointing out how the defense glossed over the "get off, get off" from Jeantel's testimony. 

- He's bringing up the missing two minutes and how Zimmerman could have easily made it back to his care in 20 seconds or less.

- Guy is bringing up how the defense keeps harping on the supposed interaction starting at the T-intersection and yet keeps ignoring everything that lead up the the final confrontation.

- Guy is making a case for common sense and how none of Zimmerman's story makes any logical sense.

- He's going through all the lies again. Very good tactic.

- He acknowledged that Martin possibly didn't wanna lead Zimmerman back to his house which is why he didn't run straight home. Glad he mentioned that.

- Guy's all done. All in all no as good as Bernie's close yesterday, but he hit some important notes. The jury goes to lunch and then goes to deliberate.

- Jury's back. The judge is reading the guidelines to convict or acquit. The jury will have these notes with them when they go to deliberate.

- Jury's headed to the back.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Pot makes people paranoid. If you give somebody paranoid fuel it can spiral into other things. Hence some creepy ass cracker following him could make his mind think a zillion paranoid reasons for this. Which may or may not have contributed to his pyshical altercation.
Pot makes some people paranoid, but that's entirely besides the point. Isn't the truth of why he was being followed enough to contribute to an altercation on it's own? He didn't say to his friend "The alien bounty hunter finally found me!". He correctly assessed the situation. He ran away and tried to hide, but Zimmerman still came after him, would not stop looking. Please tell me what the correct course of action would be? Tell me what you would do if you were a teen with someone following you doggedly for no apparent reason.

 
Martin's description of Zimmerman as "creepy" was putting it lightly. His accurate assessment of the situation kind of flies in the face of those who are claiming he was high.

The people rambling about weed-induced paranoia are conveniently forgetting the effects of euphoria and lethargy also caused by the drug.

I know as a country we tend to blame victims who are not white males, but the public reaction to this whole case has been bananas.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Pot makes people paranoid. If you give somebody paranoid fuel it can spiral into other things. Hence some creepy ass cracker following him could make his mind think a zillion paranoid reasons for this. Which may or may not have contributed to his pyshical altercation.
So a creepy ass cracker was following him and you're saying that Martin should have no need to feel the least bit apprehensive about it? It's not like Zimmerman wanted to know where Martin got some Skittles so he could get some for himself.
 
I just tuned in, but the defense is giving their closing arguments now. I was a smart move to not let West anywhere near this thing. O'Mara is gonna have about 3 hours.

- More technical difficulties.

- The defense says for 4 minutes doing literally nothing to show how long than time span is. I'm guessing to emphasize how much time Martin had to get home. This could work against them because Zimmerman had just as much time to get back to his truck and wait for the cops. Trying to say that Martin seeked out a confrontation directly contradicts Jeantel's testimony.

- According to O'Mara, you can run a mile in 4 minutes.

- i think he just said that Zimmerman's story makes sense if you ignore all the evidence to the contrary.

- O'Mara: "It's insane nonsense to think that Martin was the one screaming for 40 seconds. You'd think my client was torturing or something. Now let me explain to you why it would be perfectly normal for my client to be the one screaming."

- O'Mara is just kinda rambling now about the witnesses.

- The Chewbacca defense is in full effect.

- O'Mara just showed a screencap from the 7-11 footage to show martin looking as scary as possible. Stay classy, O'Mara.

- O'Mara is trying to convince the jurors to think like scared white people afraid of the hooded menace of black youth. Tell me again how this isn't about race?

- "Armed with the sidewalk"
Bias much?
 
Every charge encompasses the lower charges as well as circumstances that make it a higher charge. Assault is threatening to kick someone's ass. Battery is kicking someone's ass. Battery, by definition, is also assault but a higher charge because it meets a higher threshold.

Murder 1 is also Murder 2, 3, manslaughter, etc. etc. etc. all the way down the line to assault. Rather than have every imaginable charge brought every single time, the highest charge is brought. If the threshold doesn't look like it's going to be met, the prosecution can also request that lesser charges be considered.

It can work in the defendant's favor as well. They can (and very often do) plead out to a "lesser charge" than the one being brought, even during the trial. This happens even though, by using the logic that this lesser charge thing is bullshit, it shouldn't be available any more.
Gotcha, thanks for the explanation. It still seems like a sneaky way to effectively charge someone multiple times for the same crime. Based on the bit I listened to last night, the child abuse felony was apparently so far out there that it was ridiculous to even suggest, is that correct? I dunno, to me if the State is scrambling to add additional charges, it implies to me that they feel they didn't do a good job of creating their case so they're grasping at straws. It makes me wonder if Zimmerman gets off on the felonies, if they'll try to get him for destruction of personal property for scuffing up the lawn where he was laying.

 
So is Zimmerman God now? The prosecution stated who picked the time, the place, the lighting, and the weather? Not me but Zimmerman.
 
So is Zimmerman God now? The prosecution stated who picked the time, the place, the lighting, and the weather? Not me but Zimmerman.
Didn't he initiate everything though? Does the fact that he didn't make it rain make the fact that he caused everything that happened somehow untrue?

 
Those closing arguments.

Prosecution: Emotion and speculation.

Defense: Facts and evidence.

I hope the jury does the right thing and clears Zimmerman of all charges. This case never should have made it to trial, the reason being is that a jury can convict for a lesser charge because "he's gotta be charged for something right?" I hope these women aren't that stupid.
 
The Zimmerman sympathizers are pretty bad. Just based on what Zimmerman admitted he's guilty of manslaughter or aggravated manslaughter. The question of murder is something I would think twice about.

Spokker why do you keep using charged when you mean convicted?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Now the real question is how many idiots will end up in jail due to rash actions without a single thought of consequence once Zimmerman is found not guilty of murder.

Has been awhile since we've seen a political or racially motivated looting/riot.

You can bet that many media outlets are hoping for as much.

 
Now the real question is how many idiots will end up in jail due to rash actions without a single thought of consequence once Zimmerman is found not guilty of murder.

Has been awhile since we've seen a political or racially motivated looting/riot.

You can bet that many media outlets are hoping for as much.
Many people on this board are hoping for it, too. For them, it will serve to confirm that all the beliefs they've always privately held and hinted around about "those people" is right and true.

 
So a creepy ass cracker was following him and you're saying that Martin should have no need to feel the least bit apprehensive about it? It's not like Zimmerman wanted to know where Martin got some Skittles so he could get some for himself.
now how do you know that.. maybe he would not share his skittles is what started the entire thing

 
Gotcha, thanks for the explanation. It still seems like a sneaky way to effectively charge someone multiple times for the same crime. Based on the bit I listened to last night, the child abuse felony was apparently so far out there that it was ridiculous to even suggest, is that correct? I dunno, to me if the State is scrambling to add additional charges, it implies to me that they feel they didn't do a good job of creating their case so they're grasping at straws. It makes me wonder if Zimmerman gets off on the felonies, if they'll try to get him for destruction of personal property for scuffing up the lawn where he was laying.
It's absolutely the case that prosecutors will feel that a case isn't going their way and so they retreat to a lesser included offense (that's the "real" name of it). And like I said, defendants will do the same, just plead out to a lesser included halfway through cause it ain't goin their way.

I have no idea what the child abuse thing is. I don't have TV and have tried to stay away from this because it makes me very angry. The truth is that the defense can say whatever it wants. It can (and has) literally looked at the facts of the case and shaped the best possible defense from the fact pattern. Zimmerman has at no point told his story under oath. There is literally nothing, absolutely nothing except conjecture that supports a single word Zimmerman's lawyers have used to support any defense. At all. Period. At no point did Zimmerman de-escalate. That a person can escalate at every point and claim self defense..that's just fucking retarded.

The only true thing we know is that a man racially profiled a minor. He creeped on him. He got out of his car despite being told not to with the intention of confronting. A fight broke out. At some point Trayvon hit the man following him and the man shot him. Those are the only airtight "facts". Anything from Zimmerman is fruit from a poisoned tree of bullshit.

Zimmerman wins by virtue of killing Trayvon and there's something hideously wrong with that. You cannot prove murder but that's manslaughter if ever there was.

Zimmerman supporters are arguing that in a fistfight, a person should be able to execute the other person. That's the reality of the position and it's so incredibly insane that it makes me see red.

And if Trayvon was 17 year old white girl Tracy, nobody on the planet would be defending Zimmerman. But it's not about race.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'd also like to mention that this isn't the end for Zimmerman's legal troubles. Win or lose, he's still got a civil trial, a perjury trial, and a possible lawsuit from his cousin for alleged molestation to look forward to.

Add that onto all of of his past run-ins with the law, and you can draw the conclusion that this guy is an all-around fuck-up.

 
It's absolutely the case that prosecutors will feel that a case isn't going their way and so they retreat to a lesser included offense (that's the "real" name of it). And like I said, defendants will do the same, just plead out to a lesser included halfway through cause it ain't goin their way.

I have no idea what the child abuse thing is. I don't have TV and have tried to stay away from this because it makes me very angry. The truth is that the defense can say whatever it wants. It can (and has) literally looked at the facts of the case and shaped the best possible defense from the fact pattern. Zimmerman has at no point told his story under oath. There is literally nothing, absolutely nothing except conjecture that supports a single word Zimmerman's lawyers have used to support any defense. At all. Period. At no point did Zimmerman de-escalate. That a person can escalate at every point and claim self defense..that's just fucking retarded.

The only true thing we know is that a man racially profiled a minor. He creeped on him. He got out of his car despite being told not to with the intention of confronting. A fight broke out. At some point Trayvon hit the man following him and the man shot him. Those are the only airtight "facts". Anything from Zimmerman is fruit from a poisoned tree of bullshit.

Zimmerman wins by virtue of killing Trayvon and there's something hideously wrong with that. You cannot prove murder but that's manslaughter if ever there was.

Zimmerman supporters are arguing that in a fistfight, a person should be able to execute the other person. That's the reality of the position and it's so incredibly insane that it makes me see red.

And if Trayvon was 17 year old white girl Tracy, nobody on the planet would be defending Zimmerman. But it's not about race.
I agree. Very well put.

 
I'd also like to mention that this isn't the end for Zimmerman's legal troubles. Win or lose, he's still got a civil trial, a perjury trial, and a possible lawsuit from his cousin for alleged molestation to look forward to.

Add that onto all of of his past run-ins with the law, and you can draw the conclusion that this guy is an all-around fuck-up.
This is what happens though. People form an opinion, then feed themselves info to back their opinon through confirmational bias, and you get a completely irritational viewpoint You don't know if anything with Zimmerman is true regarding almost all those things.

The child abuse thing made no sense. It cannot be child abuse if you don't know the person is a child. a 17 yr old could easily be mistaken for 18.

This cannot be based on emotion just facts. Nobody knows what happenend. Only issue is Zimmerman appearing to change his story a few times, but if you really were in self defence and his story did happen, then you most likely will get things confused with such a crazy situation, plus you'd maybe lie a bit to help yourself look better. He may well be a douchebag but that's almost irrelevant to the case.

I fail to see why a guy would get a young kid, beat him up then shoot him. It doesn't make sense. There's a possibility he'll be found guilty of manslaughter if the jury want to try and reach a compromise. But if they go just on the evidence, i don't think they can be 100% assured of convicting him of that. So in the eyes of the law he should be not guilty. Overall i'd say he made a lot of poor decisions, but if i was being beaten up and having my head smashed on the floor by a guy who may then reach for my gun, i would probably have to shoot him also.

 
Every charge encompasses the lower charges as well as circumstances that make it a higher charge. Assault is threatening to kick someone's ass. Battery is kicking someone's ass. Battery, by definition, is also assault but a higher charge because it meets a higher threshold.

Murder 1 is also Murder 2, 3, manslaughter, etc. etc. etc. all the way down the line to assault. Rather than have every imaginable charge brought every single time, the highest charge is brought. If the threshold doesn't look like it's going to be met, the prosecution can also request that lesser charges be considered.

It can work in the defendant's favor as well. They can (and very often do) plead out to a "lesser charge" than the one being brought, even during the trial. This happens even though, by using the logic that this lesser charge thing is bullshit, it shouldn't be available any more.
That tactic is frequently employed by prosecutors in order to assure a verdict in their favor. I'd label it firmly pro-prosecution, not pro-defense.

 
This is what happens though. People form an opinion, then feed themselves info to back their opinon through confirmational bias, and you get a completely irritational viewpoint You don't know if anything with Zimmerman is true regarding almost all those things.

The child abuse thing made no sense. It cannot be child abuse if you don't know the person is a child. a 17 yr old could easily be mistaken for 18.

This cannot be based on emotion just facts. Nobody knows what happenend. Only issue is Zimmerman appearing to change his story a few times, but if you really were in self defence and his story did happen, then you most likely will get things confused with such a crazy situation, plus you'd maybe lie a bit to help yourself look better. He may well be a douchebag but that's almost irrelevant to the case.

I fail to see why a guy would get a young kid, beat him up then shoot him. It doesn't make sense. There's a possibility he'll be found guilty of manslaughter if the jury want to try and reach a compromise. But if they go just on the evidence, i don't think they can be 100% assured of convicting him of that. So in the eyes of the law he should be not guilty. Overall i'd say he made a lot of poor decisions, but if i was being beaten up and having my head smashed on the floor by a guy who may then reach for my gun, i would probably have to shoot him also.
Go and watch the prosecution's closing argument from yesterday, and watch the look on Zimmerman's face when he points out all the contradictions and outright lies from all of his various accounts of what happened last night. Actually hang on, here's a link:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rnv8Q6FCQ8Y[/youtube]

He didn't lie "a bit". He fabricated bullshit story after bullshit story to bolster his self-defense claim.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'd also like to mention that this isn't the end for Zimmerman's legal troubles. Win or lose, he's still got a civil trial, a perjury trial, and a possible lawsuit from his cousin for alleged molestation to look forward to.
If he is acquitted he may be immune to civil lawsuits in Florida, but I don't know for sure.

His wife was a dummy, but it's easier to deal with than Murder 2.

The molestation thing won't go anywhere because they were 1) so close in age 2) it happened so long ago and 3) it's hard to prove and there probably isn't any evidence and 4) he was a minor too. I can be sensitive to these things because I believe one family member falsely accused another family member of mine. The motive was there because the accuser stole valuable items from the accused, and this was a way to keep the accused from pressing charges for theft. Family drama can end up in these situations.

I don't deal with that side of my family, suffice to say.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So did the eye witness and forensic expert lie when they placed TM on top of GZ? Police often get variations in stories from the same witness, even without the stress of a night such as that one. Go with the hard facts here and reasonable doubt is obvious.

 
I think I'm beginning to understand the prosecutions story now...

GZ called the police (who was acting in conspiracy) and asked them to come to the scene right before he chased down TM, and then proceeded to self inflict his many wounds on a tree or a sprinkler box or a branch or something, all while TM stood there screaming bloody murder in horror at the sight. After GZ felt satisfied he was sufficiently bloodied while his victim was paralyzed with terror, he beat TM knuckles with his flashlight, then grappled TM and pulled him on top of him right before shooting him in cold blooded murder.

Oh and I almost forgot he also shouted "'F-ing PUNKS!" as loudly and as shrilly as he could for effect...

Why didn't I see all this before?! The evil, criminal depraved mind that must have taken, and he learned it all in LEO school to boot! The evidence is all right there!!
Am I right?
 
That tactic is frequently employed by prosecutors in order to assure a verdict in their favor. I'd label it firmly pro-prosecution, not pro-defense.
I wouldn't. People plead out (in the real world) because they're guilty. Prosecutors have immense pressure not to lose cases (particularly high profile ones) so a plead out gets them off the hook.

So did the eye witness and forensic expert lie when they placed TM on top of GZ? Police often get variations in stories from the same witness, even without the stress of a night such as that one. Go with the hard facts here and reasonable doubt is obvious.
1. You mean eyewitnesses get it wrong (like the 4 that already substantially changed their mind in this case)? Unpossible!

2. You mean the person paid by the defense to present a defense, even though not a single person with first hand knowledge has sworn testament to those "facts"?

See, this is what the Zimmerman fan bois can't get through their heads. He didn't testify. He wasn't cross examined. He did that because he didn't think he had to to ditch the charge. Fine! Great! America is beautiful that we allow that! We don't hold it against him or anything!

But that also means that not a single thing that happened that night, from the phone call to his "version" of what happened after he got out of the car to the fight to the everyfuckingthing, nothing can be believed on its face because the story is being told by someone who refuses BY fuckING CHOICE not to testify to the story and be cross examined and there is nothing out there that can affirm his story otherwise.

But people don't internalize that and so we get this:

I think I'm beginning to understand the prosecutions story now...

GZ called the police (who was acting in conspiracy) and asked them to come to the scene right before he chased down TM, and then proceeded to self inflict his many wounds on a tree or a sprinkler box or a branch or something, all while TM stood there screaming bloody murder in horror at the sight. After GZ felt satisfied he was sufficiently bloodied while his victim was paralyzed with terror, he beat TM knuckles with his flashlight, then grappled TM and pulled him on top of him right before shooting him in cold blooded murder.

Oh and I almost forgot he also shouted "'F-ing PUNKS!" as loudly and as shrilly as he could for effect...

Why didn't I see all this before?! The evil, criminal depraved mind that must have taken, and he learned it all in LEO school to boot! The evidence is all right there!!
Am I right?
Because pointing out that his refusal to defend himself means its all unsupported bullshit means... that. Obviously.

You can't have it both ways, dicks. You can't scream that GZ shouldn't have to testify and we can't hold it against him and then pretend anything GZ's defense has said is supported by anything more than fucking fairy farts.

Thems the rules. That piece of shit could change it at any time by climbin his dumb ass in that box and letting the people's reps have a shot at his "story".

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Too much bias ^

He didn't testify because his lawyer advised him not to.  Attorney's do what's best to win the case, they don't care for public perception or manipulation of this. 

You make judgements based on your own bias rather than the facts which is why you cannot be taken seriously.

 
Too much bias ^

You make judgements based on your own bias rather than the facts which is why you cannot be taken seriously.
The people who take pains to point out Martin smoked weed, had tattoos, got into fights and had some trouble at school to paint him as a criminal (when this describes any number of 15 year old girls I knew in high school), Are the same people who will ignore Zimmermans history of wife abuse, fighting police, the serious medication he takes with admitted side effects.

They will then accuse people of not being objective while a) accusing Martin of malicious walking at night b) downplaying zimmermans lies.

 
Speaking of being objective how many of the 15 y/o females you knew in high school had to relocate due to being suspended/expelled?

I'm not sure about the quality of your high school educational system but being forced to relocate due to disciplinary action isn't exactly typical.

Also you may not want to admit it but there is a difference between being on legal/prescribed drugs versus illegal drugs. We can debate the stupidity of marijuana being illegal while more harmful substances are legal but it doesn't change the fact that one is bound to have a worse public perception then the other.

 
Too much bias ^

He didn't testify because his lawyer advised him not to. Attorney's do what's best to win the case, they don't care for public perception or manipulation of this.

You make judgements based on your own bias rather than the facts which is why you cannot be taken seriously.
I have a well known bias against people that shoot kids walking home from the grocery store.

Of course his lawyer said that. But there is a flip side to it, which is that (and this is the important part, let's focus on what comes next) no part of his defense has actually be sworn to. Think about that.

Trayvon on top? Nobody has sworn with certainty.

Trayvon hit him? Did someone swear to that? Noooooooope.

Trayvon smashed his head on the ground? Oh right, no, nobody has actually said that's what happened. Just that evidence *could* support it.

I'm a reasonable man. Convince me that there are *facts* that support your position.

 
It's just a lynch mob mentallity.  People on the left seem to go out of their way to be against somebody of this nature.   Gun owner, wants to protect himself and community = racist trash, because he said these punks keep getting away with robbing houses?  I mean really.

Hell someone got fired for guess what, telling the truth?

''

(CNN) -- An employee of the State Attorney's Office who testified that prosecutors withheld evidence from George Zimmerman's defense team has been fired.

Ben Kruidbos had been on paid administrative leave since May 28 from his job as director of information technology for the State Attorney's Office.

He testified before the trial began that Trayvon Martin's cell phone contained images of Martin blowing smoke, marijuana, and deleted text messages regarding a transaction for a firearm.

He received the termination letter, dated July 11, on Friday, the same day jurors in the Zimmerman trial began deliberating. The letter states: "It has come to our attention that you violated numerous State Attorney's Office (SAO) policies and procedures and have engaged in deliberate misconduct that is especially egregious in light of your position."

Through his attorney, Wesley White, Kruidbos informed Zimmerman's defense team that the information existed.

In court, Kruidbos testified he was concerned that he potentially could be held liable if information wasn't shared. He said "all the information is important in the process to ensure its a fair trial."

The defense believes Kruidbos' testimony is relevant because it supports their claim that the state violated rules of discovery.''

Tell me why someone would get fired for this?  WTF

Factually he's got a good case to say he hasn't recieved a fair trial in my opinion.   Every black person seems to take an angry viewpoint without even studying or caring too much for what really happenend.   And a lot of people get fueled into a race debate, and if you're not racist you'll want him found guilty, it's stupid.

Why do the media keep showing a picture of the guy when he was 12?   He was 17 when it happenend yet they keep showing a pic when he was 12, what is that all about.

Why did the tv station air an edited convo of Zimmerman on the phone to the police and exclude where they asked him the color of the person? and just included him saying he's black?    Many people do not care to find out what the full transcript was. They just hear that and go nuts.

People are so insistent on finding holes and reasons against this guy, yet do not care one bit for the multiple incidents of bias and unfair actions towards him.  

A tweet retweeted over 18 thousand times has a picture of a white man, saying when i was 14 i was starting a fire when a neighboorhood watch person found me, brought me to my parents.   If i was black i would have been shot for just walking along eating skittles.  People just want to act like he saw a black kid and tried to start a fight out of racist anger.

Black youths were robbing houses, it was at night and he saw a black youth possibly looking suspicious, maybe looking into cars or houses who knows.  That suspicion is totally legitimate.

He decided to confront this person, possibly wrong move.  And from there we have the crux of the court case.  But it's not about whether the guy is black or white.  It's probable this taller 17 yr old thought he could take this guy, so instead of trying to resolve the situation in a nice way, came out with hoodlike attitude and angered Zimmerman further so they got into a fight.   From there it's a fight, but when he was on top of Zimmerman pummeling his head, fromt here Zimmerman is worried for his own life therefore shot the guy.  That's a classic case of self defence.  If you think he should have just took a beating and hoped the guy would lay off at some point that's up to you.

You can say if GZ didn't follow him it wouldn't have happenend. Sure.  You can make ifs and buts always.  It's sad that it ended that way really.  But i'd say, you can lay the black youths burgling houses as responsible for Zimmerman's mindset. You can label the glorfying culture among black youths of gangsterism, and acting tough, resolving stuff with your fists instead of your mouth.   Just as you can label the reaction, threats on Zimmerman, riots as mindless racism from people who demand that their hood idols are released from prison ''free gsnack!''  for committing attempted murder etc etc.  It's a complete hypocrisy based on a racial agenda.

What most Zimmerman 'sympathizers' realize is that this should be judged on facts, not racial agenda's. And crazily enough it's those people who are accusing others of being racially motivated, when that's simply abstract from the truth.

17 yr olds commit many crimes, in fact 17 i think is the 6th most common age to commit various crimes like assault etc.  So acting like this was some 12 yr old kid is simply not accurate. 

Acting like GZ hated blacks, and had the intention to kill this guy from the get go is just nonsense. But people keep trying to insinuate both of those things.

If GZ really started an altercation, was coming off second best so shot the guy, then sure convict him, but that's all it should be about.

 
I have a well known bias against people that shoot kids walking home from the grocery store.

Of course his lawyer said that. But there is a flip side to it, which is that (and this is the important part, let's focus on what comes next) no part of his defense has actually be sworn to. Think about that.

Trayvon on top? Nobody has sworn with certainty.

Trayvon hit him? Did someone swear to that? Noooooooope.

Trayvon smashed his head on the ground? Oh right, no, nobody has actually said that's what happened. Just that evidence *could* support it.

I'm a reasonable man. Convince me that there are *facts* that support your position.
It is not his job or duty to prove his innocence....

 
It's just a lynch mob mentallity. People on the left seem to go out of their way to be against somebody of this nature. Gun owner, wants to protect himself and community = racist trash, because he said these punks keep getting away with robbing houses? I mean really.

Hell someone got fired for guess what, telling the truth?

''

(CNN) -- An employee of the State Attorney's Office who testified that prosecutors withheld evidence from George Zimmerman's defense team has been fired.

Ben Kruidbos had been on paid administrative leave since May 28 from his job as director of information technology for the State Attorney's Office.

He testified before the trial began that Trayvon Martin's cell phone contained images of Martin blowing smoke, marijuana, and deleted text messages regarding a transaction for a firearm.

He received the termination letter, dated July 11, on Friday, the same day jurors in the Zimmerman trial began deliberating. The letter states: "It has come to our attention that you violated numerous State Attorney's Office (SAO) policies and procedures and have engaged in deliberate misconduct that is especially egregious in light of your position."

Through his attorney, Wesley White, Kruidbos informed Zimmerman's defense team that the information existed.

In court, Kruidbos testified he was concerned that he potentially could be held liable if information wasn't shared. He said "all the information is important in the process to ensure its a fair trial."

The defense believes Kruidbos' testimony is relevant because it supports their claim that the state violated rules of discovery.''

Tell me why someone would get fired for this? WTF

Factually he's got a good case to say he hasn't recieved a fair trial in my opinion. Every black person seems to take an angry viewpoint without even studying or caring too much for what really happenend. And a lot of people get fueled into a race debate, and if you're not racist you'll want him found guilty, it's stupid.

Why do the media keep showing a picture of the guy when he was 12? He was 17 when it happenend yet they keep showing a pic when he was 12, what is that all about.

Why did the tv station air an edited convo of Zimmerman on the phone to the police and exclude where they asked him the color of the person? and just included him saying he's black? Many people do not care to find out what the full transcript was. They just hear that and go nuts.

People are so insistent on finding holes and reasons against this guy, yet do not care one bit for the multiple incidents of bias and unfair actions towards him.

A tweet retweeted over 18 thousand times has a picture of a white man, saying when i was 14 i was starting a fire when a neighboorhood watch person found me, brought me to my parents. If i was black i would have been shot for just walking along eating skittles. People just want to act like he saw a black kid and tried to start a fight out of racist anger.

Black youths were robbing houses, it was at night and he saw a black youth possibly looking suspicious, maybe looking into cars or houses who knows. That suspicion is totally legitimate.

He decided to confront this person, possibly wrong move. And from there we have the crux of the court case. But it's not about whether the guy is black or white. It's probable this taller 17 yr old thought he could take this guy, so instead of trying to resolve the situation in a nice way, came out with hoodlike attitude and angered Zimmerman further so they got into a fight. From there it's a fight, but when he was on top of Zimmerman pummeling his head, fromt here Zimmerman is worried for his own life therefore shot the guy. That's a classic case of self defence. If you think he should have just took a beating and hoped the guy would lay off at some point that's up to you.

You can say if GZ didn't follow him it wouldn't have happenend. Sure. You can make ifs and buts always. It's sad that it ended that way really. But i'd say, you can lay the black youths burgling houses as responsible for Zimmerman's mindset. You can label the glorfying culture among black youths of gangsterism, and acting tough, resolving stuff with your fists instead of your mouth. Just as you can label the reaction, threats on Zimmerman, riots as mindless racism from people who demand that their hood idols are released from prison ''free gsnack!'' for committing attempted murder etc etc. It's a complete hypocrisy based on a racial agenda.

What most Zimmerman 'sympathizers' realize is that this should be judged on facts, not racial agenda's. And crazily enough it's those people who are accusing others of being racially motivated, when that's simply abstract from the truth.

17 yr olds commit many crimes, in fact 17 i think is the 6th most common age to commit various crimes like assault etc. So acting like this was some 12 yr old kid is simply not accurate.

Acting like GZ hated blacks, and had the intention to kill this guy from the get go is just nonsense. But people keep trying to insinuate both of those things.

If GZ really started an altercation, was coming off second best so shot the guy, then sure convict him, but that's all it should be about.
Ironic that you would use the term lynch mob. Honestly you sound exactly like the people you are criticizing, extrapolating facts to suit your personal narrative. We put people away for life all the time on less evidence than this, any they haven't admitted to committing the homicide. They weren't even going to charge this guy until people protested across the country, think about that.

It is not his job or duty to prove his innocence....
Actually in this case I think it is since there is no reasonable doubt that he killed the victim.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ironic that you would use the term lynch mob. Honestly you sound exactly like the people you are criticizing, extrapolating facts to suit your personal narrative. We put people away for life all the time on less evidence than this, any they haven't admitted to committing the homicide. They weren't even going to charge this guy until people protested across the country, think about that.

Actually in this case it is since there is no reasonable doubt that he killed the victim.
Actually no it is never your job to prove your innocence.

The prosecution must provide sufficient evidence that will convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that you are guilty of the charge.

You can't start from he murdered the kid, Ok, defense! prove he had no choice!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Actually no it is never your job to prove your innocence.

The prosecution must provide sufficient evidence that will convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that you are guilty of the charge.

You can't start from he murdered the kid, Ok, defense! prove he had no choice!
It's more of a case of "I stalked and shot this kid, but here's why it's not murder..."

 
Update: Jurors are asking questions for clarification on the instructions for manslaughter.

- From the sound of things, the jurors want manslaughter explained to them in layman's terms. The attorneys are trying to agree on the wording to send back to them.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
My fear is that they believe manslaughter is only a little bit of prison time and believe they have to convict him on something. One legal guy I've been following says that because of enhancements, he could get more time for manslaughter than murder 2.

At the end of the day, if they believe it was self-defense and they follow the letter of the law, they cannot convict him of either murder 2 or manslaughter.

That being said, I think they can do whatever they want.
 
bread's done
Back
Top