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

[TerryMathews]

A. Judge. Mad. At. Getting. Conned. Should. Show. It!
More. Appropriate. Would. Be. No. Bail!

And. That's. Why. He. Was. Removed.

 

[spidey07]

WOW!!! I realllly LIKE your logic, an innocent person must prove it by running home and hiding, while a guilty one will not. Standing your ground is a sign of ?guilt? Logic where forth arth thou?

The punch to break nose is standing ground to eliminate the threat is ok.

The ground and pound, bashing of the head into concrete is not.

That is a forcible felony. One can expect to get shot if they do that. The victim is perfectly lawfully allowed to shoot once that happens.

There is eye witnesses, forensics to prove that happened.

 

[HumblePie]

WOW!!! I realllly LIKE your logic, an innocent person must prove it by running home and hiding, while a guilty one will not. Standing your ground is a sign of ?guilt? Logic where forth arth thou?

To nitpick, "Wherefore art thou"...

"I do not think it means what you think it means" to paraphrase another priceless work of entertainment.

Try googling to see what that means and let us know when you've completed freshman English in high school. It's one thing to fat finger a misspelling. It's another to completely use the wrong phrase.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

So, let's get this straight.

The bond revocation order was the order that was used to send GZ back to jail.

The order setting bail was the order which set the new bail at 1,000,000.

The motion to disqualify Judge Lester was the motion filed by MOM.

Which action of the bond revocation order do u think was unfair? Do you believe the judge shouldn't have been concerned that GZ lied about the money he had available and hiding his current passport (having given to the court an older passport that was reported lost). You think it was unfair to order GZ to turn himself in, to figure out the facts and then subsequently give him 1,000,000 bond which he paid in less than 24 hours? Pls. which is unfair or showed bias on Lesters part?

His little comments and antics CLEARLY showed bias... Again, you need to take off the blinders and stop looking at this as "raging white hulk racist killed young black toddler child in cold blooded murder"

No kidding... It's blatantly obvious how biased he was. You and the rest of the crew are just a bunch of emotional idiots on a public forum, but a judge should be better than that.

 

[lotus503]

His little comments and antics CLEARLY showed bias... Again, you need to take off the blinders and stop looking at this as "raging white hulk racist killed young black toddler child in cold blooded murder"

No kidding... It's blatantly obvious how biased he was. You and the rest of the crew are just a bunch of emotional idiots on a public forum, but a judge should be better than that.

Biased because Zimmerman and his wife tried to deceive the court. Have no fear by all accounts Lester was a pushover compared to the new judge.

Who btw is the judge in zimmermans wife's case.

 

[Geosurface]

Anti-Z folk:

Just answer me this one question clearly and concisely. It's a simple one.

If every single thing George Zimmerman says happened that night is true, did he have the right to shoot Trayvon Martin?

 

[lotus503]

Anti-Z folk:

Just answer me this one question clearly and concisely. It's a simple one.

If every single thing George Zimmerman says happened that night is true, did he have the right to shoot Trayvon Martin?

Yes he would have been within his right to defend himself. Still have to consider any potentially negligence leading up to it, but yeah if he was literally beaten for that long screaming for help he would have been within his right.


Let me ask you a question.

If Zimmerman is lying and went after Martin south of the T, Do you think he committed a crime?

 

[Geosurface]

If Zimmerman is lying and went after Martin south of the T, Do you think he committed a crime?

Yes, obstruction of a police investigation and lying to police are crimes right?

Prior to interacting with detectives? No.

 

[lotus503]

Yes, obstruction of a police investigation and lying to police are crimes right?

Prior to interacting with detectives? No.

That's a fundamental disagreement.
I think at any point prior to the shot Zimmerman is the aggressor and he loses his right to claim self defense.

Frankly I think that's what happened and why his story has so many inconsistencies. I do admit evidence of this is light and likely unprovable given what we know.

There was a point where I felt bad for Zimmerman after reading the Reuters piece. However his lies and deception paired with serious unanswered questions. (why was the body 30ft south of where Zimmerman was punched and went down?), has caused me to doubt his version. Either the state can prove its case or they can't. Just going to have to wait and see.

 

[lotus503]

Yes, obstruction of a police investigation and lying to police are crimes right?

Prior to interacting with detectives? No.

Just want to add, whatever the outcome there is going to be a lot of disappointed people. If he is convicted some folks will feel he was railroaded. If he is not convicted people will blame racism or the laws themselves.

Personally I have no expectation and won't be disappointed regardless.

This case has highlighted some of the sheer stupidity on both sides of the fence and what's wrong with this country. There is a small shrinking middle of rational human-beings, my only solace is that people who post online are a really small fraction of society, and not a true reflection.

Then I go to Walmart and think we're fucked again

 

[Geosurface]

For discussion's sake let's say every single thing about what happened he has recounted is 100% true except that, as you suspect, he leaves out the part where, after being decked and falling to the ground at the "T" he gets upset, gets to his feet, and goes after Trayvon to try to fight back or detain him, or without knowing clearly what he intends to do. He's mad he got his nose broken, etc.

Now at this point, both parties think they're in the right maybe? Or maybe Trayvon is operating on a different sort of understanding of what's acceptable... less based on the law and more based on the way high school kids, and especially delinquents think. They're on different wavelengths. In all likelihood, Trayvon had already broken the law when he punched GZ at this point. However, what happens next seems to be very clearly him breaking the law. Big time.

Even if GZ tried to grab his arm, take a retaliatory swing at Trayvon, or whatever... nothing can justify getting on top of GZ and beating his head on concrete, and holding him down as he screams for mercy. According to the law, and common sense, and morality, that's wrong. In my opinion, everything that lead up to that becomes almost irrelevant. If I run up to a guy in a bar and tell him his mother's a fat ho, his wife's an ugly bitch, and his dick is an inch long.... then every other insult I can think of including telling him he's a little bitch who can't fight for shit and I'm not the slightest bit afraid of him, and I could beat his pussy ass, then I slap him in the face... or even punch him, yea he has the right to fight back. He has the right to punch me back. He doesn't have the right to hold me down and slam my head on the ground over and over, as I assume a position of not fighting back at all, in any way, and scream for mercy and help for a prolonged period. That's beyond the realm of reasonable, acceptable, or legal.

So in the end, maybe your hunch is right. Maybe GZ did pick himself up and go after Trayvon in anger. Maybe he took a swing and missed... maybe maybe maybe. But when it's all said and done, it is just that, your hunch. And there's no evidence for it. All indications are that no such evidence is forthcoming. Even if it were true, it wouldn't change the legality of self-defense once it got to the point it got to.

The only thing I can think of that could put GZ firmly in the wrong, and make this murder, is if GZ drew his weapon after the punch, and went after Trayvon with it drawn, and then Trayvon had a right obviously to fight him for control of the gun. That might change the situation dramatically... though I'm not positive, I mean does GZ have to lay there and allow Trayvon to gain control of his gun and kill him if he wishes because he made the legal error of drawing the weapon previously? I'm not sure on the law there, but I doubt it. That scenario would certainly change my FEELINGS about it somewhat.

But again, no evidence that gun was drawn or even obviously present from TM's POV prior to the shot or just before it.

TM didn't call out to John or the neighbors at large with "this guy's got a gun!" we hear one person, CLEARLY GZ's voice, screaming for help and mercy. We hear no other voice.

So, I'm sorry but your hunchs and what ifs are not good enough for me to be okay with a man going to prison for years, and if such hunchs and what ifs from Angela Corey prove to be enough to convince some jurors that he should spend decades in prison, then may they rot in hell for their stupidity.

Then I go to Walmart and think we're fucked again

We are fucked. Enjoy it while it lasts.

 

[Geosurface]

I mean tell me honestly, if he did run after Trayvon for some period of time, or grab his arm, or anything like that... do you really think that means he then has to lay there and accept whatever physical violence Trayvon decides to do to him, for any period of time, or that he needs to permit Trayvon to get his gun from his holster, or that he loses the right to defend his life because of any of that?

Frankly I think it'd be fairly understandable to try to punch someone back or to go after them after they'd broken your nose. I don't personally think that happened, but if it did how does it mean GZ now has to lay there and die?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Tell me why Trayvon had to deviate from anything he was doing? Or are you incapable?

He did not have to deviate from anything.

Same opinions. No facts.

You asked a question; I answered it - the first line.

How can you want facts when you ask for an opinion; What facts are needed?

 

[EagleKeeper]

What do words matter if there is no bias in your intent and in the actions. That seems like the perfect example of beng impartial. Beleiving someone is a crook, yet delivering rulings that you would deliver to someone you believed is innocent as an angel.

Again, find me a ruling where the outcome(the ruling) was unfair to GZ.

What did the purpose of adding restrictions on GZ have on the second bond hearing.

GZ had already demonstrated he was not a flight risk.

Increase the bond because of the finances.

Anything else becomes a display of additional punitive actions - which the judge is not supposed to do.
His comments on the bond also were improper.
both demonstrated that he was upset/pissed/etc at Zimmerman.

That now demonstrates a bias by the judge who is supposed to be neutral.

That is why the appeals booted him.

Little things on their own might slide;
However, the appeals stated that taken together raised a concern.

 

[EagleKeeper]

WOW!!! I realllly LIKE your logic, an innocent person must prove it by running home and hiding, while a guilty one will not. Standing your ground is a sign of ?guilt? Logic where forth arth thou?

No where did I state that an innocent one should run home.

you are trying to twist the post words around.

You might as well not quote then; the quote fails you in support. Otherwise highlight where I stated that he had to run home.

 

[alkemyst]

Yes, obstruction of a police investigation and lying to police are crimes right?

Prior to interacting with detectives? No.

Lying to the police is not illegal unless you are 1) filing out a police report or 2) responding in a sworn affidavit. There are probably a few more exceptions, but if stopped walking roadside and asked for an ID, it is not a crime to say you don't have any ID nor are your required to identify yourself unless you are being accused of a crime or being arrested.

 

[spidey07]

That's a fundamental disagreement.
I think at any point prior to the shot Zimmerman is the aggressor and he loses his right to claim self defense.

Frankly I think that's what happened and why his story has so many inconsistencies. I do admit evidence of this is light and likely unprovable given what we know.

There was a point where I felt bad for Zimmerman after reading the Reuters piece. However his lies and deception paired with serious unanswered questions. (why was the body 30ft south of where Zimmerman was punched and went down?), has caused me to doubt his version. Either the state can prove its case or they can't. Just going to have to wait and see.

The initial aggressor can use deadly force in self defense when he is unable to retreat after being beaten about the head, clearly indicating wanting to disengage with his attacker mounting him.

This has been explained to you specifically at least 100 times, you're continuing to ignore the law, facts and truth. You are totally wrong on this point, how you feel is irrelevant, the law is VERY clear that initial aggressor doesn't lose his right to self defense.

So even IF zimmerman was initial aggressor (no evidence of this at all, admitted to by prosecution), he still can shoot in self defense by the events proven and described by an eye witness and forensics that show martin on top/restraining zimmerman after beating him about the head causing multiple head injuries front and back.

 

[Tom]

Anti-Z folk:

Just answer me this one question clearly and concisely. It's a simple one.

If every single thing George Zimmerman says happened that night is true, did he have the right to shoot Trayvon Martin?

I think there's two points that make it impossible to say.

1. The circumstances that led to their encounter could change the applicability of the statutes related to self-defense in a couple of ways. 1. Which self-defense statute applies ? There's more than one and they aren't the same. 2. A jury's decision as to how the circumstances might preclude self-defense as a reasonable possibility.

2. Assuming Zimmerman was telling the truth and did fear for his life, was that what a reasonable person would have thought ? Given the minor injuries, his undeniable mistakes and/or over-reactions, I think its an open question to be decided by a jury.

Now, that ignores the high beyond a reasonably doubt standard, add that to the equation and maybe the uncertainty is in his favor.

 

[airdata]

Anti-Z folk:

Just answer me this one question clearly and concisely. It's a simple one.

If every single thing George Zimmerman says happened that night is true, did he have the right to shoot Trayvon Martin?

Not if he didn't exhaust all means to end the altercation without killing him... no.

Even if we didn't have him on recording calling him a fucking punk and clearly leaving his vehicle to go after him, we'd still have the fact that he didn't exhaust all means to end the altercation before deciding that murder was the best option.

That's what it comes down to. We have a dead body, and the killer who's proven to have questionable judgement and morals claiming self defense.

Usually you have to prove somebody killed somebody... we already know he did...all that's left is figuring out if he had to kill him and no he didn't.

 

[emperus]

What did the purpose of adding restrictions on GZ have on the second bond hearing.

GZ had already demonstrated he was not a flight risk.

Increase the bond because of the finances.

Anything else becomes a display of additional punitive actions - which the judge is not supposed to do.
His comments on the bond also were improper.
both demonstrated that he was upset/pissed/etc at Zimmerman.

That now demonstrates a bias by the judge who is supposed to be neutral.

That is why the appeals booted him.

Little things on their own might slide;
However, the appeals stated that taken together raised a concern.

This is where you break from reality.

You should probably re-listen to the jailhouse tapes. GZ has shown a propensity to lie and he colluded with his wife to mislead the court about his finances even speaking in code on the tapes. He and his wife knowingly hid his active current passport and a lot of cash in a safe deposit box while relinguishing to the court and older passport. Whether his intent was to flee or not, what part of that does not scream flight risk to you?

I mean, your bias is overwhelming the part of your brain that allows reasonable thught. If this were any other person, we wouldn't even be debating this. Is he not a flight risk until he decides to flee? I bet even then you'd come up with some innocent defense.

But as usual, you and your type live in some alternate universe devoid of fact and reason. All the things the rest of us have to deal with on a daily basis.

 

[airdata]

Originally Posted by EagleKeeper
What did the purpose of adding restrictions on GZ have on the second bond hearing.

GZ had already demonstrated he was not a flight risk.

Actually they found an undisclosed passport in a bank I believe. Undisclosed meaning he didn't give it up meaning he was keeping it in case he decided to flee meaning yes.. he was a potential flight risk.

 

[emperus]

Btw, this is the dissenting opinion in the 2-1 appeals ruling.

EVANDER, J., dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. As the majority correctly observes, adverse rulings are not, in and of themselves, sufficient to require the granting of a motion to disqualify. Although the trial court’s order clearly manifested an exceedingly strong belief by the trial judge that Zimmerman had "flouted" and "tried to manipulate" the system, I do not believe the order "crossed the line" so as to require the granting of his motion

.

 

[airdata]

Lying to the police is not illegal unless you are 1) filing out a police report or 2) responding in a sworn affidavit. There are probably a few more exceptions, but if stopped walking roadside and asked for an ID, it is not a crime to say you don't have any ID nor are your required to identify yourself unless you are being accused of a crime or being arrested.

LOL...

This is the level of idiot we're dealing with here.. Even if Zimmerman is lying, people like Alkemyst are there to defend his lies LOL.

b..b...b...but it's not illegal!

 

[emperus]

Lying to the police is not illegal unless you are 1) filing out a police report or 2) responding in a sworn affidavit. There are probably a few more exceptions, but if stopped walking roadside and asked for an ID, it is not a crime to say you don't have any ID nor are your required to identify yourself unless you are being accused of a crime or being arrested.

If you lie to a police officer during an investigation. You may be charged with obstruction of justice.

 

[Geosurface]

Zimmerman should've left the country before he was charged.