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

[spidey07]

Number 2 makes the most sense.

Do you have any evidence Zimmerman commuted a crime?

Anything? Simething. A single shred?

No.

 

[OCNewbie]

Given that fact, which is more logical ?

1. he used the gun to defend himself, by drawing it, while he followed or pursued a "criminal" and when the confrontation occured..

or

2. he waited until he was on his back near death and then decided to defend himself ?

Forget about his statement, which of these alternatives makes sense ?

How many shots were fired? One

That shot, at what distance was it fired from?

Is there any indication that there was an extended (1+ minute) physical struggle before the shot was fired? Yes

Does that fact seem to contradict that a loaded firearm without a safety was likely being struggled for for that extended period of time (1+ minute)? Yes

Were there any scratches, or damage to GZ's hands indicating TM was frantically fighting GZ's hands for GZ's gun? Knowing that TM's life was at stake if he didn't gain control of the weapon, the fight would have been frantic. There were no injuries to GZ's hands.

Did TM have an opportunity to announce to someone that GZ had a weapon if TM knew about that? Yes, potentially twice. Once, if he was on the phone with DeeDee when he and GZ encountered each other on foot. And twice, when "John" was within yelling distance of both of them. TM could have yelled out for help, or said something about a gun, but neither of those "witnesses" have described such comments.

So, what exactly indicates, or makes it likely that GZ's gun was actually brandished before the single shot was fired?

 

[spidey07]

The affidavit mentions nothing about a gun drawn before the shot not is there any evidence of such.

Therefore false.

 

[QueBert]

GZ's hands don't come out unscathed when another person is doing everything in their power, fighting for their life, trying to get the gun out of his hands for 40-45 seconds.

But Trayvons hands coming out unscathed after raining down MMA style blows for 45 seconds makes sense to you right?

 

[OCNewbie]

But Trayvons hands coming out unscathed after raining down MMA style blows for 45 seconds makes sense to you right?

First off, TM's hands weren't unscathed. He had some sort of injury (abrasion, scratch, or something) to one of his fingers, the outside of his hand, which is consistent with an offensive, punching wound. Secondly, nobody knows the exact nature of the punches TM threw, or how many there were, or where his blows landed, but it's not like he was punching a brick wall, or a chain-link fence, or that every single one of his blows was against GZ's skull, or whatever. There isn't enough information about what exactly TM was doing to say whether or not his hands should have looked like hamburger.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Is there any limit to the appetite you guys have for wasting your time making the same arguments over and over, ad nauseum? This thread has long since devolved into an endless Mobius strip of arguments which nobody involved seems to seriously believe will be entertained, much less agreed with, by anyone else. It seems like a colossal waste of time. I would guess there are multiple members of this thread (particularly Geo) who have literally devoted hundreds of hours to this nonsense despite having no personal stake whatsoever in this case.

Seriously, what is the point?

 

[TerryMathews]

Except you have no idea what GZ was actually doing or trying to do, you just take his word for it. Glad you never question anybody's word...I've got a great car I'd like to sell you!!

His word + the witnesses words + the physical evidence. You guys always gloss over that part.

There is nothing beyond rank speculation to suggest that Zimmerman brandished his weapon.

Just like the prosecution can't introduce "head wound? Aliens!", they also cannot introduce brandishing without some legal basis.

 

[OCNewbie]

Is there any limit to the appetite you guys have to waste your time making the same arguments over and over, ad nauseum? This thread has long since devolved into an endless Mobius strip of arguments which nobody involved seems to seriously believe will be entertained, much less agreed with, by anyone else. It seems like a colossal waste of time. I would guess there are multiple members of this thread (particularly Geo) who have literally devoted hundreds of hours to this nonsense. Seriously, what is the point?

Well, we're obviously getting something out of it. It may not have anything to do with the case. Maybe we just like arguing, debating (if it can be called that), etc. I avoid P&N like the plague, generally, so this is one of the few outlets I have to express my opinion about something like this.

You're a lawyer, so you have other avenues to seek out such interests =P

 

[QueBert]

His word + the witnesses words + the physical evidence. You guys always gloss over that part.

There is nothing beyond rank speculation to suggest that Zimmerman brandished his weapon.

Just like the prosecution can't introduce "head wound? Aliens!", they also cannot introduce brandishing without some legal basis.

His word = willing to do and say anything to save his ass
witnesses = say a PORTION of what happened.

How it ended's obvious, nobody will dispute what happened. But what the new witnessses saw don't account for what happened, just how it ended. I work at a liquor store, a person just won $100 on a scratcher. The 2 people behind them were like "woooah nice!" I told them "the person bought at least $500 in tickets this month and this is the 1st time they won anything over a few bucks" This changed their view of what they thought they had seen greatly.

 

[Geosurface]

For example, you don't know what Zimmerman did, the idea you present that he didn't pursue Martin, what is that based on ?

I base my conditional belief that George Zimmerman didn't "pursue" Martin (where "pursue" in this instance is understood to specifically imply an intent to close the distance, and have direct contact with, as opposed to just sort of "tailing" him from a distance) on these factors:

1.) First and weakest, that GZ says he didn't.

2.) Secondly, and probably strongest, I base it on how much additional phone time he spent with the dispatch operator after the last time he saw TM, the fact that he agreed to stop following, and that after this agreement a very long period of time went by, during all of which he had no idea where Martin was at. This was also more than enough time for Martin to arrive home, or at least get very, very far from where he ended up laying dead. So this to me indicates strongly that Martin either hid, or what I believe, actually got home and decided to go back and teach GZ a lesson for keeping tabs on him.

3.) GZ's understanding of the law and how unwise it would be to brandish or attempt to assault someone, especially with cops en route and neighbors in every house around to witness such behavior. He was a criminal justice student and would be more aware than the average person of how illegal it was, what's more he'd gone through CCW classes. He would know that brandishing, drawing his weapon and then pursing someone in the dark after the police had just asked him to cease anything that could be considered "following" it would require levels of brazenness, disregard for the law, disregard for the advice he'd just been given, and foolhardiness on account of the fact that police were on their way... that I just don't BUY GZ having. I don't buy it. I don't see him delving that deeply into illegal, stupid behavior over someone he didn't even think rose to the level of needing to call the emergency number on.

4.) GZ's posture toward previous suspicious characters, including the quote "I don't want to approach him personally" - this ties in with something else, I just simply don't think GZ is brave enough to go after someone if he thought that person weren't long gone or running with no chance of stopping running or an encounter taking place. With or without a gun, I just don't think GZ is that ballsy. Doesn't strike me that way.

5.) Again about cops being on their way and him knowing the law, who would be so careless with his own future as to call cops, summon them to a situation, and then start performing huge transgressions against the law in that location?

I'm prepared to agree that GZ getting out of his car and walking in the same direction a 6'3" black dude in a dark hoodie who was doing gangsta intimidations with his hand at his waistband, acting drugged up, and scoping houses for burglary opportunities, was not the wisest move.

It was a bit foolish, yea.

I think he didn't identify himself to TM through the window of his car for 2 reasons btw: Being cowardly, and being distracted by talking to the operator on the phone. If he hadn't been on the phone I think there's a strong chance he would've talked to TM at the point where TM comes up to his window (interestingly, there is a moment on the NEN call when you can hear Trayvon, very faintly, asking what GZ's deal is or something similar from outside of the car)

It was far, far lower on the foolishness spectrum than whipping his gun out and walking down a dark path, or trying to physically apprehend someone. I don't buy it.

Some of my reasons are weaker than others, my strongest reason is the time and distance involved, and the fact that GZ didn't know where TM was for so long on the phone.

 

[TerryMathews]

His word = willing to do and say anything to save his ass
witnesses = say a PORTION of what happened.

How it ended's obvious, nobody will dispute what happened. But what the new witnessses saw don't account for what happened, just how it ended. I work at a liquor store, a person just won $100 on a scratcher. The 2 people behind them were like "woooah nice!" I told them "the person bought at least $500 in tickets this month and this is the 1st time they won anything over a few bucks" This changed their view of what they thought they had seen greatly.

Ok, it's fine you think something else happened. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Can you prove something else happened? Right now, that's the sticking point.

 

[soundforbjt]

Ok, it's fine you think something else happened. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Can you prove something else happened? Right now, that's the sticking point.

There's lots of plausible ways this could play out while following the evidence, all you have to do is forget Z's various accounts of how it happened and look for other scenarios that could fit. GZ couldn't (if he was required to) prove his account beyond a shadow of doubt.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Ok, it's fine you think something else happened. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Can you prove something else happened? Right now, that's the sticking point.

Based on what evidence and witness statements that are available at this time (I doubt anything else will come out at this point) the prosecution doesn't have anything that disproves self defense or that GZ couldn't have reasonably felt he was in imminent danger when he shot TM. I place 3 to 2 odds that this case will be dismissed during the evidentiary (immunity) hearing.

 

[Geosurface]

I agree that the odds are against GZ being convicted, but based on the evidence and the law he shouldn't have even been charged to begin with.

And they went and got the least ethical prosecutor they could find, expressly for the purpose of coming in, ignoring the police chief, and rightful prosecutor, and filing charges anyway. Because of the threat of looking bad, and riots. No other reason.

A justice system that corrupt, and that compromised, can in no way be counted upon to suddenly start following the law, doing the right thing, or correct it's course.

The best hope GZ has is that there is now sufficient daylight on this whole thing that the balls required to keep persecuting a clearly innocent man will shrivel up. Unfortunately, as we've increasingly seen in politics and in our society in general, shame is becoming a rare commodity. Behaviors which would have once guaranteed a public figure living the rest of their days in obscurity and avoiding the public eye, are now brushed aside, and the career continues.

The audacity to break the law and bend the rules and flout the truth right in our faces is growing stronger, and stronger. GZ had better pray to his non-existent god that his case is happening prior to that process getting quite far enough along to screw him completely. It will be a near thing.

 

[OCNewbie]

There's lots of plausible ways this could play out while following the evidence, all you have to do is forget Z's various accounts of how it happened and look for other scenarios that could fit. GZ couldn't (if he was required to) prove his account beyond a shadow of doubt.

As long as those "plausible" scenarios are provable, then you'll have a leg to stand on.

 

[soundforbjt]

As long as those "plausible" scenarios are provable, then you'll have a leg to stand on.

As provable as GZ's is (if proof was required from him).

 

[OCNewbie]

As provable as GZ's is (if proof was required from him).

Exactly... IF proof was required for him, which it is not.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
I agree given what we know now the affidavit was weaksauce, but that's now after months of evidence or lack of evidence.

And IMO that's a grave problem. They shouldn't be charging someone until they've reviewed all their evidence. It's indefensible to put innocent people in jail (assuming he's innocent or they lack sufficient evidence to determine otherwise), cause them to lose their jobs and go to the expense of bail etc.

Since the police/prosecutors had all the evidence, it's only been released slowly to the defense team, I think they knew exactly what they did, or in this case didn't, have when they charged him. I criticize Angela Corey.

Fern

 

[TerryMathews]

There's lots of plausible ways this could play out while following the evidence, all you have to do is forget Z's various accounts of how it happened and look for other scenarios that could fit. GZ couldn't (if he was required to) prove his account beyond a shadow of doubt.

So basically cut away the BS and if you were prosecuting Zimmerman would go free. The question to you wasn't what do you think happened, it was what can you prove happened: obviously your answer is "nothing."

Luckily Zimmermann is not in an affirmative defense state, so he does not have to prove his story. I know that burns you up. But the law is the law and even if it's changed it's all he will ever be tried under.

The bottom line to this case is that the admitted killer of Trayvon Martin gets to assert that he killed in self defense and does not have to offer direct testimony or evidence to support his story. The burden is solely on the state to come up with a theory that substantiates murder 2 and then prove it with testimony and evidence.

We have seen a lot of the evidence. I don't know how much is left unreleased at this point but it can't be a lot. Based on what we have seen, I don't see how the state will be able to prove guilt.

Note I'm not saying he's innocent. Im not 100% confident on what happened that night. I do think a substantial part of his story is true but im not sure I believe all of it. Some parts don't make sense.

I wish he was the poster child for self defense. I think if he was, he could've set the race baiters back dramatically in support and influence. Unfortunately he's not.

I don't however buy into the theory that he brandished his PF9. For one thing, at night, Martin would not have recognized it as a gun. I have shot one before. It's tiny, oddly shaped and mostly plastic. You wouldn't use it to hunt down anyone.

To the staunch Martin supporters who believe everything Corey did was on the up and up: why didn't she go to the grand jury? That's the traditional way to charge murderers in Florida.

To me, when the prosecutor is playing games like that it should clue you in to how certain guilt is.

 

[Tom]

Is there any limit to the appetite you guys have for wasting your time making the same arguments over and over, ad nauseum? This thread has long since devolved into an endless Mobius strip of arguments which nobody involved seems to seriously believe will be entertained, much less agreed with, by anyone else. It seems like a colossal waste of time. I would guess there are multiple members of this thread (particularly Geo) who have literally devoted hundreds of hours to this nonsense despite having no personal stake whatsoever in this case.

Seriously, what is the point?

I'm testing keyboards.

 

[Geosurface]

Lotus has always been sort of the vanguard of reasonableness among the Trayvonites and I think what you're seeing him say now is a preview of what all but the most extreme among them will eventually say. I'm not just talking in this thread, I see a lot of Trayvonite nonsense a lot of places. Huffington Post, other forums, comment sections.

It may be during the trial if it comes to that, or after watching the proceedings at an immunity hearing, but I predict we're going to be hearing a lot of "yea you guys turned out to be right but it was just luck. There was no way to know."

But I disagree. John's statement to the local Fox affiliate news station in Sanford was available since the day after the shooting! Meager as that was, it was enough to provide a VERY strong indication to anyone who cared to listen, and absorb that information, that this was a self-defense situation.

Now granted, the national news media tried to pretend that video of John talking to them didn't exist, for months, because it torpedo'd their chosen narrative about this. But among those who are paying close enough attention to routinely discuss this case online, it was known.

 

[TerryMathews]

Lotus has always been sort of the vanguard of reasonableness among the Trayvonites and I think what you're seeing him say now is a preview of what all but the most extreme among them will eventually say. I'm not just talking in this thread, I see a lot of Trayvonite nonsense a lot of places. Huffington Post, other forums, comment sections.

It may be during the trial if it comes to that, or after watching the proceedings at an immunity hearing, but I predict we're going to be hearing a lot of "yea you guys turned out to be right but it was just luck. There was no way to know."

But I disagree. John's statement to the local Fox affiliate news station in Sanford was available since the day after the shooting! Meager as that was, it was enough to provide a VERY strong indication to anyone who cared to listen, and absorb that information, that this was a self-defense situation.

Now granted, the national news media tried to pretend that video of John talking to them didn't exist, for months, because it torpedo'd their chosen narrative about this. But among those who are paying close enough attention to routinely discuss this case online, it was known.

Lol. Don't you know Johns statement doesn't count because he recanted? And he had his fingers crossed behind his back! /sound

 

[OCNewbie]

Lol. Don't you know Johns statement doesn't count because he recanted? And he had his fingers crossed behind his back! /sound

And eyewitness accounts are usually wrong. Especially when they contradict my point of view.

 

[lotus503]

Lotus has always been sort of the vanguard of reasonableness among the Trayvonites and I think what you're seeing him say now is a preview of what all but the most extreme among them will eventually say. I'm not just talking in this thread, I see a lot of Trayvonite nonsense a lot of places. Huffington Post, other forums, comment sections.

It may be during the trial if it comes to that, or after watching the proceedings at an immunity hearing, but I predict we're going to be hearing a lot of "yea you guys turned out to be right but it was just luck. There was no way to know."

But I disagree. John's statement to the local Fox affiliate news station in Sanford was available since the day after the shooting! Meager as that was, it was enough to provide a VERY strong indication to anyone who cared to listen, and absorb that information, that this was a self-defense situation.

Now granted, the national news media tried to pretend that video of John talking to them didn't exist, for months, because it torpedo'd their chosen narrative about this. But among those who are paying close enough attention to routinely discuss this case online, it was known.

I have said since the beginning I have not seen evidence of murder 2, this isn't a new realization, its been my position the entire time.

Where I will concede is that I thought given the charges the state must have had evidence we hadn't seen that warranted the charges filed. Only over a period of time could that was shown to not be the case.

So I pretty much haven't changed my view at all outside of my personal feelings of whether he killed him or not. I have flipped a few times on that piece as new info has come out.

My contention is that anyone who was convinced of legal guilt or innocence before it was all released was wrong. Now that we have most of the states case an actual evaluation of the evidence can be done, prior to that all you had were opinions based on what was released.

So you can say oh yeah some of us knew all along there wasn't evidence of guilt and the state charged him in error, but then you would be no different than those convinced of his innocence prior to all the evidence.


There have been a select few on here that have held to and stuck to the wait and see what comes out for legal judgement.

Ill always feel he was morally wrong in his actions, because as a gun owner I know what he did was outside common sense, was stupid and his actions did contribute to Martins death. But I don't force my moral thoughts on his legal guilt or innocence.

 

[lotus503]

Lol. Don't you know Johns statement doesn't count because he recanted? And he had his fingers crossed behind his back! /sound

Lol thats total rubbish, I never discounted John's statements, I was just interested in what got them to the point they were at when he saw them.

Keep in mind the meme was he was beating him for over a minute, Johns recant help silence that meme a bit. but never took away from the fact Martin was on top when he saw him moments before the shot was fired.