George Zimmerman Trial

[NCRAVEN]

Yes, the people who are trying to argue Zimmerman should have been found guilty often state he "initiated" everything.

And as for "opinions," same goes with whether Aaron Hernandez is guilty, or OJ, or Casey Anthony, etc.



Not sure what you are getting at with Jeantel, I think it is pretty plain she was not credible, though that doesn't mean some or all of what she said did not actually happen.

As for Martin hiding and appearing when Zimmerman came back, yeah that is a possibility, but like you said that supports Zimmerman's point, and certainly does not make any headway trying to prove Zimmerman started the confrontation.



I agree with everything here except the part about changes to the law. Stand Your Ground had nothing to do with this case. It wasn't used as a defense. Standard self-defense was used and that defense exists in every state, and has in some form existed for 400 years in most societies. And it exists for a reason. I cannot easily see a change to the law in terms of that defense, that could satisfy the common sense protection it allows, while preventing a tragedy like this one from occurring. Some way to raise the "reasonableness" of fear hurdle maybe, but that hurdle is already subjective. I don't know.

This was a very tragic event, and it is a shame it happened. And I and most everyone feels terrible for Trayvon's parents. And I and some people are upset the prosecution, and media, and race-hustlers made the case out to be something it wasn't. I think the manufactured racial overtones have caused some people to look at the case and evidence much differently than they would otherwise. I am not one of them, I would feel the same way if both parties were white, both black, one purple the other green, etc.

I also would argue, but not to start trouble or debate, just to simply state my perception based on looking at other message boards/threads on other sites, that the majority of people distorting the factual record or evidence (or lack thereof) and ignoring (willfully at times) the letter of the law to argue their side are people who are/were calling for a clear guilty verdict. Some admittedly doing it, saying the law is not as important as their abstract feeling of 'justice,' etc.

The spectacle of the trial and its aftereffects are a fairly sad indictment of our society, imo.

:word

[NCRAVEN]

Our discussion started with I said I would do if I was followed. Of course Trayvons scenario is relevant here, but I'm talking generally...my point in my statement of some laws was that that this law in particular, in reality allows for a TON of grey area that I feel you are making out to simply be black or white.

You said my "punch first" reaction dictates the allowance of deadly force. Now I assume because of the "it's not a crime to follow someone and be somewhere where both of us are allowed to be".

I gave you a scenario where again, no crime was committed and you said retaliation is justified do to reasonable fear.

So I clarified my statement to tell you that based on my own as well as others in this city's experiences, having someone following you abso-freaking-lutley a cause for considerable reasonable fear. To act like there isn't, is just ignoring reality here. There are teenagers and even adults getting abducted...held for ransom etc....hell Cal Ripken's mother was kidnapped. There are people who are followed to their homes and accosted at gunpoint at their front door. Men and women, kids and adults.

It has been my experience...and many others I know, that being followed equals incredible fear and danger. And that is where I am coming from with my original statement...I would consider it self defense if someone followed me and there was a confrontation and I threw the first punch.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

This is all well and good. And I don't really disagree with much maybe just a degree of what you're stating but it's not worth arguing over.

The thing is though, are we talking about this scenario or the ones you want to bring up. Because they are different. mixing the two just isn't going to work.

[Dade]

Theres still a good many people that state their opinion like its fact about who initiated. Regardless if you feel GZor TM did, i can assure you that you do not know for certain and its merely opinion.

Im not sure why TM running away but not getting home instantly means he wanted confrontation being the most likely scenario, when running followed by hiding is pretty typical. That also coincides with either scenario, matching Zimmermans or that he hid and feeling was clear went on his way before being confronted. I also am not sure how jeantel's testimony saying he was home can be used but her saying she heard somebody start the confrontation with TM not. Shes either credible and that speaks volumes or shes not and it doesnt matter.

Ultimately this was the right outcome. Doesnt mean he was innocent, certainly doesnt mean hes actually guilty and the system is broke. Just means you couldnt prove it one way or another and thats why the system "worked". If we locked up people solely based on hunches id say thats a greater injustice. I still feel theres more to the story but i do feel florida is going to be forced to make changes to this law now. In a scenario where two people fear for their lives its basically the wild west and last man standing can legally go free, which im not saying was the verdict here, but this case certainly shined light on that possible outcome.

Thank you for explaining this better than I could. My last post in this thread.

[jonboy79]

Theres still a good many people that state their opinion like its fact about who initiated. Regardless if you feel GZor TM did, i can assure you that you do not know for certain and its merely opinion.

Im not sure why TM running away but not getting home instantly means he wanted confrontation being the most likely scenario, when running followed by hiding is pretty typical. That also coincides with either scenario, matching Zimmermans or that he hid and feeling was clear went on his way before being confronted. I also am not sure how jeantel's testimony saying he was home can be used but her saying she heard somebody start the confrontation with TM not. Shes either credible and that speaks volumes or shes not and it doesnt matter.

Ultimately this was the right outcome. Doesnt mean he was innocent, certainly doesnt mean hes actually guilty and the system is broke. Just means you couldnt prove it one way or another and thats why the system "worked". If we locked up people solely based on hunches id say thats a greater injustice. I still feel theres more to the story but i do feel florida is going to be forced to make changes to this law now. In a scenario where two people fear for their lives its basically the wild west and last man standing can legally go free, which im not saying was the verdict here, but this case certainly shined light on that possible outcome.

First of all, as an aside, I think Haloti92 did a very good job of following up this post.
BUut I wanted to quote your post instead. I think this post is very strong. From someone with whom I didn't typically agree much with on this case prior to decision, we came to the same end "feelings". IT "sort of" seems like Trayvon came back and initiated the confrontation, but it is far from clear. IT is also immaterial. What matters, is if you believe that it was AT ALL possible that Trayvon was "ground and pounding " Zim from the mount position. IF you believe that to be credible at all, and it does not defy eye witness testimony or forensic evidence then a Not Guilty verdict was the only possibility.

I also agree with Haloti, that the "laws that need to be changed" basically boils down to the "hurdle" for self defense being set a bit higher. I think a provision needs to be in place that if you are the aggressor in a situation, you cannot later claim self defense. I don't know that in this case that would have changed anything, as we didn't have enough evidence to ascertain that Zim was the aggressor, but it is a bit of verbiage that should be changed. I'm also not sure how I feel about someone being able to follow someone for no apparent reason either.

[Raveninwoodlawn]

This is all well and good. And I don't really disagree with much maybe just a degree of what you're stating but it's not worth arguing over.

The thing is though, are we talking about this scenario or the ones you want to bring up. Because they are different. mixing the two just isn't going to work.

Nobody knows how truly different the scenarios are.

You can say that you (or myself) "think" or "believe" Trayvons scenario played out...we both seem to have fundamentally different views on the likelihood of one vision or the other.

My whole, entire argument stems from this.

I consider being followed in the dark by a complete stranger to be a situation where a person has a right to feel reasonable fear.

Period.

When I said that is how I felt and would slug the stranger if we came face to face, you told me point blank that I am the one who committed a crime and opened myself up for deadly force. By saying that, you are implying that I or anyone else shouldn't feel reasonable fear but if i did, the only recourse is to basically run home as fast as I can or call 911 and pray that the police get to me before the person following me can...and I have a huge problem with that.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Raveninwoodlawn]

I also agree with Haloti, that the "laws that need to be changed" basically boils down to the "hurdle" for self defense being set a bit higher. I think a provision needs to be in place that if you are the aggressor in a situation, you cannot later claim self defense. I don't know that in this case that would have changed anything, as we didn't have enough evidence to ascertain that Zim was the aggressor, but it is a bit of verbiage that should be changed. I'm also not sure how I feel about someone being able to follow someone for no apparent reason either.

Something I completely and totally agree with.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[JAB1985]

Yes, the people who are trying to argue Zimmerman should have been found guilty often state he "initiated" everything.

And as for "opinions," same goes with whether Aaron Hernandez is guilty, or OJ, or Casey Anthony, etc.

I was referring to the final confrontation in general, not the events leasing up to it.

Not sure what you are getting at with Jeantel, I think it is pretty plain she was not credible, though that doesn't mean some or all of what she said did not actually happen.

but if she isnt credible, than nothing she says is. Cant say this part is credible because it goes with my opinion and ignore the parts that dont. Its all or nothing when youre considering herself as credible or not.

As for Martin hiding and appearing when Zimmerman came back, yeah that is a possibility, but like you said that supports Zimmerman's point, and certainly does not make any headway trying to prove Zimmerman started the confrontation.

It is a start, it explains why he wouldnt have made it back to his house and still allows the possibility that GZ confronted him. I dont see how thats any different than saying TM confronted GZ. Both are just theories, one of which was told by the defendant. Thats the problem when only two people know and one kills the other.

I agree with everything here except the part about changes to the law. Stand Your Ground had nothing to do with this case. It wasn't used as a defense. Standard self-defense was used and that defense exists in every state, and has in some form existed for 400 years in most societies. And it exists for a reason. I cannot easily see a change to the law in terms of that defense, that could satisfy the common sense protection it allows, while preventing a tragedy like this one from occurring. Some way to raise the "reasonableness" of fear hurdle maybe, but that hurdle is already subjective. I don't know.

I think there may be some ways to clarify that, but my reasoning was more because the law allowed that scenario, which in FL is exactly as i stated which i dont think was intent. I just have issue with the law that protects a person that instigates the situation, which you can feel one way or another about this case, but in general to still be allowed to claim self defense. The scenario of somebody starting a fight then getting their ass handed to them shouldnt be allowed to kill and claim self defense imo. Im not sure which would be the greater can of worms so to speak though.

This was a very tragic event, and it is a shame it happened. And I and most everyone feels terrible for Trayvon's parents. And I and some people are upset the prosecution, and media, and race-hustlers made the case out to be something it wasn't. I think the manufactured racial overtones have caused some people to look at the case and evidence much differently than they would otherwise. I am not one of them, I would feel the same way if both parties were white, both black, one purple the other green, etc.

im not happy with the way it was portrayed in the media either. I do think there was profiling to some degree (at the very least that a teen walking in the rain had to be up to no good). I cant say if this happens if they were other races. As far as this case goes, the way i feel has nothing to do with race either, yet i feel differently.

I also would argue, but not to start trouble or debate, just to simply state my perception based on looking at other message boards/threads on other sites, that the majority of people distorting the factual record or evidence (or lack thereof) and ignoring (willfully at times) the letter of the law to argue their side are people who are/were calling for a clear guilty verdict. Some admittedly doing it, saying the law is not as important as their abstract feeling of 'justice,' etc.

The spectacle of the trial and its aftereffects are a fairly sad indictment of our society, imo.

Well i think there are a greater number emotionally attached that felt GZ was guilty but i do think theres a good many that for either racial (and ive sadly seen plenty of blatantly racist comments) or some other reason felt he was innocent without looking at the case and its evidence (or lack there of). Theres extremes on both which echoes your last sentence imo.

[JAB1985]

First of all, as an aside, I think Haloti92 did a very good job of following up this post.
BUut I wanted to quote your post instead. I think this post is very strong. From someone with whom I didn't typically agree much with on this case prior to decision, we came to the same end "feelings". IT "sort of" seems like Trayvon came back and initiated the confrontation, but it is far from clear. IT is also immaterial. What matters, is if you believe that it was AT ALL possible that Trayvon was "ground and pounding " Zim from the mount position. IF you believe that to be credible at all, and it does not defy eye witness testimony or forensic evidence then a Not Guilty verdict was the only possibility.

I also agree with Haloti, that the "laws that need to be changed" basically boils down to the "hurdle" for self defense being set a bit higher. I think a provision needs to be in place that if you are the aggressor in a situation, you cannot later claim self defense. I don't know that in this case that would have changed anything, as we didn't have enough evidence to ascertain that Zim was the aggressor, but it is a bit of verbiage that should be changed. I'm also not sure how I feel about someone being able to follow someone for no apparent reason either.

That was my basic feeling. I think this case shed light on that scenario, whether it was in this case or not. I also feel there was a gray area where you could make a case he was stalking. I dont feel he intended to be, but from TMs perspective it could certainly be. I know if TM was a woman shed feel very uncomfortable and threatened from asking my wife and friends. Seems since he was a guy, though a boy, that gets passed over. I may be wrong but i dont think neighborhood watch supports following in any way for this reason. Observe and report. If you feel theyre a threat, following would be putting yourself in danger.

[Haloti92]

I was referring to the final confrontation in general, not the events leasing up to it.

So was I. People arguing a guilty verdict was called for argue the incident was caused solely by Zimmerman. Including the final confrontation. No evidence of that.

but if she isnt credible, than nothing she says is. Cant say this part is credible because it goes with my opinion and ignore the parts that dont. Its all or nothing when youre considering herself as credible or not.

Not sure what you are driving at, exactly. Might need to specify which part of her testimony you are talking about. But also, in terms of her credibility, it isn't a simple case of her being unreliable (as an uninterested stranger might be considered unreliable). It is a case of her being blatantly partisan and hostile to the defense. For this reason, I don't think you can say that her testimony that helps the defense (and still not sure what you are talking about exactly) is as suspect as the testimony that might help the prosecution.

It is a start, it explains why he wouldnt have made it back to his house and still allows the possibility that GZ confronted him. I dont see how thats any different than saying TM confronted GZ. Both are just theories, one of which was told by the defendant. Thats the problem when only two people know and one kills the other.

Now I am not exactly sure what you are talking about in terms of the word "confronting." First to talk?

Zimmerman says Martin appeared out of nowhere several minutes after he had lost sight of him. Your theory coincides with his claim. Not sure, from that point, what exactly we are arguing about. Describe what you mean by confrontation at this point.

I think there may be some ways to clarify that, but my reasoning was more because the law allowed that scenario, which in FL is exactly as i stated which i dont think was intent. I just have issue with the law that protects a person that instigates the situation, which you can feel one way or another about this case, but in general to still be allowed to claim self defense. The scenario of somebody starting a fight then getting their ass handed to them shouldnt be allowed to kill and claim self defense imo. Im not sure which would be the greater can of worms so to speak though.

Well, I still don't see any Florida law that 'allowed' this scenario. The case hinged on standard self-defense. Things could have occurred the same way in any state and resulted in the same verdict, ignoring the differences in jurors in differing states.

There was no evidence, let alone proof Zimmerman started the fight. Had there been he would have had a harder time prevailing. Only if you 'recover your innocence' after initiating a fight, can you claim self-defense. It is an extra hurdle, and one he did not have to clear in this case (though perhaps he might have been able to clear due to the claim/evidence he was pinned down and unable to escape).

im not happy with the way it was portrayed in the media either. I do think there was profiling to some degree (at the very least that a teen walking in the rain had to be up to no good). I cant say if this happens if they were other races. As far as this case goes, the way i feel has nothing to do with race either, yet i feel differently.

I don't think there is any evidence of profiling. Nor any evidence that Zimmerman is a racist. He claims Martin was loitering around and looking in houses. And he claims this from the beginning on the phone to the cops. I don't see any reason to believe things are not exactly as they appear to be. Zimmerman saw someone who he thought was suspicious, he called the cops, he explained what he saw, and he then attempted to keep the person within eyesight until the arrived. Obviously we can say he was a wannabe-cop, and Martin's actions may not have been considered 'suspicious' by us or non-wannabe-cops, but that doesn't change a thing in terms of the case. It doesn't provide any intent or ill-will to Zimmerman, and it doesn't warrant an assault on Zimmerman. And without the assault on Zimmerman, this tragedy does not occur, or almost assuredly Zimmerman is convicted.

Well i think there are a greater number emotionally attached that felt GZ was guilty but i do think theres a good many that for either racial (and ive sadly seen plenty of blatantly racist comments) or some other reason felt he was innocent without looking at the case and its evidence (or lack there of). Theres extremes on both which echoes your last sentence imo.

I can agree with the premise (that there are racists or emotionally-invested on both sides), but the problem is that the law is quite clear, including the burden of proof, so the side that has the harder case to 'prove' needs to ignore more evidence, distort/fabricate more evidence, or ignore more of the law in order to prevail (in their minds). And that is what I am witnessing. For example, the incessant argument that Zimmerman "was ordered to stop following." That is an obvious lie. Why would someone keep bleating an obvious lie unless it is because they think that it helps their 'cause' and they are very emotionally invested in the 'cause?' And there are other examples.

[NCRAVEN]

Nobody knows how truly different the scenarios are.

You can say that you (or myself) "think" or "believe" Trayvons scenario played out...we both seem to have fundamentally different views on the likelihood of one vision or the other.

I believe based on the evidence and testimony and the facts as we know them. We could run through them if you'd like but there is a reason I believe what I do and it's not because I want to.

My whole, entire argument stems from this.

I consider being followed in the dark by a complete stranger to be a situation where a person has a right to feel reasonable fear.

Period.

That's fine, but it all depends on how you define "followed". In the scenario you presented I would define that as chasing. In the case or Martin and Zimmerman based or Rachel Jeantel and what Zimmerman told the 911 operator it seemed more as trailing.

When I said that is how I felt and would slug the stranger if we came face to face, you told me point blank that I am the one who committed a crime and opened myself up for deadly force. By saying that, you are implying that I or anyone else shouldn't feel reasonable fear but if i did, the only recourse is to basically run home as fast as I can or call 911 and pray that the police get to me before the person following me can...and I have a huge problem with that.

Again. I said that because I assumed that you were talking as if you were Trayvon and if you were being trailed (as how I understand it) than punching someone in the nose is not the proper response.

[RustonRifle]

I wonder if there had been discipline in the household if Martin would still be on this earth? I feel compassion for the family's loss but at the same time I have to wonder why a young man suspended from school wasn't grounded by the parents.

I'm hearing civil rights violations , it looks like more and more if anyone has had his civil rights have been violated it's been Zimmerman. The withholding of evidence from the defense, the usual race baiters showing up and holding court, the government going down to Fl. to help organize protests against one of it's own citizens, the fraudulent way the mainstream press covered the investigation, Holder and his corrupt office.... <rolls eyes> Crump and the falsehood about Zimmerman's father corrupting the investigation sounds like a defamation suit.

From the be careful what you wish for department......
As much as I disliked the Bush Administration they had more decency than this bunch down in DC right now. I voted for Obama twice, boy do I have me some buyers remorse..........

[Raveninwoodlawn]

I believe based on the evidence and testimony and the facts as we know them. We could run through them if you'd like but there is a reason I believe what I do and it's not because I want to.

That's fine, but it all depends on how you define "followed". In the scenario you presented I would define that as chasing. In the case or Martin and Zimmerman based or Rachel Jeantel and what Zimmerman told the 911 operator it seemed more as trailing.



Again. I said that because I assumed that you were talking as if you were Trayvon and if you were being trailed (as how I understand it) than punching someone in the nose is not the proper response.

So you are telling me that there was no running or chasing when during the 911 call, Zimmerman said Trayvon was running...followed by his truck door opening, hearing wind blow into the phone mic and Zimmerman beginning to breath heavily?

Now eventually, both stopped running when they lost track of each other, but it's pretty clear that this wasn't some calm, steady trailing of someone either.

As for your first paragraph...it's easy to believe testimony when you are only hearing one persons version of it. Nobody saw a first punch, and there is no way in hell anybody can prove that just because Zimmerman had a broken nose that it was a result of a sucker punch anymore than the other side can prove that it was a result of a retaliatory punch. There is no evidence there.

And I will say again, put it in Trayvons situation if you want or don't. If I am being followed by some strange guy in the dark, based on my experiences, IMHO, reasonable fear most certainly applies...especially if after I begin to run to lose the stranger, I hear him get out of his car as to follow me on foot. If we cross paths I am slugging him. Period. Any scenario where I'm being followed is an incredibly dangerous scenario.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD