George Zimmerman Trial

[NCRAVEN]

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?

If I am 50ft behind you and you run and I stay at least 50 ft behind you, am I, chasing, following or tailing?

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.

Exactly.

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.

It's easy to believe one side of the story, and then when the evidence suggest it's true, I usually believe it. Other than the gun shot what wounds did Trayvon have to suggest Zimmeran laid a finger on him? Google it, Yahoo! it, Bing it, you won't find anything.

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.

What if you run home, tell the person you're on the phone you are there and then you don't go home and the confrontation happens at the other end of the row of townhomes from where your Dad lives and you just said you were at. Would you consider that crossing paths.. or going to confront someone?

[AirFlacco]

The President speaks and said the jury has spoken and DOJ is looking into it.
See my post above how OBYs DOJ financed the demonstrations in Florida vs Zimmerman when things started.

He'll go to prison, yet.

WELCOME TO THE USSR. GORBY MERELY TRANSFERRED IT TO HERE.


AMERICA WILL BECOME SOCIALISTIC. IT WILL TAKE AWHILE BUT THEY WILL BECOME
SOCIALISTS. NIKITA KRUSCHEV

[Raveninwoodlawn]

If I am 50ft behind you and you run and I stay at least 50 ft behind you, am I, chasing, following or tailing?

Exactly.

It's easy to believe one side of the story, and then when the evidence suggest it's true, I usually believe it. Other than the gun shot what wounds did Trayvon have to suggest Zimmeran laid a finger on him? Google it, Yahoo! it, Bing it, you won't find anything.



What if you run home, tell the person you're on the phone you are there and then you don't go home and the confrontation happens at the other end of the row of townhomes from where your Dad lives and you just said you were at. Would you consider that crossing paths.. or going to confront someone?

Huh?

If we are both running, you are chasing. If using Bolt runs, and I run after him, I'm pretty sure the distance will increase. That doesn't mean anything other than he is faster than I am. There was a chase. If someone runs after me or you or your child, it is a chase.

And again, there is no evidence that Trayvon initiated any physical confrontation. Is there a security camera or mystery witness that only you know about? There is no evidence that the initial confrontation happened the way Zimmerman said...pointing out an injury that could have occurred at any time within a full minutes time frame is not proof that it was the result of an initial blow...no matter how many times you want to say the evidence says it did.





Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[NCRAVEN]

Huh?

If we are both running, you are chasing. If using Bolt runs, and I run after him, I'm pretty sure the distance will increase. That doesn't mean anything other than he is faster than I am. There was a chase. If someone runs after me or you or your child, it is a chase.

Maybe we are arguing semantics. What I am trying to say it tailing to me is more of an observation at a distance. Following from what I a saying would mean more of staying close and maybe trying catch you and abduct you or something.

And again, there is no evidence that Trayvon initiated any physical confrontation.

I didn't say there was. If I didn't say it directly, I meant there is evidence to suggest he did.

Is there a security camera or mystery witness that only you know about? There is no evidence that the initial confrontation happened the way Zimmerman said...pointing out an injury that could have occurred at any time within a full minutes time frame is not proof that it was the result of an initial blow...no matter how many times you want to say the evidence says it did.

I said the evidence suggest it did. Have you seen the evidence, or heard the testimony about the evidence?

[NCRAVEN]

Found this and thought it was interesting.

Zimmerman lawyer to move ‘asap’ against NBC News

Here’s how NBC News, in a March 27, 2012, broadcast of the “Today” show, abridged the tape of Zimmerman’s comments to a police dispatcher on the evening of Feb. 26, 2012:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.

The full tape went like this:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about. Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?

Zimmerman: He looks black.

NBC Universal Media responded to the Zimmerman complaint by noting that other media outlets played up the racial angle of Zimmerman’s deadly encounter with Trayvon Martin.

Is it just me... or did NBC just admit to and call out the rest of the media for race baiting?

[Raveninwoodlawn]

Maybe we are arguing semantics. What I am trying to say it tailing to me is more of an observation at a distance. Following from what I a saying would mean more of staying close and maybe trying catch you and abduct you or something.



I didn't say there was. If I didn't say it directly, I meant there is evidence to suggest he did.



I said the evidence suggest it did. Have you seen the evidence, or heard the testimony about the evidence?

We'll just have to agree to disagree here.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[JAB1985]

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.

well that may be, but a lot also are saying he initiated by profiling and stalking and not taking into account the actual confrontation. either way i think i get what youre getting at.

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.

blatantly partisan, kind of like GZs whole account of the incident? Im not sure where Im not being clear. To take one part of Jeantel's testimony that TM said he was at home as truthful and then avoid the part where she says he was confronted by GZ is cherry picking. so saying shes not credible or a bad witness is fine, but that negates anything she says good or bad.

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.

you seem to have issue with the reason that he had a few minutes to get to his house. i put forth a plausible scenario where when he ran, he hid from GZ. After thinking it was clear he continued to return to his house. I pointed to it matching both sides because it does. from that point we have no evidence of what took place and just as much as GZs story could be true, he also could have been the first one to initiate contact. If youre just taking GZ at his word, which it appears, then it doesnt seem youre leaving open the possibility that hes not being truthful. your prerogative but i differ.

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).

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.

then we can agree to disagree.

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.

I get that and agree when the burden of proof is on one side only its going to seem like that, but at the same time theres plenty ignoring the possibility that Zimmerman is lying or not telling the whole truth about the events which he has had some missteps in his story to suggest its possible. It still seems to me that since people only are hearing one side of the story that they weigh that heavier than the plausible scenarios. As far as the case goes, thats why there an acquittal, which i agree with. As far as what actually happen im not still convinced it didnt happen another way. I dont feel this was a case where he was proven to be innocent as much as it was unable to prove anything.

Your example i dont really agree with, because saying "we(I) dont need you to do that" in every day language could easily and most commonly be taken as "stop" which GZ himself has said he "was told to stop" (and claims he did), or you can take it literally and out of context and it comes off as only a "suggestion". considering the scenario and GZ own take, id say its semantics not ignoring the facts.

[RustonRifle]

Found this and thought it was interesting.

Zimmerman lawyer to move ‘asap’ against NBC News



Is it just me... or did NBC just admit to and call out the rest of the media for race baiting?

I'm looking forward to the suit going forward.

Another gem from NBC

Next time someone calls me a cracker I'll know it's a term of endearment.....

These folks and other media outlets have such a double standard it's ridiculous.

Zimmerman is far from out of the woods however. The same suits up in DC that pushed for the trial and sent government paid workers to stir up and organize protests are now going to be prosecuting the man. NAACP wants it the Democrats will give it.

Much like the Martin's sued the HOA where Zimmerman volunteered and settled out of court for a large sum Zimmerman should file a plethora of lawsuits not stopping until he gets to the top of U. S. Government . The democrats among others are complicit with NBC in their violation of this mans rights as a citizen of the United States.

[NCRAVEN]

We'll just have to agree to disagree here.

That's fine. I've asked a couple of questions, which you've not answered, why I don't know. I am asking because I'd like to see a) what you're basing you're opinion off of and b) I'd like to see if there are more plausible conclusions than what I've come to.

Is it fair to say you think Zimmerman confronted Martin? And if so, why do you think that? And if you do think that, do you think he also started the fight and why?

[NCRAVEN]

you seem to have issue with the reason that he had a few minutes to get to his house. i put forth a plausible scenario where when he ran, he hid from GZ. After thinking it was clear he continued to return to his house. I pointed to it matching both sides because it does. from that point we have no evidence of what took place and just as much as GZs story could be true, he also could have been the first one to initiate contact. If youre just taking GZ at his word, which it appears, then it doesnt seem youre leaving open the possibility that hes not being truthful. your prerogative but i differ.

JAB, I'm going to ask you as well because a) I'd like to know what you're basing your scenario off of and b) If there is another conclusion than what I've come to.

You said Martin could have hid. Which is possible. Have you seen the map of the townhouses and where Martin's Dad's house was and where the fight started? Also do you believe Rachel Jeantel when she said Trayvon told him he was by his Dad's House?

I ask those because that is how I come to my conclusion. So I'd like to see how you've come your conclusion... or at least the scenario you've come up with, whether that's the one you believe most is likely or not I don't know.

[NCRAVEN]

I'm looking forward to the suit going forward.

Another gem from NBC

Next time someone calls me a cracker I'll know it's a term of endearment.....

These folks and other media outlets have such a double standard it's ridiculous.

Zimmerman is far from out of the woods however. The same suits up in DC that pushed for the trial and sent government paid workers to stir up and organize protests are now going to be prosecuting the man. NAACP wants it the Democrats will give it.

Much like the Martin's sued the HOA where Zimmerman volunteered and settled out of court for a large sum Zimmerman should file a plethora of lawsuits not stopping until he gets to the top of U. S. Government . The democrats among others are complicit with NBC in their violation of this mans rights as a citizen of the United States.

:word

The DOJ won't get far. Besides no evidence, the FBI did an investegation to see if there were any racial components to this and found none. I doubt that will stop them from trying though.

[JAB1985]

JAB, I'm going to ask you as well because a) I'd like to know what you're basing your scenario off of and b) If there is another conclusion than what I've come to.

You said Martin could have hid. Which is possible. Have you seen the map of the townhouses and where Martin's Dad's house was and where the fight started? Also do you believe Rachel Jeantel when she said Trayvon told him he was by his Dad's House?

I ask those because that is how I come to my conclusion. So I'd like to see how you've come your conclusion... or at least the scenario you've come up with, whether that's the one you believe most is likely or not I don't know.

I know the fight occurred 2-3 houses down from the intersection at the top and his car was straight ahead and the fight was perpendicular to that route. That TMs dads GF lived at the opposite end of that row. Ive left out Jeantel's testimony from pretty much every debate on here. I dont think its credible so despite it being strong in supporting that GZ did start it, id rather not use it. Im not sure if she was lying or not about what happened. it could easily be 100% true but the way she said it certainly makes it less credible. As far as him saying "im home". even if we break that out, how many times have you been a block or so away from home and said the same thing? I know ive said it when i was few minutes from home still. I think its relative to the location.

I think theres 18 pages of posts that have accounts of how ive came to that conclusion. most of which ive admitted is just my opinion that something else had to have happened and unsupported by evidence (just like GZs account of the initial interaction which ill continue to say is unsupported but as far as the case goes, he didnt have to prove it). If you feel it happened the way you do, im not contesting that as not possible. Most plausible, is strictly opinion on which scenario you believe. If you do at least admit that its possible it happened another way, than i dont think were really are arguing over anything. Knowing that there isnt evidence to support either outside bias testimony (GZ or RJ) im not sure how one can conclude definitively one way or the other with such certainty who started it. which is why ive said all along, he should walk and even went as far to say that it would be more wrong if he didnt despite feeling theres more to the story.