Page 5 of 36 FirstFirst 12345678915 ... LastLast
Results 49 to 60 of 432
  1. #49

    Re: George Zimmerman Trial



    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    That's your assumption of his motivation.
    ? his motivation to following him is that he thought he was up to no good. again, his 911 call supports that his reason was "he was acting suspicious", which was walking home in the rain and looking around by his own definition.

    Chasing? Where is it in the evidence presented thus far that he was chasing Martin?
    Now he's running? Ok, where in the evidence is he now running?
    does the 911 call not have him yell "hes running" followed by him getting out followed by hearing him run until the operator says to stop? which it sounds like he complies but he still initially chased after him.

    For someone who earlier claimed to be basing their opinion on the facts in the case, you're certainly doing a TON of assuming here.
    my only assumption which ive been clear since the beginning is that i feel something had to have happened to change Martin from running away (defensive) to punching Zimmerman (offensive). I dont think his earlier actions coincide with that. thats not "a TON" thats one thing which ive said is my opinion that i come to based on the facts we do know. which is what Zimmerman said and his actions while on the phone and his previous calls to police. I dont see how Im assuming anything outside the initial interaction, which we all are unless you have proof/evidence of, which im sure theres a defense attorney in Florida that would love to have it as well and put this to rest.

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    We have a neighborhood watch in our neighborhood -- well, it's actually a dude in his 70's who drives around in a golf cart -- and I've been followed numerous times.

    Can't say I ever felt threatened by it. In fact, I was glad to see him. Most of the time it's when my wife and I walk home from our neighborhood watering hole and it's late.
    as a 40 year old man being followed by a 70 year old on a golf cart id assume you can understand the difference than being followed by a 28 year old in a car and eventually on foot when youre 17.
    -JAB




  2. #50
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    22,859

    Re: George Zimmerman Trial

    Quote Originally Posted by JAB1985 View Post
    ? his motivation to following him is that he thought he was up to no good. again, his 911 call supports that his reason was "he was acting suspicious", which was walking home in the rain and looking around by his own definition.
    Zimmerman never said / knew that Martin was walking home so that can't be the basis for your reasoning of what Martin or did not do. Well, it can, but it's the height of MMQBing.

    Zimmerman's job (any Neighborhood Watch volunteers job) is to keep an eye on people he does not recognize who walk through the neighborhood.

    You're still assuming any motivation outside of that.

    Quote Originally Posted by JAB1985 View Post
    does the 911 call not have him yell "hes running" followed by him getting out followed by hearing him run until the operator says to stop? which it sounds like he complies but he still initially chased after him.
    He's running = Trayvon running. You're assuming Zimmerman was running as well. And how do you "hear" someone run? I don't know how you can listen to that call and tell if someone is running, or simply walking at a fast pace. Again, you're making an assumption.

    And the 911 operator doesn't tell Zimmerman to stop. The 911 operator says "OK, we don't need you to do that". Big difference. Follow behind a drunk driver and call 911, they will give you the same cautionary warning but won't really care if you continue to do so.

    Quote Originally Posted by JAB1985 View Post
    as a 40 year old man being followed by a 70 year old on a golf cart id assume you can understand the difference than being followed by a 28 year old in a car and eventually on foot when youre 17.
    What exactly should I be assuming? That's a fallacious statement and one that assumes that Zimmerman had a clue how old Trayon was. If you look at Trayvon's more recent photos, he appears to me as being much older than 17.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  3. #51
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,340

    Re: George Zimmerman Trial

    Quote Originally Posted by JAB1985 View Post
    observe and report.

    getting out of the truck and CHASING is what was wrong or at the very least questionable. Im curious what he was going to do if he caught him or Martin stopped running? Assuming the guy was bad because hes walking in the rain with his hoodie up is idiotic, but not against the law. Ive done that vary thing many times and can tell you i was guilty of nothing. in zimmermans eyes that means youre up to no good. So thats fine for him to call the police and keep an eye on where he went, following in his car and staying on the phone. absolutely fine. you can start to see how that would freak somebody out though, which apparently Martin was to some degree to run away, but still no crime. getting out and running after him is where it gets blurry on the line he crossed. you could easily call that action stalking and/or harassment because he has nothing to go off of to say hes suspicious other than walking in the rain. After that, I think whoever started the first physical action is important. for all we know Martin feared for his life based off those actions and/or whatever followed. how does that work? both feared for their lives so both are innocent of any wrong doing regardless of outcome? knowing we dont know what happened to start it, If it was Martin that killed Zimmerman in that exchange is he getting off as well?
    As the lead investigator just said on the stand. Following someone is not a crime, confronting someone and asking them what they're doing her is not a crime.

    I am still curios though how it is you think Zimmerman confronted Martin got on top of him first (which no one has testified to) and Martin was then able to get the best of a guy 10 years old and 40lbs heavier.
    We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin




  4. #52

    Re: George Zimmerman Trial

    I don't have the time to follow the details closely. But 2 opinions I have about courtroom testimony in general and how juries relate it to findings of "fact":

    > They give a lot of deference to prosecutors and police, because they are the "good guys". Mostly, yes, but not always. Police are just like any other party in a trial: They will spin their testimony to meet their case.

    > Eye witness testimony is notoriously suspect with regards to establishing fact.

    Not sure what this means in terms of guilt or innocence in terms of Zimmerman. Guess it just means my faith in the courtroom justice system is relatively low.
    Last edited by JohnBKistler; 07-02-2013 at 10:12 AM.




  5. #53

    Re: George Zimmerman Trial

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    Zimmerman never said / knew that Martin was walking home so that can't be the basis for your reasoning of what Martin or did not do. Well, it can, but it's the height of MMQBing.

    Zimmerman's job (any Neighborhood Watch volunteers job) is to keep an eye on people he does not recognize who walk through the neighborhood.

    You're still assuming any motivation outside of that.
    theres nothing suspicious about somebody walking down the street. his reasoning was defined by him. because "he was walking in the rain and looking around". his words, not mine. Why Zimmerman thought it was, i havent really touched on, just the fact that he did.

    He's running = Trayvon running. You're assuming Zimmerman was running as well. And how do you "hear" someone run? I don't know how you can listen to that call and tell if someone is running, or simply walking at a fast pace. Again, you're making an assumption.

    And the 911 operator doesn't tell Zimmerman to stop. The 911 operator says "OK, we don't need you to do that". Big difference. Follow behind a drunk driver and call 911, they will give you the same cautionary warning but won't really care if you continue to do so.
    i realize hes saying Martin is running, but theres the sound of him getting out and "fast walking" vs "running" or even chasing is just semantics. He admitted to following him at the very least until, by his words, was told not to. at that point you either believe he continued anyway or didnt. not to mention he says in the video during Serinos testimony that they told him to follow him and see where he was going, which doesnt remotely match the transcript.

    What exactly should I be assuming? That's a fallacious statement and one that assumes that Zimmerman had a clue how old Trayon was. If you look at Trayvon's more recent photos, he appears to me as being much older than 17.
    Zimmerman did know as he said "late teens" on the 911 call. Are you assuming that Martin knew of the neighborhood watch? because your statement besides ignoring the obvious age difference and therefore physical abilities of the two (70 vs 28), also doesnt account for you knowing why he followed you vs just a stranger doing it.

    Im not saying Zimmerman had a bad agenda in any of this. I truly think he thought he was doing the right thing. I just think he may have omitted some of what happened, not unlike some of the other discrepancies in his story.

    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    As the lead investigator just said on the stand. Following someone is not a crime, confronting someone and asking them what they're doing her is not a crime.

    I am still curios though how it is you think Zimmerman confronted Martin got on top of him first (which no one has testified to) and Martin was then able to get the best of a guy 10 years old and 40lbs heavier.
    I said the first for physical contact. meaning i think he grabbed him or tried to stop him from getting away or apprehend for when the cops got there. grabbed his arm or shirt and then Martin reacted by punching him and getting on top. He says he just showed up and asked him what he was doing before punching him. I think it could have just as easily been Zimmerman to ask him the same and try to grab him. theres no testimony or proof of either outside zimmerman's. you take it for face value, i feel there could be a difference.

    if he doesnt go to jail im not going to feel like justice lost. if he does id probably feel worse about it even though i think he might be. there simply isnt enough to warrant a life sentence on what we know. which is why i take offense to saying "thank god youre not on the jury". i may think theres more to the story, but from the facts there is no "beyond a reasonable doubt". clearly ive been agreeing theres more than one way this went down since the beginning. thats doubt. if i was on the jury i wouldnt convict him either. on a message board, sure ill express my opinion.
    Last edited by JAB1985; 07-02-2013 at 11:38 AM.
    -JAB




  6. #54
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,340

    Re: George Zimmerman Trial

    Quote Originally Posted by JAB1985 View Post
    theres nothing suspicious about somebody walking down the street. his reasoning was defined by him. because "he was walking in the rain and looking around". his words, not mine. Why Zimmerman thought it was, i havent really touched on, just the fact that he did.
    The thing about this is a guy standing around in the rain who appears to be looking in houses (who is actually on his phone (blue tooth I believe)) and I don't recognize him as living there would seem a little weir or suspicious.


    Quote Originally Posted by JAB1985 View Post
    I said the first for physical contact. meaning i think he grabbed him or tried to stop him from getting away or apprehend for when the cops got there. grabbed his arm or shirt and then Martin reacted by punching him and getting on top. He says he just showed up and asked him what he was doing before punching him. I think it could have just as easily been Zimmerman to ask him the same and try to grab him. theres no testimony or proof of either outside zimmerman's. you take it for face value, i feel there could be a difference.
    Okay, I'm not trying to be argumentative, jsut trying to understand where you're coming from. Did you think Mora's testimony was that she saw him on top before the shot?

    Quote Originally Posted by JAB1985 View Post
    if he doesnt go to jail im not going to feel like justice lost. if he does id probably feel worse about it even though i think he might be. there simply isnt enough to warrant a life sentence on what we know.
    The main reason I don't think he should go to jail is it's clear if he didn't put a stop to the injuries that were being inflicted he was at the very least going to be seriously, seriously injured.
    We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin




  7. #55

    Re: George Zimmerman Trial

    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    The thing about this is a guy standing around in the rain who appears to be looking in houses (who is actually on his phone (blue tooth I believe)) and I don't recognize him as living there would seem a little weir or suspicious.
    which is why im fine with him calling the police even though i personally wouldnt have. difference of opinion. i think i stated, it was odd to call (my opinion) but theres nothing wrong with it (fact).

    Okay, I'm not trying to be argumentative, jsut trying to understand where you're coming from. Did you think Mora's testimony was that she saw him on top before the shot?
    I did not think it was before. i thought it was directly after. meaning he was on top and no longer getting his head smashed possibly when he pulled the trigger. imo, once the fight started it doesnt even matter. He shot Martin but theres enough to say at the very least that he was in some danger. If the law states that regardless if you provoked the situation youre allowed to defend yourself with deadly force, then thats my error on interpretation, because to me you cannot defend against something you provoked and theyre defending against.


    The main reason I don't think he should go to jail is it's clear if he didn't put a stop to the injuries that were being inflicted he was at the very least going to be seriously, seriously injured.
    I dont think the injuries look all that serious. it was a couple of scratches and by Moras and others testimony he was completely fine and coherent afterwards. if Martin went for his gun like he says id say thats more grounds for equal deadly force. going back to what i said early about the size. thats the law. larger man or combat training = deadly force. if the smaller one is doing the damage there has to be enough to warrant it. I think theres a case to be said that there was but its not automatic in that instance.

    See above as well. even though im saying i think it may have went down differently, doesnt mean i think theres enough to convict him. maybe thats getting lost in all of this, but ive stated since the beginning hes not going to be convicted and theres more than one way this could have went down, which is doubt.
    Last edited by JAB1985; 07-02-2013 at 11:58 AM.
    -JAB




  8. #56
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,340

    Re: George Zimmerman Trial

    Quote Originally Posted by JAB1985 View Post
    I did not think it was before. i thought it was directly after. meaning he was on top and no longer getting his head smashed possibly when he pulled the trigger.
    Okay... so why were we arguing about Mora's testimony and Good being the only one that saw the acutal fight?

    Quote Originally Posted by JAB1985 View Post
    imo, once the fight started it doesnt even matter. He shot Martin but theres enough to say at the very least that he was in some danger. If the law states that regardless if you provoked the situation youre allowed to defend yourself with deadly force, then thats my error on interpretation, because to me you cannot defend against something you provoked and theyre defending against.
    To my knowledge, I think this is correct. However that could change from state to state.

    Quote Originally Posted by JAB1985 View Post
    I dont think the injuries look all that serious. it was a couple of scratches
    a) There were multiple scratches, bruises, cuts and a broken nose (which if you've ever had one you know you are not coherent for an good 10 -15 seconds after, at least) and b) the injuries stopped cause the gun shot, if he did not stop them it's logical to assume they would have gotten worse and there would have been more of them.

    Quote Originally Posted by JAB1985 View Post
    and by Moras and others testimony he was completely fine and coherent afterwards.
    Meh. Someone who couldn't tell if they were men or women fighting orginally, I'm going to take anything she states as a certainty with a grain of salt

    Quote Originally Posted by JAB1985 View Post
    if Martin went for his gun like he says id say thats more grounds for equal deadly force. going back to what i said early about the size. thats the law. larger man or combat training = deadly force. if the smaller one is doing the damage there has to be enough to warrant it.
    There is an actual law that says if you're getting you're ass beat by a smaller guy it's not considered deadly force?
    We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin




  9. #57

    Re: George Zimmerman Trial

    Quote Originally Posted by JAB1985 View Post
    If the law states that regardless if you provoked the situation youre allowed to defend yourself with deadly force, then thats my error on interpretation, because to me you cannot defend against something you provoked and theyre defending against.
    The law does say that, but only if the deadly force is the only reasonable way you can avoid great bodily harm.

    No matter who starts the fight, you cannot, just because you are losing the fight, pull out a gun and shoot someone if you have the ability to run away instead.

    And just because you start a fight/confrontation, even with a punch (in a bar for example), does not mean you have tacitly signed onto a fight-to-the-death in the instance where the other guy has you trapped/pinned/disabled to the point you cannot flee, is not letting up, and gives you reason to fear death or great bodily harm.

    The entire issue is whether people believe Zimmerman was unable to flee and was reasonable in fearing great bodily harm. That is the entire issue. And this would be the issue with a manslaughter charge as well as the massive 'overcharge' of 2nd degree murder. With the 2nd degree murder charge the prosecutor also has to prove 'malice.'

    All the other testimony about who followed whom, who attacked whom, who is/was a racist, who profiled whom is only relevant insofar as it helps the jury determine the credibility of the other testimony that relates to the main issue (did Zimmerman lawfully defend himself according to the law) and insofar as it indicates 'malice.'

    And thus far there is a huge lack of any real evidence (of stalking, racism, aggression, etc.) that indicates Zimmerman's version of what occurred is false beyond a reasonable doubt or that there was any 'malice.'

    Like I said, he should be found not guilty by a fair jury, especially considering the overcharge (manslaughter would be a closer but still not very close call, imo).

    But....the law, as written, often takes a backseat to 'social justice' these days. It happens often in the court of public opinion, but also in actual criminal and civil courts. Juries ignore the law and rule on what 'feels right.' It is unfortunate, but it is 21st century Western culture. And for that reason, I think there is a real (but still below 50%) chance that he is found guilty. In this day and age, a juror who votes for acquittal subjects themselves to ridicule and charges of racism, etc., no matter how unfounded or despicable these charges are. A lot of people/jurors would bow to that pressure and get with the 'social justice' program and just convict.
    Last edited by Haloti92; 07-02-2013 at 12:28 PM.




  10. #58

    Re: George Zimmerman Trial

    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    Okay... so why were we arguing about Mora's testimony and Good being the only one that saw the acutal fight?
    not really sure. i think it was more on who was screaming. which Good even said he wouldnt say it was Zimmerman but logic makes him think it was. I said it could have been he pulled out his gun to which Martin screamed for help at that point. I also said it doesnt even matter to me the actual fight.

    a) There were multiple scratches, bruises, cuts and a broken nose (which if you've ever had one you know you are not coherent for an good 10 -15 seconds after, at least) and b) the injuries stopped cause the gun shot, if he did not stop them it's logical to assume they would have gotten worse and there would have been more of them.
    I dont doubt they would have. im not sure if it would have been to death though and if it was if Martin would have been guilty knowing the same information we do now. deadly force has to be equivalent, so theres a gray area of how likely that was if it at all.

    Meh. Someone who couldn't tell if they were men or women fighting orginally, I'm going to take anything she states as a certainty with a grain of salt
    Good thought it was a dog attack at first. does that make his less convincing?

    There is an actual law that says if you're getting you're ass beat by a smaller guy it's not considered deadly force?
    theres a certain level of size in which one is considered a deadly weapon automatically and the other isnt regardless if he wasnt trying to. To my knowledge if a significantly smaller guy beats somebody up hes not automatically considered a deadly weapon. thats all im stating. In reference to this case, Martin not being significantly larger means they have to prove deadly force was needed because its not automatically accepted that he was.
    -JAB




  11. #59
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    22,859

    Re: George Zimmerman Trial

    Quote Originally Posted by JAB1985 View Post
    I dont think the injuries look all that serious.it was a couple of scratches and by Moras and others testimony he was completely fine and coherent afterwards. if Martin went for his gun like he says id say thats more grounds for equal deadly force. going back to what i said early about the size. thats the law. larger man or combat training = deadly force. if the smaller one is doing the damage there has to be enough to warrant it. I think theres a case to be said that there was but its not automatic in that instance.
    So by your logic, someone has to be on the verge of incoherence to employ deadly force? By then it's too late. It's the same reasoning that allows deadly force if you're ever sprayed with pepper spray. The act may not be deadly in of itself, but the resulting incapacitation will put you in fear of your life.

    If someone gets the advantage and is on top "ground and pound style", yeah, my first thought will be to get out of it, but once my head bounces off the concrete once or twice, that's the game changer. It can be argued that Trayvon may not have meant to bounce GZ's head off the ground, but it did happen, thus deadly force is justified.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  12. #60

    Re: George Zimmerman Trial

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    So by your logic, someone has to be on the verge of incoherence to employ deadly force? By then it's too late. It's the same reasoning that allows deadly force if you're ever sprayed with pepper spray. The act may not be deadly in of itself, but the resulting incapacitation will put you in fear of your life.

    If someone gets the advantage and is on top "ground and pound style", yeah, my first thought will be to get out of it, but once my head bounces off the concrete once or twice, that's the game changer. It can be argued that Trayvon may not have meant to bounce GZ's head off the ground, but it did happen, thus deadly force is justified.
    Im saying ive had worse cuts by going through a briar patch but yet thats being thrown about as proof he was about to die. he was coherent enough to try and get off the pavement and succeed in doing so by his admission. It wasnt until Martin apparently went for the gun that he felt he needed to shoot him, which is open for interpretation as well based on his video, he says he felt him near it not necessarily going for it. If true though, I dont have much issue with that really. you dont use it in that case, hes likely going to use it on you.
    -JAB




Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Russell Street Report Website Design by D3Corp Ocean City Maryland