Another Juror, B29, speaks out.

[Zona]

So even though she saw the evidence that Martin was beating up Zimmerman, Zimmerman was suppose to take the beating possibly being beaten to death by Martin?
Unbelievable!
What is the difference between Martin driving a car at Zimmerman and Zimmerman then shooting Martin the driver?
What is the difference between Martin using his fists as lethal weapons and Zimmerman using his gun?

What about the evidence of George following an unarmed teen boy and refusing to ID himself?

In case you missed it. That is NOT a crime.

Not even if you are armed and know the law enought to shoot said unarmed child?

 

[Noomi]

In case you missed it. That is NOT a crime.

It should be. If you are asked to identify yourself by the person you are following, you should comply.

"It should be" should not be nor is a reason to put a man away for a minimum of 25 years.

Look, if someone was following me in the dead of night, and I was by myself, I would want to know who was following me. I would feel scared, understandably, being alone. The person should identify themselves, or the person being followed should have the right to use whatever force necessary to defend themselves.

 

[Zona]

So even though she saw the evidence that Martin was beating up Zimmerman, Zimmerman was suppose to take the beating possibly being beaten to death by Martin?
Unbelievable!
What is the difference between Martin driving a car at Zimmerman and Zimmerman then shooting Martin the driver?
What is the difference between Martin using his fists as lethal weapons and Zimmerman using his gun?

What about the evidence of George following an unarmed teen boy and refusing to ID himself?

In case you missed it. That is NOT a crime.

Seriously....as long as the one who is followed is black...righty? I swear to God, I wish one Zimmerman supporter would be honest in this case.

If the races were reversed.

 

[Lakhota]

Was it premeditated murder? After all, Zimmerman was frustrated that they always get away.

 

[TemplarKormac]

What about the evidence of George following an unarmed teen boy and refusing to ID himself?

Has no bearing on the law.

I know, but it still should have been considered - it gives a reason as to motive, for Trayvon to have attacked.
The attack on him wasn't random - it was probably provoked by Zimmerman following the boy, and that should have been considered. Otherwise the jury didn't get all the facts.

There was no prior motive established during the trial. Other than Zimmerman referring to him as suspicious, he did not act maliciously. If you haven't already seen, you can by looking at Martin's Facebook posts and text messages know that he liked getting into fights, even gave his girlfriend a blow by blow of a fight he got into. Zimmerman never "attacked" him either. There were over 250+ pieces of evidence and 60 witnesses called in that trial. The applicable law was put before the jury. They did it by the book, not by emotion.

 

[Zona]

It should be. If you are asked to identify yourself by the person you are following, you should comply.

"It should be" should not be nor is a reason to put a man away for a minimum of 25 years.

Look, if someone was following me in the dead of night, and I was by myself, I would want to know who was following me. I would feel scared, understandably, being alone. The person should identify themselves, or the person being followed should have the right to use whatever force necessary to defend themselves.

That is the thing...Zimmerman supporters will never see this...

If it is them being followed, and he is black, he should be shot. Not the other way around.

I am a black man..If some guy is following me, and he steps to me or acts in a suspicious way or puts his hands on me and I am in florida, can I shot him?

Zimmerman supporters...serious question.

 

[Zona]

Has no bearing on the law.

I know, but it still should have been considered - it gives a reason as to motive, for Trayvon to have attacked.
The attack on him wasn't random - it was probably provoked by Zimmerman following the boy, and that should have been considered. Otherwise the jury didn't get all the facts.

There was no prior motive established during the trial. Other than Zimmerman referring to him as suspicious, he did not act maliciously. If you haven't already seen, you can by looking at Martin's Facebook posts know that he liked getting into fights, even gave his girlfriend a blow by blow of a fight he got into. Zimmerman never "attacked" him either. There were over 250+ pieces of evidence and 60 witnesses called in that trial. The applicable law was put before the jury. They did it by the book, not by emotion.

Please, just this once, be honest. Why was Martin "suspicious"?

 

[Zona]

Was it premeditated murder? After all, Zimmerman was frustrated that they always get away.

You forgot to quote..

"they always get away". Zimmerman fucking said this. This shows his state of mind toward Martin and he shot him in the heart.

Jesus christ, he shot him in the heart after saying "they always get away".

FUCK.

 

[Noomi]

I know, but it still should have been considered - it gives a reason as to motive, for Trayvon to have attacked.
The attack on him wasn't random - it was probably provoked by Zimmerman following the boy, and that should have been considered. Otherwise the jury didn't get all the facts.

There was no prior motive established during the trial. Other than Zimmerman referring to him as suspicious, he did not act maliciously. If you haven't already seen, you can by looking at Martin's Facebook posts know that he liked getting into fights, even gave his girlfriend a blow by blow of a fight he got into. Zimmerman never "attacked" him either. There were over 250+ pieces of evidence and 60 witnesses called in that trial. The applicable law was put before the jury. They did it by the book, not by emotion.

Please, just this once, be honest. Why was Martin "suspicious"?

He was black.

 

[TemplarKormac]

There was no prior motive established during the trial. Other than Zimmerman referring to him as suspicious, he did not act maliciously. If you haven't already seen, you can by looking at Martin's Facebook posts know that he liked getting into fights, even gave his girlfriend a blow by blow of a fight he got into. Zimmerman never "attacked" him either. There were over 250+ pieces of evidence and 60 witnesses called in that trial. The applicable law was put before the jury. They did it by the book, not by emotion.

Please, just this once, be honest. Why was Martin "suspicious"?

He was black.

He was walking around in the rain, in a hoodie, "looking into houses" not because he was black. Or did anyone not bother to listen to the non emergency call?

 

[Noomi]

Please, just this once, be honest. Why was Martin "suspicious"?

He was black.

He was walking around in the rain, in a hoodie, "looking into houses" not because he was black. Or did anyone not bother to listen to the non emergency call?

We only have the word of Zimmerman that he was 'looking into houses'.

If I walk down the street and glance in someone's front yard, am I casing the joint?

 

[syrenn]

What about the evidence of George following an unarmed teen boy and refusing to ID himself?

In case you missed it. That is NOT a crime.

It should be. If you are asked to identify yourself by the person you are following, you should comply.

why?

and if you missed it... he was not following him anymore.... he lost him....remember?

 

[syrenn]

It should be. If you are asked to identify yourself by the person you are following, you should comply.

"It should be" should not be nor is a reason to put a man away for a minimum of 25 years.

Look, if someone was following me in the dead of night, and I was by myself, I would want to know who was following me. I would feel scared, understandably, being alone. The person should identify themselves, or the person being followed should have the right to use whatever force necessary to defend themselves.

oh bullshit....

if someone was following you...and you got away.... my bet you would have made tracks as fast as your little feet would run for the safety of your home.

 

[Noomi]

"It should be" should not be nor is a reason to put a man away for a minimum of 25 years.

Look, if someone was following me in the dead of night, and I was by myself, I would want to know who was following me. I would feel scared, understandably, being alone. The person should identify themselves, or the person being followed should have the right to use whatever force necessary to defend themselves.

oh bullshit....

if someone was following you...and you got away.... my bet you would have made tracks as fast as your little feet would run for the safety of your home.

If you flee, that gives the person following a reason to chase - they think you are running because you are up to no good. Best thing to do is stand your ground - like Trayvon was doing.

 

[syrenn]

Look, if someone was following me in the dead of night, and I was by myself, I would want to know who was following me. I would feel scared, understandably, being alone. The person should identify themselves, or the person being followed should have the right to use whatever force necessary to defend themselves.

oh bullshit....

if someone was following you...and you got away.... my bet you would have made tracks as fast as your little feet would run for the safety of your home.

If you flee, that gives the person following a reason to chase - they think you are running because you are up to no good. Best thing to do is stand your ground - like Trayvon was doing.

like zimmerman was doing.... see how that works?

 

[TemplarKormac]

It should be. If you are asked to identify yourself by the person you are following, you should comply.

"It should be" should not be nor is a reason to put a man away for a minimum of 25 years.

Look, if someone was following me in the dead of night, and I was by myself, I would want to know who was following me. I would feel scared, understandably, being alone. The person should identify themselves, or the person being followed should have the right to use whatever force necessary to defend themselves.

Martin was by no means scared of Zimmerman. He attacked, he engaged. He started the fight, Noomi. The difference between him and you? You could easily subdue the person following you if push came to shove, given your training in the Martial Arts.

 

[Noomi]

oh bullshit....

if someone was following you...and you got away.... my bet you would have made tracks as fast as your little feet would run for the safety of your home.

If you flee, that gives the person following a reason to chase - they think you are running because you are up to no good. Best thing to do is stand your ground - like Trayvon was doing.

like zimmerman was doing.... see how that works?

Zimmerman was threatening the boy by following him. Trayvon had the right to defend himself.

 

[Noomi]

"It should be" should not be nor is a reason to put a man away for a minimum of 25 years.

Look, if someone was following me in the dead of night, and I was by myself, I would want to know who was following me. I would feel scared, understandably, being alone. The person should identify themselves, or the person being followed should have the right to use whatever force necessary to defend themselves.

Martin was by no means scared of Zimmerman. He attacked, he engaged. He started the fight, Noomi. The difference between him and you? You could easily subdue the person following you if push came to shove, given your training in the Martial Arts.

Martin was prepared to face the person he believed to be stalking him. I believe that the boy had a right to attack Zimmerman, given that he was following him and refused to identify himself.

Could I subdue an attacker if I was in that situation? I sure as shit hope so, but then, no one expects to be in that situation.

 

[Lakhota]

MURDER

 

[The Professor]

I know, but it still should have been considered - it gives a reason as to motive, for Trayvon to have attacked.
The attack on him wasn't random - it was probably provoked by Zimmerman following the boy, and that should have been considered. Otherwise the jury didn't get all the facts.

There was no prior motive established during the trial. Other than Zimmerman referring to him as suspicious, he did not act maliciously. If you haven't already seen, you can by looking at Martin's Facebook posts know that he liked getting into fights, even gave his girlfriend a blow by blow of a fight he got into. Zimmerman never "attacked" him either. There were over 250+ pieces of evidence and 60 witnesses called in that trial. The applicable law was put before the jury. They did it by the book, not by emotion.

Please, just this once, be honest. Why was Martin "suspicious"?

The 911 call explains it, and it has nothing to do with race.

If Zimmerman called 911 solely because he had seen a Black man walking the streets and assumed he had committed or was going to commit a crime based upon his race alone, that would be racial profiling. Of course, if Zimmerman had called 911 and said, “There's a Black man walking around and we need to check him out,” the 911 dispatcher would have laughed at him. However, Zimmerman was concerned with a lot more than race. The evidence proves beyond the possibility of doubt that Zimmerman called 911 because (1) there had been a number of recent burglaries in his neighborhood; (2) a man he had never seen before was walking in the rain at night just looking around, staring at houses; and (3) the man appeared to be on drugs (Martin had in fact been smoking Marijuana). Zimmerman found that conduct to be suspicious and worth calling 911 to report it. The 911 dispatcher also thought the man should be checked out and dispatched the police to the area. I think that given the circumstances, Zimmerman did what any responsible neighborhood watchman would have done.

What Zimmerman did was a good example of behavioral profiling. He realized that generally someone who is just walking around at night in the rain in a strange neighborhood staring at houses and acting like he's on drugs is most likely up to no good. I don't know about you, but that's what I would think. (Note: Zimmerman was unaware that Martin was visiting his father's girlfriend who lived close to where Zimmerman saw him.)

There is no evidence which tends to suggest that the 911 call was based upon anything other than suspicious behavior, not race. There may be those who think that Martin's behavior was not suspicious, and I won't condemn them for that. However, I certainly wouldn't want them to be neighborhood watchmen where I live.