The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[The Rabbi]

The case was just presented ad nauseum...you have dismissed it and did very little to answer any of the questions...GZ could have reasonably been seen in the eyes of Trayvon as being the suspicious person and the aggressor following him up a walk and reaching in the direction of a gun before he was hit. The case could be made that it was trayvon punching in self defense. But no one can see that including you...of course if the same were to happen to you or a family member, Im sure you could find a reason for self defense...especially when it turns out there was a gun in the location he was reaching...not a phone.

The case is being made...you dont like what you hear and are dismissing it.

I dismiss it because it is irrelevant. Whether Zimmerman was suspicious or not is irrelevant. Even if he was, that is not grounds to punch someone. The presence of the gun was not known until Trayvon saw it while he was punching Zimmerman. Thus its presence is irrelevant.
You are very ignorant of laws of self defense. I would suggest getting some information on the topic before spouting off again.

Its irrellevant to your bias. i have explained exactly how it is relevant...he went reaching for his gun or in the direction of his gun when he got hit...he is following a teen in the dark...he was advised not to. A case could be made that he made mistakes that made him appear to be the aggressor....that makes a big difference in this case. If you reach for your gun and get hit first, then too bad...if when on the ground you are being punched to prevent you from continuing to reach for your gun, then too bad. Dont follow teens in the dark...tough lesson to learn...perhaps 5 years will open his eyes.

Again, you are fantasizing. No one says Zimmerman was reaching for his gun on the initial encounter with Trayvon. The presence of the gun is irrelevant here.

 

[Sallow]

But aren't criminals inclined to go after people they find defenseless? What if now they have a side thought that the person might be carrying a weapon that could either level the playing field or give the law abiding citizen an advantage...isn't it a good deterrent?

How else do people protect themselves against violent crime? Btw, some areas have crime that would scare the wild west.

No..it isn't a good "deterrent". And it's been tried.

What do you think the whole "Wild West" thing was all about. Everyone had side arms and people wound up shooting each other because they were drunk or mad.

The gunfight at the OK corral was about gun control. We have been backsliding into a huge mess.

It's a great deterrent as I have illustrated above.

You haven't illustrated anything other than you might off some guy for cutting you off on the highway.

Then claim self defense.

 

[jon_berzerk]

The case was just presented ad nauseum...you have dismissed it and did very little to answer any of the questions...GZ could have reasonably been seen in the eyes of Trayvon as being the suspicious person and the aggressor following him up a walk and reaching in the direction of a gun before he was hit. The case could be made that it was trayvon punching in self defense. But no one can see that including you...of course if the same were to happen to you or a family member, Im sure you could find a reason for self defense...especially when it turns out there was a gun in the location he was reaching...not a phone.

The case is being made...you dont like what you hear and are dismissing it.

I dismiss it because it is irrelevant. Whether Zimmerman was suspicious or not is irrelevant. Even if he was, that is not grounds to punch someone. The presence of the gun was not known until Trayvon saw it while he was punching Zimmerman. Thus its presence is irrelevant.
You are very ignorant of laws of self defense. I would suggest getting some information on the topic before spouting off again.

Its irrellevant to your bias. i have explained exactly how it is relevant...he went reaching for his gun or in the direction of his gun when he got hit...he is following a teen in the dark...he was advised not to. A case could be made that he made mistakes that made him appear to be the aggressor....that makes a big difference in this case. If you reach for your gun and get hit first, then too bad...if when on the ground you are being punched to prevent you from continuing to reach for your gun, then too bad. Dont follow teens in the dark...tough lesson to learn...perhaps 5 years will open his eyes.

he is following a teen in the dark...he was advised not to.

that is not correct

what about the four times during that same call

that they requested his assistance

self defense is self defense

if he is not convicted on the 2nd degree

he walks on all

either it was self defense or not

 

[The Rabbi]

Yes. The issue is whether Zimmerman legitimately feared for his life at the time he shot Martin. Nothing else matters.

 

[25Caliber]

I dismiss it because it is irrelevant. Whether Zimmerman was suspicious or not is irrelevant. Even if he was, that is not grounds to punch someone. The presence of the gun was not known until Trayvon saw it while he was punching Zimmerman. Thus its presence is irrelevant.
You are very ignorant of laws of self defense. I would suggest getting some information on the topic before spouting off again.

Its irrellevant to your bias. i have explained exactly how it is relevant...he went reaching for his gun or in the direction of his gun when he got hit...he is following a teen in the dark...he was advised not to. A case could be made that he made mistakes that made him appear to be the aggressor....that makes a big difference in this case. If you reach for your gun and get hit first, then too bad...if when on the ground you are being punched to prevent you from continuing to reach for your gun, then too bad. Dont follow teens in the dark...tough lesson to learn...perhaps 5 years will open his eyes.

he is following a teen in the dark...he was advised not to.

that is not correct

what about the four times during that same call

that they requested his assistance

self defense is self defense

if he is not convicted on the 2nd degree

he walks on all

either it was self defense or not

Incorrect...go back and read the transcript...I posted it a few pages back...and commented in detail. This is a misperception that is being passed off as fact. Go back and read the transcript after he was told "we dont need you to do that". All information after that is the dispatch getting GZs location, phone number and his home address...there is nothing asking for Trayvons whereabouts...only where GZ is parked. The dispatch is under the full impression that GZ has ceased following and the talk goes to where he will meet the police already en route.

The belief from dispatch is that Zimmerman is reporting something he is viewing and not following...when it was discovered he may be following or in pursuit he was advised not to. There is a big difference from reporting on a whereabouts and actually following on foot...that was a mistake he made that night.

Come on, Mark, buddy.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Its irrellevant to your bias. i have explained exactly how it is relevant...he went reaching for his gun or in the direction of his gun when he got hit...he is following a teen in the dark...he was advised not to. A case could be made that he made mistakes that made him appear to be the aggressor....that makes a big difference in this case. If you reach for your gun and get hit first, then too bad...if when on the ground you are being punched to prevent you from continuing to reach for your gun, then too bad. Dont follow teens in the dark...tough lesson to learn...perhaps 5 years will open his eyes.

he is following a teen in the dark...he was advised not to.

that is not correct

what about the four times during that same call

that they requested his assistance

self defense is self defense

if he is not convicted on the 2nd degree

he walks on all

either it was self defense or not

Incorrect...go back and read the transcript...I posted it a few pages back...and commented in detail. This is a misperception that is being passed off as fact. Go back and read the transcript after he was told "we dont need you to do that". All information after that is the dispatch getting GZs location, phone number and his home address...there is nothing asking for Trayvons whereabouts...only where GZ is parked. The dispatch is under the full impression that GZ has ceased following and the talk goes to where he will meet the police already en route.

Come on, Mark, buddy.

incorrect on what

his assistance was requested four times prior to

"we dont need you to do that"


which btw is not an order

as evidenced by testimony in court last week

by the NWP coordinator

 

[Sunshine]

I take Geodon and celexa. I still have the legal right to own firearms and buy more. Once again the process for denying the right requires a JUDGE to adjudicate the person incompetent or a threat.

This explains much.

I have made no secret of my condition. I have constant depression, with recurring major depression. I have a personality disorder, paranoia, and I have delusional Paranoia.

Geodon aids the celexa with the depression and may help with the paranoia. Prior to going on Geodon I was a basket case, suicidal thoughts controlled my life. Since Geodon hardly at all. Ohh they are always there but I have control now.

It takes the courage and strength of a warrior to ask for help!

 

[Ernie S.]

Now this pisses me off. I grew up with guns hanging on the wall and live in a state where you don't need a special permit to carry a concealed weapon. If you want to conceal your gun, you can. And I like that it's like that here.

What pisses me off is that Zimmerman has presented anti-gun people with some "ammunition" against the right to carry a weapon.

Thanks a lot Zimmerman, you asshole.

This conservative father-in-law I talk about carries a concealed weapon, and back when a permit was required he had a permit. I like being around him. He is the kind of guy you feel really safe being around. You know that if some nutcase comes into the theater or mall where you are and starts shooting that guys like my father-in-law will simply pull out their gun and shoot the sucker. (I think some of them live for the opportunity) : )

But it's one thing to carry a concealed weapon and know when and how to use it if necessary. It's entirely another thing to behave like Zimmerman, following people around in the dark and provoking confrontations whereupon you shoot 17-year-old kids dead.

What part of "Observing suspicious characters was his job in his capacity as a Neighborhood Watch Coordinator" is so hard to grasp?

Where is your outrage when a 17 year old young man attacks a man who's motivation is protecting his neighborhood from crime?

Everyone seems so intent on crucifying Zimmerman but excuses the actions of Martin. Why? because he's been portrayed as a cute 12 year old kid?
In reality, Martin was an angry, antisocial wannabe thug on his 3rd suspension and at the time of the incident, exhibiting either macho bullshit or real racism. He was not 12, but a 5'11". 158 pound young MAN.
Could Zimmerman acted differently so that he wouldn't have provoked Martin? Of course, but the fact remains that Martin had no good reason to attack Mr. Zimmerman and ultimately was responsible for his own death.

 

[25Caliber]

he is following a teen in the dark...he was advised not to.

that is not correct

what about the four times during that same call

that they requested his assistance

self defense is self defense

if he is not convicted on the 2nd degree

he walks on all

either it was self defense or not

Incorrect...go back and read the transcript...I posted it a few pages back...and commented in detail. This is a misperception that is being passed off as fact. Go back and read the transcript after he was told "we dont need you to do that". All information after that is the dispatch getting GZs location, phone number and his home address...there is nothing asking for Trayvons whereabouts...only where GZ is parked. The dispatch is under the full impression that GZ has ceased following and the talk goes to where he will meet the police already en route.

Come on, Mark, buddy.

incorrect on what

his assistance was requested four times prior to

"we dont need you to do that"


which btw is not an order

as evidenced by testimony in court last week

by the NWP coordinator

Its incorrect because it suggests the dispatcher is requesting it on foot instead of common knowledge or from a distance. Dispatch is asking...not requesting that he go get it on foot.

Here it is again:

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html

Are you referring to the dispatch asking for a description of the suspicious person? Thats not requesting him to follow anyone. GZ is reporting the information and dispatch is taking the information down.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Incorrect...go back and read the transcript...I posted it a few pages back...and commented in detail. This is a misperception that is being passed off as fact. Go back and read the transcript after he was told "we dont need you to do that". All information after that is the dispatch getting GZs location, phone number and his home address...there is nothing asking for Trayvons whereabouts...only where GZ is parked. The dispatch is under the full impression that GZ has ceased following and the talk goes to where he will meet the police already en route.

Come on, Mark, buddy.

incorrect on what

his assistance was requested four times prior to

"we dont need you to do that"


which btw is not an order

as evidenced by testimony in court last week

by the NWP coordinator

Its incorrect because it suggests the dispatcher is requesting it on foot instead of common knowledge or from a distance. Dispatch is asking...not requesting that he go get it on foot.

it doesnt suggest anything

other then the police wanted zimmerman to continue to keep them

informed of the situation

it is not against the law for zimmerman to exit his vehicle

was it very smart to do so

not so much

but it certainly is not criminal

people do dumb things all day every day

they certainly do not deserve to have their head bashed into the sidewalk

 

[testarosa]

[MENTION=31092]Kooshdakhaa[/MENTION] so far we have the link below. That whole "task force on Stand Your Ground" thing was for show. Nothing came of it and nothing will. pRick Scott isn't going to piss off his base because he's already so unpopular. It's not going to happen.

So we have this for "show" now:

Gov. Rick Scott signs bill to close loophole in firearm sales to mentally ill | Tampa Bay Times

 

[Katzndogz]

Not if the prosecution can show that George was the aggressor and that trayvon was defending himself. How can that be shown?...see my latest post in the other Z thread.

In short...if GZ was punched because he went reaching for his pockets in the dark when asked what his problem was or basically why he was following him and then during the struggle, Trayvon is punching him to prevent GZ from pulling a gun on him that GZ admits was exposed, then who was right?...who was the aggressor...GZ never identified himself. In Trayvons mind GZ was showing the same suspicious activity that he was accusing of...only difference is, GZ was carrying a gun.

Being slowly followed by a stranger in the dark in an unfamiliar neighborhood and then being followed again on foot in the dark using a flashlight would give anyone a creepy feeling. We have the benefit of hindsight to know who GZ was...Trayvon didnt.

Not as cut and dry as you suggest. If the prosecution would start hammering the above instead of bringing race into it, they might have a chance...otherwise no.

They don't seem to be pushing that particular fantasy because the facts wont support it. It might have been reasonable if Trayvon had punched him and run away. It is not reasonable that Trayvon would get on top of him and pound his head into the pavement. At that point Zimmerman was justified in using deadly force.
He will walk. There is no question in my mind on this one. It is as clear a case of self defense as I've seen in watching these things. The prosecutor's case falls apart every day as their own witnesses support Zimmerman.

Its not a fantasy at all...its GZs own words...he reached...the gun was exposed and he was hit because of it. Punch and run?...why so the guy can shoot you in the back? I understand that at the moment of the punch, Trayvon didnt know what he was reaching for...but when fighting you are taught to punch once and dont stop...in the process If I see a gun...im going to keep punching...especially if he is going for the gun.

And why is GZ not being considered a suspicious character? Someone needs to answer that...he is driving around following a stranger in the dark...he never identified himself...he was acting like a suspicious creep also...you have the benefit of hindsight now, but Trayvon didnt...how did he know who GZ was?

Cant figure out why so many are willing to give GZ the benefit of the doubt of being suspicious, but he was arguably acting more suspicious and no one can see it...why because you know now that he was NH watch captain? You woudnt have known it that night in the dark and rain...he was acting like a creep to anyone that didnt specifically know who he was and what he was doing. Committing a crime? No...but neither was trayvon as it turns out.

I will bet that if all we had was raw video footage of the events that night...it would be very hard to tell who the real creep was...many would be freaked out by some dude appearing to be stalking a teen walking home from 7-11...lol.

You have so many "Ifs" that you are actually describing a different case. IF Martin was so freaked out at being followed by a stranger, why call his friend Rachel and say he's being followed by a creepy ass cracker and not call his father, who was right there, could have been there in less than a minute and said "Dad, some creepy ass cracker is following me"? At which point, Dad would have walked out and said "Who are you and why are you following my son?"

 

[testarosa]

[MENTION=42969]jon_berzerk[/MENTION] -can I share that school thing?

 

[Sallow]

Yes. The issue is whether Zimmerman legitimately feared for his life at the time he shot Martin. Nothing else matters.

Oh you bet that's NOT the issue.

Because if it is the issue..then there are much bigger problems.

That means anyone can shoot anyone else because of fear.

And we are back to the Old West.

 

[Ernie S.]

If every state had a stand your ground law there would be a lot more shootings.

That law is unconstitutional.

How so?

 

[Sunshine]

It is irrelevant. I keep saying this over and over.
When Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman bangning his head into the ground Zimmerman was reasonably in fear of death or severe bodily harm. He was thus justified in using deadly force to stop the attack.
That is the only salient issue here. Whether Zimmerman should have followed Trayvon, whether Trayvon punched him first--all of it is irrelevant here. The only relevant question is whether Zimmerman was reasonably in fear of his life when he shot. And I have not seen anyone make the case he wasn't.

The case was just presented ad nauseum...you have dismissed it and did very little to answer any of the questions...GZ could have reasonably been seen in the eyes of Trayvon as being the suspicious person and the aggressor following him up a walk and reaching in the direction of a gun before he was hit. The case could be made that it was trayvon punching in self defense. But no one can see that including you...of course if the same were to happen to you or a family member, Im sure you could find a reason for self defense...especially when it turns out there was a gun in the location he was reaching...not a phone.

The case is being made...you dont like what you hear and are dismissing it.

I dismiss it because it is irrelevant. Whether Zimmerman was suspicious or not is irrelevant. Even if he was, that is not grounds to punch someone. The presence of the gun was not known until Trayvon saw it while he was punching Zimmerman. Thus its presence is irrelevant.
You are very ignorant of laws of self defense. I would suggest getting some information on the topic before spouting off again.

I believe that anyone who doesn't have a permit to carry a concealed weapon can still legally wear a gun an holster. I know several people here who do that and they are well within the law because the gun is not concealed. The presence of a gun is irrelevant except tot he extent that once it was known, li'l Trayvon pursued a really stupid course of action. Running away in a zig zag pattern would have been his best option and likely not one shot would have been fired. But if it had been it would have been very difficult to hit him. Here in KY, we like our guns, our whiskey, our horses, and our game filled woodlands. Pretty much everyone is armed.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yes. The issue is whether Zimmerman legitimately feared for his life at the time he shot Martin. Nothing else matters.

Oh you bet that's NOT the issue.

Because if it is the issue..then there are much bigger problems.

That means anyone can shoot anyone else because of fear.

And we are back to the Old West.

I realize your reading skills are sub par. I wrote "legitimately". That excludes people who think someone following them at a decent distance is suddenly a threat.

 

[The Rabbi]

The case was just presented ad nauseum...you have dismissed it and did very little to answer any of the questions...GZ could have reasonably been seen in the eyes of Trayvon as being the suspicious person and the aggressor following him up a walk and reaching in the direction of a gun before he was hit. The case could be made that it was trayvon punching in self defense. But no one can see that including you...of course if the same were to happen to you or a family member, Im sure you could find a reason for self defense...especially when it turns out there was a gun in the location he was reaching...not a phone.

The case is being made...you dont like what you hear and are dismissing it.

I dismiss it because it is irrelevant. Whether Zimmerman was suspicious or not is irrelevant. Even if he was, that is not grounds to punch someone. The presence of the gun was not known until Trayvon saw it while he was punching Zimmerman. Thus its presence is irrelevant.
You are very ignorant of laws of self defense. I would suggest getting some information on the topic before spouting off again.

I believe that anyone who doesn't have a permit to carry a concealed weapon can still legally wear a gun an holster. I know several people here who do that and they are well within the law because the gun is not concealed. The presence of a gun is irrelevant except tot he extent that once it was known, li'l Trayvon pursued a really stupid course of action. Running away in a zig zag pattern would have been his best option and likely not one shot would have been fired. But if it had been it would have been very difficult to hit him. Here in KY, we like our guns, our whiskey, our horses, and our game filled woodlands. Pretty much everyone is armed.

It depends on the state. In FL you must have a permit to carry. I dont know whether they allow open carry or not.

 

[jon_berzerk]

[MENTION=42969]jon_berzerk[/MENTION] -can I share that school thing?

maybe wait a few days

i still believe that the state is unaware of it

 

[Ernie S.]

I was wrong.

We've come to expect that.