Zimmerman = guilty as hell. Prosecution = close to incompetent.
I’d be surprised if anything but “not guilty” came out of this trial.
Guns and Stand Your Ground? Hell yeah! That’s how far behind the US is vis-a-vis the rest of the civilized world.
Your own cite says that simply because someone is a liar doesn’t mean they’re guilty/
Do you even read the cites you post?
None of those things are relevant in determining whether his decision to shoot was legal, disregarding that they are not actually true.
-
As previously discussed, Zimmerman did not stalk Martin, he followed him briefly (and legally), then stopped.
-
Zimmerman did not have “minimal injuries”, and having any level of injury is not necessary before one may defend oneself.
-
Zimmerman had no duty to identify himself, and Martin is the one responsible for his response.
I don’t know what your problem with it is, but anyone has a right to follow you and question you, without identifying themselves, and as long as such conduct isn’t an immediate threat of violence, you may not respond physically. It seems that you, and others, think that these actions are illegal - they are not. Even if one is armed.
I read her comments as being the usual thing we blurt out after an unexpected death, as in one day he’s sitting here on the porch, the next he’s gone. Metaphorical, not literal.
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]I don’t understand the relevance of the ‘Travyon was a kid/not a kid’ discussion. He was 17, not a legal adult in the US. If the shooting had been 3 weeks earlier he would have been 16. He was a kid in every sense of the word; whether he (or other 17 year olds) ‘want’ to be called kids or not is irrelevant.
[/SIZE][/FONT]
Possibly irrelevant, but if this is actually how George was trained, he did a piss-poor job of following his training. He fired only one shot, claims that he didn’t think his shot hit Martin,but that he (George) stopped screaming -immediately- (if we take him at his word that it was him screaming), and decided that he’d immediately try to jump on top of the guy that seconds ago was slamming his head into concrete. Seems a rather sudden shift from 'my ‘head is going to explode and I’m scared for my very life’. Hell, if it was me and I was scared for my life with a gun in my hand, I’m not going to stop screaming immediately after firing one shot. I’m emptying the clip and probably would continue screaming long until I was 100% certain the guy attacking me was dead.
Inner waistband holsters don’t ‘slide around’ and it sure as hell wouldn’t slide around with Zimmerman on the ground, gun & holster underneath him, Martin on top of him.
Jesus, project much? Just because the article doesn’t go out of its way to bestow sainthood upon George Zimmerman, you think the article is biased? Did you even read the whole article or did you just find the first quote seemingly ‘anti-Zimmerman’?
The article was neither pro- nor anti-Zimmerman. It discussed how the case became a national story, discusses some aspects of the case that won’t make it into the trial (Martin’s alleged drug use) and what the case (and possible reaction to any verdict) may - or may not - say about the US as a nation, good and bad. Quite frankly it’s -better- than a lot of the garbage coming out of CNN these past couple of years.
They would be very fucking relevant if Martin were still alive; why do you assume they aren’t relevant now that the only other party in the altercation is dead?
Martin was aware of Zimmerman, and he knew Zimmerman had been following him - on car, then on foot- for roughly a quarter of a mile. He thought Zimmerman was ‘creepy’. He thought Zimmerman’s actions were disturbing. How you can assume that this would not influence Martins’ response when face to face with Zimmerman and thus are 'irrelevan’t is baffling.
He didn’t say he was home. He didn’t say he was ‘at home’ He said he was right by. That could be near. It could be ‘close to’. It could be ‘I’m opening the door to the house’. It could mean anything, or it could mean nothing; personally I lean towards meaning more along the lines of ‘near’; otherwise wouldn’t he be more likely to say something like, ‘no I don’t need to run, I’m already home’. ‘Right by’ or ‘near’ could be anywhere from the T or similiar distance in either direction of where he was staying.
She says she heard it a little, and she said it was Martin. You’re the one grasping at straws if you want to somehow magically turn this into George saying this, when he says nothing of the kind in his testimony. I’d also note that you’re assuming Martin’s phone & bluetooth headset and such stayed exactly put during the entire confrontration; who’s to say it might have already fallen or was falling to the grass at the time?
Huh? No; he has it in his inner waistband holster, near his rear back pocket. It’s exactly where such holsters are expected to be worn. It wouldn’t be uncomfortable there while driving; in contrast, having it directly on his hip bone or near his front right pocket would be - extremely- uncomfortable..
We don’t know that he stopped. In fact, we have a two-minute gap in time after the end of the NEN call where Zimmerman would have us believe that he was scared to go back to his truck because his flashlight didn’t work, so for two minutes he stood outside, in the rain, in the dark, with no idea where the possibly armed (Zimmerman as much as admitted that he thought Martin was armed), possibly drugged, up-to-no-good punk was. I’d say the circumstantial evidence very much points to Zimmerman spending that two minutes looking for Martin.
The injuries were minimal. They looked minimal, and at least two witnesses testified - and were not really rebutted by the defense - that the injuries were in fact minimal. Instead the defense went with the ‘yeah, but the *next *injury might be fatal, right’? argument.
You’re correct in the sense of ‘any level of injury’ may be sufficient for defending yourself. But we’re not just talking about ‘defending’ oneself, we’re talking about shooting someone dead. Do you think you would be justified in shooting someone if they pinched you really hard or slapped you in the face?
And Zimmerman is responsible for his response when Martin reacts to an unknown, armed stranger who fails to identify himself after following him for a quarter of a mile. He doesn’t get a free pass on this, since he was the one with a gun. If gun owners want to carry around an object that makes it really really easy to kill someone, they are to be held to a higher standard. I don’t think even Zimmerman’s supporters would deny that Zimmerman exercised appallingly poor judgement that night and had multiple opportunities to de-escalate things, yet I’m increasingly concerned from the gun owner cap that Zimmerman’s level of judgement and decision making is peach-dandy by them.
Thoroughly. You should try it…hey just try reading my post! That way you can avoid all the erroneous statements you make about them. In this case it would be your apparent error about my assertion, which was never that a lie is automatically proof of guilt without exception, only that it may be considered to be evidence of guilt by a juror engaged in determining guilt or innocence.
Which refutedyour supremely confident assertion that the outcome of finding that a defendant has lied would be limited exclusively to ignoring their statements, making credibility determinations of limited value. Fortunately you were wrong about that, leaving jurors across the land free to judge the guilt of defendants based in part on the lies they’ve told about how innocenty-self-defensy they are. Whew. Dodged a bullet there!
As I have noted many times, none of these matters has been irrefutably proven to standards widely accepted by cross sections of people. You are free to have opinions which differ radically from mine, arrived out by processes that you find reasonable. My statement was what I would find if I were a juror.
So you believe, so you are entitled to believe, as there is no clear cut evidence either way, leaving reasonable people able to arrive at different conclusions of what the evidence we do have most strongly supports.
Given that no injury is necessary it seems odd that you would continue to take the time to disagree with those who find Zimmermans injuries to be minor. Who cares? Well, some people do, that’s true: again if I were a juror I would be free to consider the injuries as part of the overall picture. And I would find that they did not indicate to me what Zimmerman claims. You would find they do. Oh well.
I suppose that depends on how you define “duty”. He had no legal duty, but if he didn’t want to frighten or anger someone into a bad reaction, he had a duty to have the good sense to explain himself. Again, you’re free to disagree. And we disagree about who was responsible… Oh well.
I do not think that these actions are illegal, and I have never thought that these actions were illegal. Come to think of it, I have never read anywhere in these boards that anyone believes that those actions are illegal, so it’s rather strange that you think that. But just because a behavior is not specifically proscribed by law, does not make it okay, does not make it smart, and does make it free of consequence.
And yes, depending on the situation, a person absolutely can reasonably feel threatened by such behavior and decide they need to defend themselves, as we have discussed. As a fan of self-defense, surely you Would not require that self-defense could only be employed when the threat has been clearly and unequivocally announced ahead of time? As you have argued on Zimmerman’s behalf many times, it is merely a matter of the threatened persons reasonable perception. A great many people agree that Zimmerman’s behavior towards Martin would be reasonably perceived by them as threatening and scary. You are not the final arbiter of what may or may not be considered threatening or scary, except for yourself.
Following someone is not an imminent threat of violence that justifies self defence. Neither is asking someone what they are doing, and neither is failing to identify yourself. Finding someone’s actions scary doesn’t mean they are imminently threatening.
If, for example, I am walking away from you, but say I will come back and kill you later, you may not use force against me. That is a clear (and illegal) threat, but not imminent. That Zimmerman previously followed Martin did not give him the right to return to him and confront him, even if there was a threat.
Likewise, if I follow you and ask you what you’re doing, you do not have a right to use force. There needs to be an actual threat. As yet, no-one’s provided any evidence that Zimmerman threatened Martin in any way.
-
The picture of Zimmerman’s gun and holster shows an OUTSIDE the waistband holster.
-
Do you wear an inside the waistband holster? I do, and they most certainly do slide around. I’ll be happy to make a video to illustrate.
As yet, no one’s provided any evidence that Martin sucker-punched Zimmerman completely unprovoked, and in fact Zimmerman’s numerous inconsistencies in his story make this somewhat less plausible. Zimmerman’s spent the last 5-6 minutes trying to track down Martin. He got out of his car and ran after Martin.
Remember, Zimmerman thinks this guy is an asshole punk trying to get away, he’s ‘up to no good’. Just what do you think Zimmerman was going to do when he caught Martin? Ask the possibly drugged, possibly armed punk to stand their quietly while he dialed 911?
If there was a prolonged struggle for the gun, why didn’t Zimmerman have scratches, bruises, or any wounds on his hands afterward?
If Zimmerman approached Martin with his gun drawn, why did Martin choose to punch Zimmerman in the face instead of using both hands to try to control the gun?
Why doesn’t Martin have powder burns or a cut from the pistol’s slide on his hands?
Firstly - if so, George was most definitely breaking the law, since open carry isn’t allowed in Florida. Secondly - it’s an inside waistband holster. Seriously. If you don’t even understand that after seeing the damn thing, I’m not sure what to tell you.
Who said there was a prolonged struggle for the gun?
Who said Zimmerman approached Martin with his gun drawn?
Why would he have powder burns on his hands? Zimmerman said he trapped Martin’s left arm with his right arm, and Martin doesn’t tell us what Martin was doing with his right hand. Apparently that something was ‘not trying to stop George from shooting him’, which seems odd since both parties (according to Zimmerman) were aware of the gun and in fact Martin seemed quite intent on using it to kiill Zimmerman. Seems odd that George faced almost no resistance in pulling his gun out…
Sorry, just realized that I guess Stoid was suggesting a prolonged struggle for the gun. Zimmerman approaching Martin with his gun drawn doesn’t jive with Dee Dee’s testimony - if nothing else, her statements as to what she heard Martin & Zimmerman say ‘why are you following me’ and ‘what are you doing around here’ sound exactly like what I’d expect both of them to say in that situation. And I don’t think we get an ‘escalating argument’ as per the ear-witnessses if the whole thing started out with Zimmerman’s gun in his hand.
I was indeed responding to her theory, and I agree that it doesn’t fit with the other evidence.
EXCELLENT POINT! Well said. Bravo.
There is another thread for discussing the “Martin/Zimmerman: humble opinions and speculation” issues. This thread is intended for what is happening at the actual trial and not a rehash of the numerous examples of speculative diatribe found in the other thread.
Since BlakeTyner doesn’t seem to know the difference between open & concealed carry, here is what the State of Florida has to say on the matter:
Wearing a jacket over an outside-the-waistband holster isn’t open carry, though.
Which would be relevant if Zimmerman had been wearing an OTW holster. But he wasn’t.
I’m not sure there’s much to discuss about the trial. The standard of proof required in this case basically ensures a get-out-of-jail free card if you shoot first and kill the other guy; that the State has been utterly incompetent - borderline criminally incompetent - hasn’t helped matters. I’m struggling to understand why the prosecution wouldn’t call one final witness to ‘connect the dots’ for the jury, ensure all the inconsistencies were clearly understood, put in one place to view and grasp, in the context of the entire shooting. Baffling.
The defense focused on distilling the entire evening down to the possibility that Zimmerman might have been scared for his life in the split second of the shot. The prosecution’s 2nd degree charge depended on being able to build an entire narrative for Zimmerman’s actions for the whole evening.
I don’t see how the jury could ever arrive at a guilty verdict at this point.
Correct, it was IWB (and they do move around a bit). But in neither case was he engaged in open carry, since he had a jacket on.
Also, the carry position Zimmerman described is neither over the right rear pocket, nor on the right hip, but rather right in between: just behind the hip-bone. It doesn’t put the pistol fully under the wearer’s back when laying down, nor it is fully on their side, it’s right in between.
I agree that this is sometimes true. And sometimes not.
here’s what we know with a reasonable degree of certainty and agreement: Trayvon asked Zimmerman why he was was following him, Zimmerman answered with a question of his own. Beyond that, we have a divergence of opinion. You believe Zimmerman. I find Zimmerman’s inconsistencies and implausibilities make him a liar and prove to me, in combination with other facts, that he is guilty and has lied to protect himself. Therefore I do not believe his story, so we do not have an agreed upon basis to work from in discussing what Martin had a right to do. You are entitled to your findings, I am entitled to mine. The evidence supports both of our findings, to varying degrees.
To your satisfaction. It has been proved to many other people’s.