nice wrap up, dave1251
Zimmerman trial BITOG style....
- Thread starter Bill in Utah
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
I live in a neighborhood where we have C.O.P.S. (Citizens on Patrol). They drive around in their personal vehicles patrolling the neighborhood. It`s usually older retirees. I on numerous occasions have been followed by them if I`m out walking late at night,or jogging,which I do on a regular basis. If I`m tinkering with my car late at night they`ll sort`ve check me out,and drive on once they see I`m not up to no good.
Do I rush them and say "Yo dawg why are you following me,you got a problem?". No,instead I`m thankful they`re watching over mine and my fellow neighbor`s property,which they DON`T have to do,but chose to do so because they`re helping out their fellow neighbors.
I`ve been approached by them late at night (and by the way I`m a clean cut caucasion) and have still been approached. Happened one night really late as I was tinkering with my car,then drove off. I stopped and chit chatted with them for a few,thanked them for watching over us (which like I said they have no obligation to do) and moved on as did they.
Last night a guy parked his Tahoe (said person doesn`t live here) in front of his friend`s house,sat in his car with the door open,while talking on the phone. This was around 1am. I couldn`t sleep so I went out for a walk when I witnessed this. I saw him approached by the watch people and I walked by for a listen. Guy in Tahoe was polite and they carried on a conversation. They then drove past me a few times,I waved-he waved,and then drove off. If I`d gotten in his face and assualted him,that night would`ve had a much different outcome.
Gated commutities (like the one Zimmy was watching) are VERY tight knit. ANY one who doesn`t belong (which I mean doesn`t reside there) WILL get followed and if acts the least bit suspicious,will be followed. It`s happened to me many times actually. What he should`ve done was gone about his business,maybe introduced himself to Zimmy and thanked him for watching over his relative`s neighborhood,and moved on. He`d still be alive today and NONE of this would`ve happened.
This is truly a great post, a voice of reason among much emotion.
I live in a neighborhood where we have C.O.P.S. (Citizens on Patrol). They drive around in their personal vehicles patrolling the neighborhood. It`s usually older retirees. I on numerous occasions have been followed by them if I`m out walking late at night,or jogging,which I do on a regular basis. If I`m tinkering with my car late at night they`ll sort`ve check me out,and drive on once they see I`m not up to no good.
Do I rush them and say "Yo dawg why are you following me,you got a problem?". No,instead I`m thankful they`re watching over mine and my fellow neighbor`s property,which they DON`T have to do,but chose to do so because they`re helping out their fellow neighbors.
I`ve been approached by them late at night (and by the way I`m a clean cut caucasion) and have still been approached. Happened one night really late as I was tinkering with my car,then drove off. I stopped and chit chatted with them for a few,thanked them for watching over us (which like I said they have no obligation to do) and moved on as did they.
Last night a guy parked his Tahoe (said person doesn`t live here) in front of his friend`s house,sat in his car with the door open,while talking on the phone. This was around 1am. I couldn`t sleep so I went out for a walk when I witnessed this. I saw him approached by the watch people and I walked by for a listen. Guy in Tahoe was polite and they carried on a conversation. They then drove past me a few times,I waved-he waved,and then drove off. If I`d gotten in his face and assualted him,that night would`ve had a much different outcome.
Gated commutities (like the one Zimmy was watching) are VERY tight knit. ANY one who doesn`t belong (which I mean doesn`t reside there) WILL get followed and if acts the least bit suspicious,will be followed. It`s happened to me many times actually. What he should`ve done was gone about his business,maybe introduced himself to Zimmy and thanked him for watching over his relative`s neighborhood,and moved on. He`d still be alive today and NONE of this would`ve happened.
This is truly a great post, a voice of reason among much emotion.
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Gated commutities (like the one Zimmy was watching) are VERY tight knit. ANY one who doesn`t belong (which I mean doesn`t reside there) WILL get followed and if acts the least bit suspicious,will be followed. It`s happened to me many times actually. What he should`ve done was gone about his business,maybe introduced himself to Zimmy and thanked him for watching over his relative`s neighborhood,and moved on. He`d still be alive today and NONE of this would`ve happened.
Well, yeah. Of course. But you know that's not the issue here, right?
The question is NOT whether Trayvon Martin conducted himself well or poorly. The question is whether he had to be shot and killed.
Gated commutities (like the one Zimmy was watching) are VERY tight knit. ANY one who doesn`t belong (which I mean doesn`t reside there) WILL get followed and if acts the least bit suspicious,will be followed. It`s happened to me many times actually. What he should`ve done was gone about his business,maybe introduced himself to Zimmy and thanked him for watching over his relative`s neighborhood,and moved on. He`d still be alive today and NONE of this would`ve happened.
Well, yeah. Of course. But you know that's not the issue here, right?
The question is NOT whether Trayvon Martin conducted himself well or poorly. The question is whether he had to be shot and killed.
Originally Posted By: LT4 Vette
Originally Posted By: rjundi
Either way Zimmerman gets a life with a painted targeted affixed on his back.
How long will he last in prison ?
He'd probably be okay in prison.
Plenty of Latinos doing state time in Florida.
He'd have a crew to hang with, so he'd have protection.
Originally Posted By: rjundi
Either way Zimmerman gets a life with a painted targeted affixed on his back.
How long will he last in prison ?
He'd probably be okay in prison.
Plenty of Latinos doing state time in Florida.
He'd have a crew to hang with, so he'd have protection.
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
The question is NOT whether Trayvon Martin conducted himself well or poorly. The question is whether he had to be shot and killed.
No, actually the root question is....
should Zimmerman have even been charged when he was within his legal rights to use the stand your ground law to defend himself from an aggressive physical attack?
The question is NOT whether Trayvon Martin conducted himself well or poorly. The question is whether he had to be shot and killed.
No, actually the root question is....
should Zimmerman have even been charged when he was within his legal rights to use the stand your ground law to defend himself from an aggressive physical attack?
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
The question is NOT whether Trayvon Martin conducted himself well or poorly. The question is whether he had to be shot and killed.
No, actually the root question is....
should Zimmerman have even been charged when he was within his legal rights to use the stand your ground law to defend himself from an aggressive physical attack?
No way should he have been charged. No matter who is following you,what someone is saying to you,etc,the second someone touches you all bets are off.
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
The question is NOT whether Trayvon Martin conducted himself well or poorly. The question is whether he had to be shot and killed.
No, actually the root question is....
should Zimmerman have even been charged when he was within his legal rights to use the stand your ground law to defend himself from an aggressive physical attack?
No way should he have been charged. No matter who is following you,what someone is saying to you,etc,the second someone touches you all bets are off.
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
No way should he have been charged. No matter who is following you,what someone is saying to you,etc,the second someone touches you all bets are off.
if someone touches you, just shoot.
No way should he have been charged. No matter who is following you,what someone is saying to you,etc,the second someone touches you all bets are off.
if someone touches you, just shoot.
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
Originally Posted By: FXjohn
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
No way should he have been charged. No matter who is following you,what someone is saying to you,etc,the second someone touches you all bets are off.
if someone touches you, just shoot.
No way,absolutely not! BUT,when someone decides to take it upon himself to assault someone,he should be prepared to suffer whatever consequences that may occur.
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
No way should he have been charged. No matter who is following you,what someone is saying to you,etc,the second someone touches you all bets are off.
if someone touches you, just shoot.
No way,absolutely not! BUT,when someone decides to take it upon himself to assault someone,he should be prepared to suffer whatever consequences that may occur.
Originally Posted By: FXjohn
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
No way should he have been charged. No matter who is following you,what someone is saying to you,etc,the second someone touches you all bets are off.
if someone touches you, just shoot.
The perp, Martin, was "annoyed" that someone was following him. So Martin decided to take the law into his own hands by beating the living [censored] out of a guy on the ground, that was performing neighborhood watch duties . Martin was in the least committing assault and battery, with a potential for murder, Zimmerman had every right under Florida law to use the stand your ground action.
The worst part of this case is it signals every criminal that they have a decent chance of seriously injuring a victim and having the victim become the defendant.
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
No way should he have been charged. No matter who is following you,what someone is saying to you,etc,the second someone touches you all bets are off.
if someone touches you, just shoot.
The perp, Martin, was "annoyed" that someone was following him. So Martin decided to take the law into his own hands by beating the living [censored] out of a guy on the ground, that was performing neighborhood watch duties . Martin was in the least committing assault and battery, with a potential for murder, Zimmerman had every right under Florida law to use the stand your ground action.
The worst part of this case is it signals every criminal that they have a decent chance of seriously injuring a victim and having the victim become the defendant.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
Look at it from Zimmy's point of view,he gets jumped from behind and goes down and is getting beat down. He had every right to use deadly force,which he did. If someone were to jump me from behind,MY life is worth more than theirs.
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Look at it from Zimmy's point of view,he gets jumped from behind and goes down and is getting beat down. He had every right to use deadly force,which he did. If someone were to jump me from behind,MY life is worth more than theirs.
So he got jumped from behind by the person he was following? .....what?
That doesn't make any sense either. Doesn't match Zimmerman's injuries. Zimmerman would have had to roll over onto his back and Martin would have to wait for him to do it before striking him. No injuries to Zimmerman's hands that would have happened if he was attacked from behind and tried to catch himself. It would have been face to face.
We just don't know how close Zimmerman was to Martin. What he was saying, what he was doing.
Was he grabbing and attempting to aprehend Trayvon Martin? You're probably going to get attacked for that. If that's the case, Zimmerman instigated it and it's manslaughter.
Zimmerman plays cop a lot. He tried to become a cop. Spousal abuse, an attack on a police officer and credit history probably prevented him from becoming one. Something happened to make Trayvon Martin turn and attack his pursuer. Was it warranted? We just don't know.
Was he following and perhaps asking questions of Trayvon Martin? Martin could have just told him off and jogged away. George Zimmerman would have to disengage his pursuit or attempt to chase him. I really don't believe Zimmerman could have kept up with Martin. Was he well within acceptable parameters for neighborhood watch? We just don't know.
Problem is that nobody alive saw that part except Zimmerman and he's not testifying. In some countries, not testifying is an admission of guilt, but not in the United States. Couple that with the attorneys and judge making it a kangaroo court and we may never know what really happened.
Look at it from Zimmy's point of view,he gets jumped from behind and goes down and is getting beat down. He had every right to use deadly force,which he did. If someone were to jump me from behind,MY life is worth more than theirs.
So he got jumped from behind by the person he was following? .....what?
That doesn't make any sense either. Doesn't match Zimmerman's injuries. Zimmerman would have had to roll over onto his back and Martin would have to wait for him to do it before striking him. No injuries to Zimmerman's hands that would have happened if he was attacked from behind and tried to catch himself. It would have been face to face.
We just don't know how close Zimmerman was to Martin. What he was saying, what he was doing.
Was he grabbing and attempting to aprehend Trayvon Martin? You're probably going to get attacked for that. If that's the case, Zimmerman instigated it and it's manslaughter.
Zimmerman plays cop a lot. He tried to become a cop. Spousal abuse, an attack on a police officer and credit history probably prevented him from becoming one. Something happened to make Trayvon Martin turn and attack his pursuer. Was it warranted? We just don't know.
Was he following and perhaps asking questions of Trayvon Martin? Martin could have just told him off and jogged away. George Zimmerman would have to disengage his pursuit or attempt to chase him. I really don't believe Zimmerman could have kept up with Martin. Was he well within acceptable parameters for neighborhood watch? We just don't know.
Problem is that nobody alive saw that part except Zimmerman and he's not testifying. In some countries, not testifying is an admission of guilt, but not in the United States. Couple that with the attorneys and judge making it a kangaroo court and we may never know what really happened.
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Trayvon Martin turn and attack his pursuer.
That's what gave Zimmy the right to use deadly force.
Trayvon Martin turn and attack his pursuer.
That's what gave Zimmy the right to use deadly force.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2011
- Messages
- 5,644
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Gated commutities (like the one Zimmy was watching) are VERY tight knit. ANY one who doesn`t belong (which I mean doesn`t reside there) WILL get followed and if acts the least bit suspicious,will be followed. It`s happened to me many times actually. What he should`ve done was gone about his business,maybe introduced himself to Zimmy and thanked him for watching over his relative`s neighborhood,and moved on. He`d still be alive today and NONE of this would`ve happened.
Well, yeah. Of course. But you know that's not the issue here, right?
The question is NOT whether Trayvon Martin conducted himself well or poorly. The question is whether he had to be shot and killed.
Negative Sir; the question is DID Z "feel" as if his life was in danger from another.
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Gated commutities (like the one Zimmy was watching) are VERY tight knit. ANY one who doesn`t belong (which I mean doesn`t reside there) WILL get followed and if acts the least bit suspicious,will be followed. It`s happened to me many times actually. What he should`ve done was gone about his business,maybe introduced himself to Zimmy and thanked him for watching over his relative`s neighborhood,and moved on. He`d still be alive today and NONE of this would`ve happened.
Well, yeah. Of course. But you know that's not the issue here, right?
The question is NOT whether Trayvon Martin conducted himself well or poorly. The question is whether he had to be shot and killed.
Negative Sir; the question is DID Z "feel" as if his life was in danger from another.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2011
- Messages
- 5,644
Something to really garner a hint of the politics in this case is the prosecutor treatment of HIS PD witness's. What's trully telling is that very often the lead investigator has such an in depth knowledge of the case that the prosecutor almost always has him/her by their side...not here. There is a reason....
And here I will state my personal opinion and its just that:
TM whetehr thug or wanna be thug also didn't call 911 and decided to take the matter on himself and got a whole lot more than he bargained for. That is why you dont mess with people unless you have to because you never know who you are truly dealing with.
Z was a total tool and pursued this as a wanna be cop. Sorry but your not. You did no heed the advice of the PD dispatcher who advised you to not engage. You got more than you could handle and it ended up in a death.
Both parties have culpability here. 1 paid with his life and the other, in most states deserves manslaughter and a sentence for the actions he put forth into motion that resulted in a death at his hands.
In FL, under the applicable statues the state did no prove murder 2 nor did they even prove manslaughter. Reminder: you cannot hold Z to a level of due care above that of what stand your ground statue allows. Good/bad law, however you view it, doesn't matter in this instance. Neither does age or any other emotion. All very sad but when applying the law "sad" is not a concept. Knowing, willing, etc... are..
And here I will state my personal opinion and its just that:
TM whetehr thug or wanna be thug also didn't call 911 and decided to take the matter on himself and got a whole lot more than he bargained for. That is why you dont mess with people unless you have to because you never know who you are truly dealing with.
Z was a total tool and pursued this as a wanna be cop. Sorry but your not. You did no heed the advice of the PD dispatcher who advised you to not engage. You got more than you could handle and it ended up in a death.
Both parties have culpability here. 1 paid with his life and the other, in most states deserves manslaughter and a sentence for the actions he put forth into motion that resulted in a death at his hands.
In FL, under the applicable statues the state did no prove murder 2 nor did they even prove manslaughter. Reminder: you cannot hold Z to a level of due care above that of what stand your ground statue allows. Good/bad law, however you view it, doesn't matter in this instance. Neither does age or any other emotion. All very sad but when applying the law "sad" is not a concept. Knowing, willing, etc... are..
what are the undisputed facts in this case? Forget every single word which comes out of GZ's mouth. He did NOT take the stand. He did not testify under oath in a court and did not get cross-examined.
Now tell me the facts as you know them in black and white.
1) TM was dead from gunshot wound
2) The gun was found
3) It belong to GZ
Any other facts here? Testimony from the dispatch? Any phone records? Any video/audio clips?
If there are no facts, then I will be forced to use my own method to figure what likely must have happened by taking in to account everything that I have gathered.
As I said before charging GZ with murder 2 was completely illogical. The only reason it could have been done is to make sure he gets acquitted.
Now tell me the facts as you know them in black and white.
1) TM was dead from gunshot wound
2) The gun was found
3) It belong to GZ
Any other facts here? Testimony from the dispatch? Any phone records? Any video/audio clips?
If there are no facts, then I will be forced to use my own method to figure what likely must have happened by taking in to account everything that I have gathered.
As I said before charging GZ with murder 2 was completely illogical. The only reason it could have been done is to make sure he gets acquitted.
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Trayvon Martin turn and attack his pursuer.
That's what gave Zimmy the right to use deadly force.
Not if a wannabe cop is grabbing and attempting to apprehend Trayvon Martin. If Zimmerman physically handled Martin, it's manslaughter in the least.
But no one alive saw that part but Zimmerman and he ain't talking.
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Trayvon Martin turn and attack his pursuer.
That's what gave Zimmy the right to use deadly force.
Not if a wannabe cop is grabbing and attempting to apprehend Trayvon Martin. If Zimmerman physically handled Martin, it's manslaughter in the least.
But no one alive saw that part but Zimmerman and he ain't talking.
Originally Posted By: Nick R
This whole case is ridiculous. Zimmermans injuries do not support your claims of "pummelling him". There is ZERO evidence that zimmerman was returning to his car. Again, I think it's pretty obvious that zimmerman went into this looking for a reason to have a confrontation.
Wannabe punk [censored] cop.
And again I definitely think there is a portion of the population wanting him to be acquitted just so that "they don't take away my gun" which is a valid reason to worry imo, but should be irrelevant.
There is ALSO a portion of the population of older folks, who think that all teenagers are punks anyway and are no good, and are more likely to trust the older man because he relates more.
Dude, the law states if you are in fear of great bodily harm or death, you can stand your ground and use force equal to what's being given to you. If you don't think Zimmerman was pummeled, you're either blind, willfully ignoring the facts, or you haven't been paying attention to the case. The guys head was bloodied and scraped. I don't think anyone is now arguing Trayvon was on the bottom. I think there is reasonable doubt it was Trayvon yelling for help and it was likely Zimmerman.
Wanna be punk [censored] cop or not, he had the right to defend himself. You might not like the guy; I think he's no choir boy. But he legally had the right to defend himself. If we as a society give up that basic right, we have nothing.
Zimmerman's lawyer spelled out dozens of cases where a person used a firearm to defend themselves in Florida (not castle doctrine mind you), and the circumstances were no where near what Zimmerman faced.
This whole case is ridiculous. Zimmermans injuries do not support your claims of "pummelling him". There is ZERO evidence that zimmerman was returning to his car. Again, I think it's pretty obvious that zimmerman went into this looking for a reason to have a confrontation.
Wannabe punk [censored] cop.
And again I definitely think there is a portion of the population wanting him to be acquitted just so that "they don't take away my gun" which is a valid reason to worry imo, but should be irrelevant.
There is ALSO a portion of the population of older folks, who think that all teenagers are punks anyway and are no good, and are more likely to trust the older man because he relates more.
Dude, the law states if you are in fear of great bodily harm or death, you can stand your ground and use force equal to what's being given to you. If you don't think Zimmerman was pummeled, you're either blind, willfully ignoring the facts, or you haven't been paying attention to the case. The guys head was bloodied and scraped. I don't think anyone is now arguing Trayvon was on the bottom. I think there is reasonable doubt it was Trayvon yelling for help and it was likely Zimmerman.
Wanna be punk [censored] cop or not, he had the right to defend himself. You might not like the guy; I think he's no choir boy. But he legally had the right to defend himself. If we as a society give up that basic right, we have nothing.
Zimmerman's lawyer spelled out dozens of cases where a person used a firearm to defend themselves in Florida (not castle doctrine mind you), and the circumstances were no where near what Zimmerman faced.
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
The question is NOT whether Trayvon Martin conducted himself well or poorly. The question is whether he had to be shot and killed.
No, actually the root question is....
should Zimmerman have even been charged when he was within his legal rights to use the stand your ground law to defend himself from an aggressive physical attack?
Um, what? He followed and confronted the kid when clearly told to cease and desist by a 9/11 dispatcher, and leave it to police...
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
The question is NOT whether Trayvon Martin conducted himself well or poorly. The question is whether he had to be shot and killed.
No, actually the root question is....
should Zimmerman have even been charged when he was within his legal rights to use the stand your ground law to defend himself from an aggressive physical attack?
Um, what? He followed and confronted the kid when clearly told to cease and desist by a 9/11 dispatcher, and leave it to police...
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Originally Posted By: Nick R
This whole case is ridiculous. Zimmermans injuries do not support your claims of "pummelling him". There is ZERO evidence that zimmerman was returning to his car. Again, I think it's pretty obvious that zimmerman went into this looking for a reason to have a confrontation.
Wannabe punk [censored] cop.
And again I definitely think there is a portion of the population wanting him to be acquitted just so that "they don't take away my gun" which is a valid reason to worry imo, but should be irrelevant.
There is ALSO a portion of the population of older folks, who think that all teenagers are punks anyway and are no good, and are more likely to trust the older man because he relates more.
Dude, the law states if you are in fear of great bodily harm or death, you can stand your ground and use force equal to what's being given to you. If you don't think Zimmerman was pummeled, you're either blind, willfully ignoring the facts, or you haven't been paying attention to the case. The guys head was bloodied and scraped. I don't think anyone is now arguing Trayvon was on the bottom. I think there is reasonable doubt it was Trayvon yelling for help and it was likely Zimmerman.
Wanna be punk [censored] cop or not, he had the right to defend himself. You might not like the guy; I think he's no choir boy. But he legally had the right to defend himself. If we as a society give up that basic right, we have nothing.
Zimmerman's lawyer spelled out dozens of cases where a person used a firearm to defend themselves in Florida (not castle doctrine mind you), and the circumstances were no where near what Zimmerman faced.
Or stand your ground means: get your [censored] kicked in a fight you in no small way provoked, get out a gun and shoot somebody?
Originally Posted By: Nick R
This whole case is ridiculous. Zimmermans injuries do not support your claims of "pummelling him". There is ZERO evidence that zimmerman was returning to his car. Again, I think it's pretty obvious that zimmerman went into this looking for a reason to have a confrontation.
Wannabe punk [censored] cop.
And again I definitely think there is a portion of the population wanting him to be acquitted just so that "they don't take away my gun" which is a valid reason to worry imo, but should be irrelevant.
There is ALSO a portion of the population of older folks, who think that all teenagers are punks anyway and are no good, and are more likely to trust the older man because he relates more.
Dude, the law states if you are in fear of great bodily harm or death, you can stand your ground and use force equal to what's being given to you. If you don't think Zimmerman was pummeled, you're either blind, willfully ignoring the facts, or you haven't been paying attention to the case. The guys head was bloodied and scraped. I don't think anyone is now arguing Trayvon was on the bottom. I think there is reasonable doubt it was Trayvon yelling for help and it was likely Zimmerman.
Wanna be punk [censored] cop or not, he had the right to defend himself. You might not like the guy; I think he's no choir boy. But he legally had the right to defend himself. If we as a society give up that basic right, we have nothing.
Zimmerman's lawyer spelled out dozens of cases where a person used a firearm to defend themselves in Florida (not castle doctrine mind you), and the circumstances were no where near what Zimmerman faced.
Or stand your ground means: get your [censored] kicked in a fight you in no small way provoked, get out a gun and shoot somebody?
- Status
