Zimmerman Trial Thread Locked

[FXjohn]

Originally Posted By: Philth
Originally Posted By: bubbatime
Edit: This Zimmerman character is costing me about $50 month ever since this fiasco began. My wife and I own a townhouse where Trayvon Martin was shot (about 30 feet away from the shooting location) and the association insurance went through the roof. I just wish it would be over.


You can thank TM's parents for settling a "wrongful death" suit with your association in excess of 1 Million dollars.



so what? serves them right for empowering morons like zimmerman. I'm sure you wouldn't have sued if your kid got shot coming home.

 

[Philth]

My kid wouldn't live the lifestyle that TM did.

Also, money doesn't solve anything. Especially the loss of a family member. I clearly think that some lawyer got a hold of TMs parents and took advantage of the situation. Just like ambulance chasers do with car accidents. How can it be wrongful death before a criminal trial is even over?

 

[NightRiderQ45]

I've concluded that Mystic doesn't know what he is talking about at all. He has failed to even respond to my message pages ago proving what he " knows" is the truth. On to bigger things that actually matter....the elephant in the room is, if pig thug zman was black and shot a 5'11 158 17 year old KID, this would've been over a year ago and the guy would be in prison. Based on the 911 dispatcher telling him to stand down multiple times alone. This is truth and everyone knows this.

 

[FXjohn]

yeah, walking home from a store is a lifestyle your kid would never have. and the suit has not one thing to do with this trial. read your high school civics book again.

 

[Philth]

Honestly, no he wouldn't.

And about your civics comment and my education...I'm speaking LITERALLY. Law or not. I don't see how it can be wrongful death before a criminal trial is over? What could the associate have done any differently, within reasonable means, to prevent anybodys shooting death on their property?

 

[FXjohn]

a civil wrongful death suit has nothing to do with the standard of proof to convict on a murder charge. I;m glad your kid would never do anything as criminal as walking home through his own neighborhood.

 

[Philth]

I never said TM was doing anything criminal. I suggest you stop putting words into my mouth. I said my kid wouldn't live that lifestyle. This includes acts and or behavior that can bring harm to ones self, whether its indirectly or directly.

Again, I don't care what type of lawsuit it is. You must not comprehend very well. How could the association prevent a shooting death on their property, let alone be liable?

 

[Nick R]

So... Exactly what acts or behavior did he commit? Walking home? I don't understand what "lifestyle" you are talking about. What "lifestyle" actions was he making that you wouldn't let your kid do? He was walking home, and was followed by ZM. How is that doing wrong? What are you saying your kid would be a shut in and would never leave the house because they might get injured? I'm pretty sure that isn't what you are saying, so why don't you clarify for us.

 

[JOD]

Originally Posted By: PandaBear

I would imagine people who think GZ should be acquitted for all charges (even manslaughter) or call him a hero, are the same people that protest Autozone's firing of an employee who point a gun back at an armed robber. IMO their viewpoint is more about gun ownership than self protection and avoiding confrontation.


I'd be careful about making judgements like that one. I'm a proud, card-carrying ACLU member liberal. I don't own a gun. Based on what I've seen of the trial, I think GZ should be acquitted of the charges. I think he's an idiot, and had no business following the kid. But guess what? Being an idiot isn't a crime. Neither is asking him "hey, what are you doing in this neighborhood". Repugnant? Yes. Would I have wanted to punch him in the face if I were TM? Absolutely. "Wanting to" and doing it are two different things, though. As the saying goes, freedom of speech ends where your fist ends and my nose begins. Once that happens, it's a different ballgame. He was getting his but kicked, he was scared, and he defended himself. The way the laws are written I don't see any other conclusion besides "not guilty". I'm having a hard time even seeing grounds for involuntary ms 3rd degree. There is no "reckless endangerment" in FL, and if there were, that's probably the best they could have done. My opinion has nothing to do with gun ownership, race or some AZ worker (who was rightfully fired, IMO). It just has to do with the law.

 

[Benzadmiral]

One more time, Zimmerman did not follow TM after the dispatcher told him, GZ I mean, "We don't need you to do that." GZ went back to his truck, and TM turned around and came after him.

And there's also the issue that there had been a number of sightings of young black males performing break-ins in the neighborhood; TM fit the profile; therefore the legitimate question came up, "What's he doing out here in the middle of the night?" If TM had simply stopped and spoken politely to Zimmerman, everything would have been fine. Instead he jumped the "cracka," Zimmerman defended himself, and tragedy ensued.

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: LeakySeals
Originally Posted By: Philth
You can thank TM's parents for settling a "wrongful death" suit with your association in excess of 1 Million dollars.

TM's parents silent millionaires on the backs of innocent people?

If your gardener die because of a freak accident in your association, you bet there will be huge compensation and settlement with or without those innocent nearby home owners being at fault.

Now if you are talking about GZ, he may got off the legal system as being innocent, but he is still causing someone's death by either carelessness (TM has a right to walk between a store and the house of the host inviting him to be there) or recklessness (GZ follow TM around and make TM feel the need to defend himself).

 

[itguy08]

Originally Posted By: FXjohn
so what? serves them right for empowering morons like zimmerman. I'm sure you wouldn't have sued if your kid got shot coming home.


Moron for what exactly?

Looking out for his neighborhood?

If my young adult (TM was close enough to 18 - he's no innocent kid) was a wanna be thug, had been caught with stolen goods, punched his bus driver, possibly been a drug dealer, and had a history of violent behaviour, and got killed being a punk, I'd call it is what it is - occupational hazzard.

My parents told me never to pick a fight you cannot win and if you do be prepared that the other person could be bigger than you, badder than you, and just could kill you. Sounds like TM rolled those chances and instead of killing or severely injuring GZ got to pay the ultimate price for being a tough guy.

 

[JOD]

Originally Posted By: Benzadmiral
One more time, Zimmerman did not follow TM after the dispatcher told him, GZ I mean, "We don't need you to do that." GZ went back to his truck, and TM turned around and came after him.


No one knows that for sure, that's GZ's story. But so what? What if he did continue to follow TM? He's not breaking any laws.

Originally Posted By: Benzadmiral
And there's also the issue that there had been a number of sightings of young black males performing break-ins in the neighborhood; TM fit the profile; therefore the legitimate question came up, "What's he doing out here in the middle of the night?" If TM had simply stopped and spoken politely to Zimmerman, everything would have been fine. Instead he jumped the "cracka," Zimmerman defended himself, and tragedy ensued.


TM had no reason to answer respectfully (I wouldn't have if I were in his shoes). If some wannabe cop were following me and ask me "what I'm doing in a neighborhood" based on my skin color and what I was wearing,I have a hard time believe I would be "polite". That's ridiculous, and anyone claiming otherwise isn't doing a very good job of trying to look at things from the perspective of someone else.

But THAT'S NOT THE ISSUE! The question is pretty simple, who started the physical altercation, and did GZ fear for his life when he shot TM. There seems to be plenty of reasonable doubt on the first question, and evidence to support the second question.

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: Philth
My kid wouldn't live the lifestyle that TM did.


Like itguy08 said, you better not let your kid walk around anywhere or else someone may "self defend" him or her and put your kid's lifestyle into a death sentence.

Quote:
Also, money doesn't solve anything. Especially the loss of a family member. I clearly think that some lawyer got a hold of TMs parents and took advantage of the situation. Just like ambulance chasers do with car accidents. How can it be wrongful death before a criminal trial is even over?


I don't see this as any different in terms of compensation from a freak accident, a traffic accident, a drunk driving related death, a work place death, etc.

The way these compensation are calculated, according to our "legal system for engineer" course back in the days, is the potential income lost for the kids' life (assume he may support the parent), the amount of money that may substitute the sadness over the lost of family member, the financial crisis the family member may need to deal with due to this death. Basically, just like a traffic death dealing with insurance company.

If TM was paralyzed or became a vegetable because of GZ's action, it would have been significantly more, way more, than $1M. Be glad that the HOA has insurance to pay for it or else the nearby home owners will be paying way more than $50/mo extra.

 

[JANDSZIRKLE]

I was wrong, and must share...

following is from LATimes reporting the case....

It sounded like movement and wind coming through the phone, after [Zimmerman] stated the subject was running,” Noffke said.

“How come you didn’t … say ‘don’t follow'?” the prosecutor asked him.

Noffke explained that for legal reasons, 911 operators may not give such orders. “We’re directly liable if we give a direct order,” he said. “We always try to give general basic … not commands, just suggestions.”

911 operator is off the hook legally, Zimmerman however... who knows. if Zimmerman was in his vehicle, he could have drove off, and ran, however, he decided too stay and fight.

I teach my kids, if you can evade a fight do so, but if cornered, fight for your life. If its true Zimmerman went back too his vehicle, how or why did he get back out of it?

God help this jury......

 

[itguy08]

Originally Posted By: JOD
TM had no reason to answer respectfully (I wouldn't have if I were in his shoes). If some wannabe cop were following me and ask me "what I'm doing in a neighborhood" based on my skin color and what I was wearing,I have a hard time believe I would be "polite". That's ridiculous, and anyone claiming otherwise isn't doing a very good job of trying to look at things from the perspective of someone else.


It's one thing to answer in a [censored]-ish tone. Had TM done that he likely would be walking the Earth today. He chose to be a tough guy and beat up GZ (throw the first punch). That's where we are today. If someone is bashing my head against the sidewalk I'm going to fear for my life. Once he gets that blow that knocks me out it's game over for me.

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: itguy08
My parents told me never to pick a fight you cannot win and if you do be prepared that the other person could be bigger than you, badder than you, and just could kill you. Sounds like TM rolled those chances and instead of killing or severely injuring GZ got to pay the ultimate price for being a tough guy.


News flash, the legal system is bigger and badder than any wanna be cops out there trying to pick on people. While it is a legal right to self defense, if you are wrong and killed someone that isn't committing a crime, you better answer to the judge on why the heck you do this and not a South Park Jimbo's "they're coming right for us" excuse.

Kindergarten bullying shouldn't be carried into neighborhood watch, and therefore the standard shouldn't apply. Look at the result, it is not just a bruise and a call to the parents, it is a death and a trial in court.

Quote:
It's one thing to answer in a [censored]-ish tone. Had TM done that he likely would be walking the Earth today. He chose to be a tough guy and beat up GZ (throw the first punch). That's where we are today. If someone is bashing my head against the sidewalk I'm going to fear for my life. Once he gets that blow that knocks me out it's game over for me.


So, if someone on the street with a gun ask me "peacefully" what am I doing, it is my fault for not complying if I'm scared.

I remember the same argument about the Autozone firing thread that "people who rob a place and ask you to comply will just kill you after they get what they want from you". So now we have a double standard? TM shouldn't fear for his life but GZ should because of what? and TM know for sure that GZ is not robbing him and wouldn't kill him after getting what he want? Why the double standard?

 

[itguy08]

Originally Posted By: PandaBear

News flash, the legal system is bigger and badder than any wanna be cops out there trying to pick on people. While it is a legal right to self defense, if you are wrong and killed someone that isn't committing a crime, you better answer to the judge on why the heck you do this and not a South Park Jimbo's "they're coming right for us" excuse.

Kindergarten bullying shouldn't be carried into neighborhood watch, and therefore the standard shouldn't apply. Look at the result, it is not just a bruise and a call to the parents, it is a death and a trial in court.


But TM lost all that the instant he struck GZ. The instant his body contacted GZ's is where it all chagned. Had it been a shouting match most likely none of this would have happened. Instead TM decided to jump GZ and once you are the aggressor you are on the wrong end of the law.

Another thing I was taught - don't throw the first punch. Once you do you are the instigator. Lay a hand on anyone and you deserve anything you may get. There is never a reason to lay a hand on anyone in a simple argument, ever.

 

[Nick R]

Originally Posted By: itguy08
Originally Posted By: JOD
TM had no reason to answer respectfully (I wouldn't have if I were in his shoes). If some wannabe cop were following me and ask me "what I'm doing in a neighborhood" based on my skin color and what I was wearing,I have a hard time believe I would be "polite". That's ridiculous, and anyone claiming otherwise isn't doing a very good job of trying to look at things from the perspective of someone else.


It's one thing to answer in a [censored]-ish tone. Had TM done that he likely would be walking the Earth today. He chose to be a tough guy and beat up GZ (throw the first punch). That's where we are today. If someone is bashing my head against the sidewalk I'm going to fear for my life. Once he gets that blow that knocks me out it's game over for me.



So you believe GZ testimony (which he has changed numerous, numerous times) that TM started it? Why do you think that? What evidence do you have? You only have HIS WORD. His SELF SERVING word. Please, he went after Martin with every intention of causing trouble. He's a wannabe cop. Also if you were watching the trial, and you saw the pictures, there is not a chance in [censored] that he had his head bashed against the concrete repeatedly. Not a chance. And even if he DID,he would be too stunned to be able to reach for his gun, pull it up to TM chest, and pull the trigger without TM noticing and deflecting it away.

Why did GZ not go back to his car? Why did he proceed to continue to follow Martin? He could have gotten in his car and drove away. It wasn't "right after" that he alleges TM "assaulted him" Based on times of 911 calls, it was a full TWO MINUTES. TWO MINUTES. That is a very very long time.

 

[itguy08]

Originally Posted By: PandaBear

So, if someone on the street with a gun ask me "peacefully" what am I doing, it is my fault for not complying if I'm scared.

I remember the same argument about the Autozone firing thread that "people who rob a place and ask you to comply will just kill you after they get what they want from you". So now we have a double standard? TM shouldn't fear for his life but GZ should because of what? and TM know for sure that GZ is not robbing him and wouldn't kill him after getting what he want? Why the double standard?


It's one thing to say "F YOU" and walk away. Or even "F YOU and whatever else" and then walk away.

It's another to say "F YOU" and punch the person. That's the essence of what happened here. There is no evidence that GZ hit TM but there is plenty that TM delivered a beating to GZ.

It really is that simple.