Zimmerman Trial Thread Locked

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: itguy08
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.


Based on the Oscar Grant case, and GZ's troubled past. I doubt it will just end peacefully. GZ would pull the gun as soon as he get an excuse of "hey, I can get away with self defense because he do this".

I would trust a calm, mature cop to be able to avoid the situation easily. I wouldn't trust GZ to be able to.

 

[itguy08]

Originally Posted By: Nick R

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.


Even if it was once, that's once too many. If someone is sitting on top of me, has beat my head against the concrete once and is still beating on me or whatever, I'd say I'de be in fear of my life.

Quote:
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.


Doesn't matter. He was not told by anyone in authority not to follow TM. He could do whatever he wanted. The minute TM laid a hand on GZ he escalated it to a whole new level.

I don't know how to make it any simpler: "You don't lay your hands on another person without their consent." Especially if you feel threatened or there is a nasty situation about to go down.

 

[itguy08]

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Based on the Oscar Grant case, and GZ's troubled past. I doubt it will just end peacefully. GZ would pull the gun as soon as he get an excuse of "hey, I can get away with self defense because he do this".

I would trust a calm, mature cop to be able to avoid the situation easily. I wouldn't trust GZ to be able to.


None of us can say what could have happened. How it went down he should be found not guilty. Based on the evidence. Not on what "might have happened".

 

[Mykl]

Originally Posted By: JANDSZIRKLE
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......


But these are more assumptions. He may not have had time to get in his vehicle and drive away, but even if he could he was under no obligation to do so.

 

[Mykl]

Originally Posted By: Nick R
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.


You're darn right it was his self serving word. That's the point. He says his piece and you have to provide evidence that things happened in a way that was other than how he described it. For all you or I or anybody knows he gave a picture perfect description. You can't claim otherwise simply because the truth may very much be self serving.

This isn't guilty until proven innocent. He's innocent until proven guilty. You can't apply guilt to people just because they claim to be innocent .

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Mykl
Originally Posted By: Nick R
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.


You're darn right it was his self serving word. That's the point. He says his piece and you have to provide evidence that things happened in a way that was other than how he described it. For all you or I or anybody knows he gave a picture perfect description. You can't claim otherwise simply because the truth may very much be self serving.

This isn't guilty until proven innocent. He's innocent until proven guilty. You can't apply guilt to people just because they claim to be innocent .


Agreed.

 

[JOD]

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.


yep, that's exactly what I said in my next sentence that you cut off!

 

[FXjohn]

Originally Posted By: Mykl
Originally Posted By: Nick R
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.


You're darn right it was his self serving word. That's the point. He says his piece and you have to provide evidence that things happened in a way that was other than how he described it. For all you or I or anybody knows he gave a picture perfect description. You can't claim otherwise simply because the truth may very much be self serving.

This isn't guilty until proven innocent. He's innocent until proven guilty. You can't apply guilt to people just because they claim to be innocent .



sounds good to me. shoot the other guy so you live to tell the story.

 

[itguy08]

Originally Posted By: JOD

yep, that's exactly what I said in my next sentence that you cut off!


Sorry, overzealous highlighting on my part.

 

[Mykl]

Originally Posted By: FXjohn
sounds good to me. shoot the other guy so you live to tell the story.


So I take my your sarcastic response that you would prefer a system where the accused is required to provide evidence of their innocence as opposed to our current system where the accused provides the evidence of one's guilt?

 

[FXjohn]

Originally Posted By: Mykl
So I take my your sarcastic response that you would prefer a system where the accused is required to provide evidence of their innocence as opposed to our current system where the accused provides the evidence of one's guilt?

nope. but I sure take self serving accounts for what they're worth, which isn't much

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: FXjohn
Originally Posted By: Mykl
Originally Posted By: Nick R
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.


You're darn right it was his self serving word. That's the point. He says his piece and you have to provide evidence that things happened in a way that was other than how he described it. For all you or I or anybody knows he gave a picture perfect description. You can't claim otherwise simply because the truth may very much be self serving.

This isn't guilty until proven innocent. He's innocent until proven guilty. You can't apply guilt to people just because they claim to be innocent .



sounds good to me. shoot the other guy so you live to tell the story.


Actually, that generally resembles some advice I was given by a cop a number of years ago. Essentially, if an armed robbery was taking place in my home, it was best to kill the perp so that the only word to go by was mine, rather than maiming him and the resultant court battle where he'd get to tell "his side".

Now, I'm not saying that's at all applicable here, simply that it is interesting that your sarcastic toss-out was in fact in-line with actual advice given in a different context.

 

[itguy08]

Originally Posted By: FXjohn

nope. but I sure take self serving accounts for what they're worth, which isn't much


So then how would court work? Both the plaintiffs and defendants give self-serving accounts....

 

[FXjohn]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL


Now, I'm not saying that's at all applicable here, simply that it is interesting that your sarcastic toss-out was in fact in-line with actual advice given in a different context.


I try to inject some truth into my sarcastic or irreverent posts.

 

[Mykl]

Originally Posted By: FXjohn
nope. but I sure take self serving accounts for what they're worth, which isn't much


It doesn't matter what it means to us and our very much disconnected view of the events that happened that day.

The value of a self serving account depends entirely on the evidence available that suggests that the account is inaccurate.

 

[FXjohn]

Originally Posted By: itguy08
Originally Posted By: FXjohn

nope. but I sure take self serving accounts for what they're worth, which isn't much


So then how would court work? Both the plaintiffs and defendants give self-serving accounts....


i prefer actual evidence, but that's "just me"

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: FXjohn
sounds good to me. shoot the other guy so you live to tell the story.


Excellent advice.

 

[GenSan]

The law is the law, whether you believe in the Stand Your Ground law or not, I believe GZ will be protected(acquitted) by the following:

The 2012 Florida Statutes
Title XLVI
CRIMES
Chapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Similar cases to GZ: LINK

 

[JOD]

Originally Posted By: Nick R

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.



Nick, you seem to be hung up on the "right and wrong" of this case. I understand where you're coming from. I mean, I think they were both in the wrong, and GZ probably more so because he started the whole thing by following the kid just because he was black and dressed like a 17 year old. But this isn't about "right and wrong", or at least it shouldn't be: it's about the law.

Sure, there are some questions about GZ's story, there are questions about the whole encounter. What there isn't is a lot of evidence. Yeah, there's evidence GZ was an idiot, but there's little evidence that he started the physical encounter or that he didn't fear for his life. From a legal standpoint, that's what has to be proven, without a reasonable doubt. I have plenty of reasonable doubt as to what exactly happened.

 

[JANDSZIRKLE]

Originally Posted By: Mykl
Originally Posted By: JANDSZIRKLE
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......


But these are more assumptions. He may not have had time to get in his vehicle and drive away, but even if he could he was under no obligation to do so.


No assumption, Zimmerman himself said he returned too his vehicle. If he told the truth by saying that, then why not turn the key and leave? Especially if Martin was at that point coming after Zimmerman? Being cornered is one thing, which at this point doesnt seem too be the case... There are too many holes, avenues, inconsistencies etc on the whole case, and as stated before, if the jury does its job, its gonna be a hung jury or they will not convict Zimmerman at all. I am not saying i agree or disagree with this stance, just stating what i know based upon all the testimony heard.