Trayvon Martin: Cellphone pics of guns and drugs

Originally posted by peashooter
reply to post by Allegorical

 

I don't understand Zimmerman's logic:

You are being followed and called your girlfriend,

You lose sight of the armed guard (yay!!)

You decide to risk your life by attacking him as he's ALREADY walking to the car.

Is this story really that believable?

No...It's not...Trayvon was fleeing the whole time, even confessing to a girfriend on the phone that he was scared.

I think...can't prove...but think, that Zimmerman "caught" Trayvon...grabbed him by the arm or such and Trayvon panicked and fought back, having no idea who Zimmerman was.

Zimmerman has given different stories as to how the confrontation started.

Originally posted by KaginD
The whole situation was very unfortunate. Zimmerman made a snap judgment out of fear.. Something every single one of us have done to some degree. Martin reacted to Zimmeman's fear with his own fear. I feel for both sides. A boy lost his life and a man lost his freedom. I think the witch hunt is ridiculous. There was prob. no right or wrong. Zimmerman didn't leave his home that night with intentions of killing a teenager. Martin didn't walk through the neighborhood looking for a life threatening fight. It just happened that way. Fear does terrible things to judgement.. It's very sad.

Zimmerman had no need to fear anything when he made the snap judgement to leave his vehicle to try and keep TM in sight, rather than just continuing to follow him in his vehicle. It's not like Zimmerman had seen Trayvon commit any kind of crime and it was imperative that he be caught to preserve the neighbourhood's safety.

reply to post by NavyDoc

If GZ's past is relevant, then so is TM's past. Can't have it just one way.

The difference is that TM wasn't carrying a gun or smoking weed or acting like a hoodlum or committing a crime. This has been confirmed. So any of these things from his personal life, true or not true, are irrelevant to this case.

GM, however was carrying a gun(although legal), was aggressively stalking an innocent pedestrian, and did in fact end up killing him.

I would say a violent history is absolutely relevant in his case.

Originally posted by SuicideBankers
My old lady just made a good point. "When did neighborhood watch become neighborhood follow and forcible detain?" Thought their job was to observe and report?

At this point, the evidence seems to indicate that GZ was doing exactly that--following and reporting.

reply to post by IvanAstikov


The fear set in when he seen him. Him getting out of the car was the bad judgement I was talking about.

Originally posted by Tribunal
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

If GZ's past is relevant, then so is TM's past. Can't have it just one way.

The difference is that TM wasn't carrying a gun or smoking weed or acting like a hoodlum or committing a crime. This has been confirmed. So any of these things from his personal life, true or not true, are irrelevant to this case.

GM, however was carrying a gun(although legal), was aggressively stalking an innocent pedestrian, and did in fact end up killing him.

I would say a violent history is absolutely relevant in his case.

However, physical assault at perceived disrespect is quite consistent with those who admire the "gangsta" culture. Thus, if the argument is that TM turned and attacked, then that history is quite as relevant as GZ's domestic issues. The history issue can and must go both ways to be just.

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by SuicideBankers
My old lady just made a good point. "When did neighborhood watch become neighborhood follow and forcible detain?" Thought their job was to observe and report?

At this point, the evidence seems to indicate that GZ was doing exactly that--following and reporting.

Not at all, the evidence indicates that GZ was going after him, his own words. He never said he would stop going after him, he even asked them to call him on his number, probably so he could stay mobile.

Originally posted by KaginD
reply to post by IvanAstikov

 

The fear set in when he seen him. Him getting out of the car was the bad judgement I was talking about.

What rational minded person becomes fearful when they see a teenager entering the neighbourhood by a commonly accepted shortcut? What rational minded person decides someone needs to be kept an eye on, then drives right past them and parks his vehicle out of line of sight of his suspect, almost as if he knew which way this suspicious person was going to come?

Originally posted by IvanAstikov

Originally posted by NavyDoc

What do you mean? His scalp was split open on the back of the head that is completely consistent with his testimony.

It wasn't "split open" at all. It had minor scratches on it, with no noticeable swelling whatsoever. The kind of injury you'd get when your head slightly brushed against a tiny stone on the ground, rather than what would occur if it had been slammed against concrete 2 or more times.

No, it was split open. You can see subcutaneous tissue in the center of the wound. I've stitched up many a similar injury.

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by SuicideBankers
My old lady just made a good point. "When did neighborhood watch become neighborhood follow and forcible detain?" Thought their job was to observe and report?

At this point, the evidence seems to indicate that GZ was doing exactly that--following and reporting.

There is a difference between observe and follow.

Originally posted by Tribunal

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by SuicideBankers
My old lady just made a good point. "When did neighborhood watch become neighborhood follow and forcible detain?" Thought their job was to observe and report?

At this point, the evidence seems to indicate that GZ was doing exactly that--following and reporting.

Not at all, the evidence indicates that GZ was going after him, his own words. He never said he would stop going after him, he even asked them to call him on his number, probably so he could stay mobile.

I disagree. The evidence is consistent with him heading back to his truck after losing sight of TM. Regardless, how does following someone on a public street justification fir assault?

reply to post by NavyDoc

However, physical assault at perceived disrespect is quite consistent with those who admire the "gangsta" culture. Thus, if the argument is that TM turned and attacked, then that history is quite as relevant as GZ's domestic issues. The history issue can and must go both ways to be just.

In a court it matters if you have a prior record.

TM didn't have one. GZ did, if I understand correctly.

Admire the gangsta culture? That's what half the kids of white america do so what does that really mean.

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by IvanAstikov

Originally posted by NavyDoc

What do you mean? His scalp was split open on the back of the head that is completely consistent with his testimony.

It wasn't "split open" at all. It had minor scratches on it, with no noticeable swelling whatsoever. The kind of injury you'd get when your head slightly brushed against a tiny stone on the ground, rather than what would occur if it had been slammed against concrete 2 or more times.

No, it was split open. You can see subcutaneous tissue in the center of the wound. I've stitched up many a similar injury.

Yet, George didn't require no such treatment, and so nasty were his injuries that his wife had to place large silly plasters over them, so the world would not have to view these horrific wounds.

reply to post by NavyDoc


Like I said, judging by the info we do know for sure, it seems very likely that Z did confront M and make him feel threatened enough to fight.

The only thing that speaks against this is the shooter's own testimony, which is off course not very credible by definition.

Originally posted by Tribunal
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

However, physical assault at perceived disrespect is quite consistent with those who admire the "gangsta" culture. Thus, if the argument is that TM turned and attacked, then that history is quite as relevant as GZ's domestic issues. The history issue can and must go both ways to be just.

In a court it matters if you have a prior record.

TM didn't have one. GZ did, if I understand correctly.

Admire the gangsta culture? That's what half the kids of white america do so what does that really mean.

What it means is, if TM has a school record of fist fights or other disruptive behavior, then we have a pattern that is consistent with the narrative that he circled back and assaulted somone for following. If you say patterns of behavior are relevant, then this pattern of behavior is just as relevant as the other.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov

Originally posted by KaginD
reply to post by IvanAstikov

 

The fear set in when he seen him. Him getting out of the car was the bad judgement I was talking about.

What rational minded person becomes fearful when they see a teenager entering the neighbourhood by a commonly accepted shortcut? What rational minded person decides someone needs to be kept an eye on, then drives right past them and parks his vehicle out of line of sight of his suspect, almost as if he knew which way this suspicious person was going to come?

You are assuming that he is a "rational minded" person. I don't believe I ever said that.. not once. What I DID say is that fear creates bad judgement. I wasn't there to tell you why he did it. I don't know the man from a can of paint, so I can't tell you if he was of sound mind at the time of the event, or if ever at all. All I am saying is there was fear involved.. clearly.

Originally posted by NavyDoc
What it means is, if TM has a school record of fist fights or other disruptive behavior, then we have a pattern that is consistent with the narrative that he circled back and assaulted somone for following. If you say patterns of behavior are relevant, then this pattern of behavior is just as relevant as the other.

I'd be far happier if a pattern could be established of him targeting complete strangers and challenging them to fights, or assaulting them, for no clear reason other than those speculated by people who believe he was a violent thug.

Originally posted by KaginD

You are assuming that he is a "rational minded" person. I don't believe I ever said that.. not once. What I DID say is that fear creates bad judgement. I wasn't there to tell you why he did it. I don't know the man from a can of paint, so I can't tell you if he was of sound mind at the time of the event, or if ever at all. All I am saying is there was fear involved.. clearly.

Z's claim for self-defence depends on a jury believing he had a reasonable fear of his life being in immediate danger when he shot and killed Trayvon. If it can be proven that he acted irrationally, how serious can his "reasonable fear" be taken?

Originally posted by IvanAstikov

Originally posted by KaginD

You are assuming that he is a "rational minded" person. I don't believe I ever said that.. not once. What I DID say is that fear creates bad judgement. I wasn't there to tell you why he did it. I don't know the man from a can of paint, so I can't tell you if he was of sound mind at the time of the event, or if ever at all. All I am saying is there was fear involved.. clearly.

Z's claim for self-defence depends on a jury believing he had a reasonable fear of his life being in immediate danger when he shot and killed Trayvon. If it can be proven that he acted irrationally, how serious can his "reasonable fear" be taken?

When I said that fear played a factor, I wasn't saying it in anyones defense. If you look back on my first post, I said that I felt for both sides of this case. I won't make a guilty or non guilty decision. Especially when there are so many different versions flying around. I didn't see it happen, therefore I can't make that decision. I said fear played a part in what happened on both sides imo. That's it.

Originally posted by Tribunal
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

If GZ's past is relevant, then so is TM's past. Can't have it just one way.

The difference is that TM wasn't carrying a gun or smoking weed or acting like a hoodlum or committing a crime.

Neither was Zimmerman. And Zimmermans gun was legal.