The Zimmerman Trial

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Euphony
Zimmerman is as guilty as they come.

Innocent until proven guilty.

Zimmerman was the aggressor.

Prove it. Prove that Zimmerman jumped Martin.

Zimmerman willingly followed and engaged in an altercation with TMartin (after being instructed not to by 911), not the other way around.

- Zimmerman was told 'we dont need you to do that' (follow Martin). So he stopped.
- Following someone is NOT A CRIME.
- The crime was when one person attacked the other.
- Prove that Zimmerman was the one who jumped Martin.

TMartin acted in self defense when Zimmerman, an armed man, attacked an TMartin, an innocent person.

- Prove that Zimmerman jumped Martin.
- Eyewitness' have Martin on top of Zimmerman and they have Martin pounding the snot out of Zimmerman.

How in the hell can you people even write the thought that Zimmerman acted in self defense when ZIMMERMAN WAS THE AGGRESSOR.

How in the hell can you write the thought that Zimemrman is guilty of 2nd degree murder when MARTIN WAS THE ONE BEATING ZIMMERMAN UP.

If Zimmerman doesn't force an altercation by following a 'suspicious black kid', none of this happens.

If Zimmerman didn't follow Martin, it wouldn't have happened. True.
But thats not second degree murder.

Zimmerman is guilty of second degree murder.

Apparently you don't know the difference between murder ... manslaughter ... and assault.
I suggest you go look them up and get back to us.

edit on 6/29/2013 by FlyersFan because: fixed my error

smh...

Zimmerman admitted to shooting and killing Martin.

Did TMartin pursue Zimmerman to his car/house or did Zimmerman pursue Martin? That is the initial act of aggression was by Zimmerman.

This case is not manslaughter. It is not first degree murder. It is more than assault.

You have to understand that ZIMMERMAN WAS THE INITIAL AGGRESSOR. That's all you need to know. He started this. It doesn't matter that TMartin felt threatened and beat up some dumb ass that was following him. Zimmerman started the confrontation.

I don't have to prove facts.

I sort of have a unique perspective of this case. The shooting happened when I was out of the country by the time I had heard about it in the US the crap MSM pulled with using photos of him when he was much younger had already been debunked. The first I had heard what happened was on talk radio where legal analysts I think it was a former prosecutor and judge were going over Zim’s three statements on scene in the police department and hey agreed they all matched up and his story didn’t change to any degree. They had also gone over the 911 non-emergency calls. So I hadn’t bought into the hype and as I said I dint watch any MSM everything else I learned were from links provided here on ATS.

I never thought there was a case and I still do not.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


So you think those two statements, although worded differently, really mean two different things?

reply to post by Euphony


Following is not an act of aggression it isn’t considered stalking in Florida I already posted the link to FL statutes showing that.

Throwing a punch is definitive of being the aggressor. Maybe you do not care what the law is on this matter but your opinion doesn’t matter in court only the letter of the law.

reply to post by Euphony


No you don't understand Zimmerman was never the aggressor. He didn't even really follow Martin as he immediately lost track of him. He should have said I'm looking for him. He did not make any aggressive act and didn't even confront zimmerman. Assault was a reference to Martin assaulting Zimmerman. That was the only prosecutable crime committed that night.

Zimmerman will go free as all evidence suggests Martin made it home but rather than going in he waited on Zimmerman, confronntedand assaulted him and was killed in self defense. You say Zimmerman followed if that's true he didn't follow anymore than Martin followed him after deciding not to enter his house and instead wait on zimmerman. The only difference being Martin was the one that confronnted and made it physical.

Lol you don't have to prove facts? That's lucky since there isn't one to support what you say. I guess you will say that everyone was wrong and it's racial bias when zimmerman goes free?

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Euphony

 

Zimmerman didn't force an altercation.. not evenn close. If you want to play the chain of events game we could say if Martin hadn't been suspended from school he wouldn't have been there. Both are equally absurd arguments.

Not even close?!?

So you're saying: TMartin hunted down and attacked Zimmerman? What reason? BECAUSE ZIMMERMAN WAS FOLLOWING HIM. TMartin wasn't walking around looking for Zimmerman initially.

After following this thread for 58 pages; I see a lot of emotional investment by ATS members in this case.

Why? Is it the 2nd amendment rights that some feel threatened? Racism? What?

Would there have been this kind of reaction if Martin had of been a white kid? I wonder what would have been the reaction if Zimmerman had of been a black man and shot a white kid under the same circumstances.

My bet is that this thread would have been completely different.

something to ponder....

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by Euphony

 

Following is not an act of aggression it isn’t considered stalking in Florida I already posted the link to FL statutes showing that.

Throwing a punch is definitive of being the aggressor. Maybe you do not care what the law is on this matter but your opinion doesn’t matter in court only the letter of the law.

Florida laws: In Florida chloroform is an acceptable baby sitter too.

Let's talk common sense.

Following someone (stalking someone) IS most definitely an act of aggression.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by MrWendal

 

See.. had you found that out sooner you could understand my explanations on the previous pages. Now with the correct information do you understand how Martin could get home and then get between zimmerman and his truck?

Yes I can see that, but weather or not it is accurate is something else entirely. Again, the only witness to this is George Zimmerman himself.

What I take issue with regarding this part of the story is that it does not match up with the girl on the phone. If you listen again to Zimmerman's account, Trayvon came out of no where and confronted him. According to the girl on the phone, they talked until the point where Trayvon asked, "What you following me for?"

I don't know about you, but I have never been able to sneak up on another person while talking on the phone.

Like many things in this world, this boils down to who do you trust. Do you believe the girl? Do you believe Zimmerman? Or do you believe parts of both stories?

According to the girl, both men exchanged words before the phone cut off. "What you following me for?" and Zimmerman responds, "What are you doing here?"

According to Zimmerman, Trayvon asked him what his problem was, Zimmerman says he has no problem, and Trayvon says "you have a problem now" and punches him in the face.

Personally, I think the girl's version of the words exchanged sounds more plausible. Zimmerman did not know Trayvon and was wondering what he was doing. This is what Zimmerman has said, and even says so in his 911 call. So it seems plausible to me that when confronted, he would immediately ask a question that would satisfy his curiosity to begin with. It certainly sounds more plausible than "I have no problem" after he followed the kid and called 911 on him for being "suspicious".

I'm sincerely glad just to have one person admit they are wrong due to bad information. Even if it doesn't change your opinion it's a step towards understanding the actual events.

My interest in this case lies simply with the truth. My position has always been that this is a case of manslaughter, not murder. I have never believed this was a case based on race. I have never believed that Zimmerman had intent to kill anyone. I do believe that Zimmerman's actions started the chain of events that ultimately led to the death of Martin.

I have always tried to view the circumstances of this case from BOTH perspectives of Zimmerman and Martin. Just think back to when you were 17 years old. How would you have reacted if some guy was following you around in his car? I was 17 once, many many many moons ago. I would have ran. I would have thought I was about to be kidnapped..... and today the world is worse than it was when I was 17.

That being said, I will always admit when I am wrong. I have no fear of being wrong and in the case of that map- I was wrong. However that really doesn't change my opinion on this case. Especially after seeing Zimmerman's reenactment. There was a few things that made no sense- and when something does not make sense, chances are it is not true. For instance, according to Zimmerman he walked up towards the road to get the address off the house. Not to follow Trayvon. However, he parked his car in front of a house, had he went back to his vehicle, he would have had an address to give the 911 operator. He did not have to walk in the same direction as the person he saw run from him.

The next thing that really strikes me on this same part of his story is what we know from the testimony in the trial. We know from Zimmerman's 911 call that he intended to meet with Officers. He was asked to meet at the mailbox area, he declined. He was asked to meet at the entrance, he declined. In fact, by the end of the call, he cancels any plans to meet at a prearranged destination... and instead tells the operator to just have Police call his cell phone and he will tell them where he was at.

That does not sound like the response of a guy who has chosen to stop following and go back to his vehicle. After all, if he is going back to his truck, why wouldn't he know where he would be to meet Officers?

Originally posted by Euphony
Zimmerman admitted to shooting and killing Martin.

Perps are shot and killed every day. Martin could have been the perp.
Just because he's dead doesn't make him the victim.

Did TMartin pursue Zimmerman to his car/house or did Zimmerman pursue Martin? That is the initial act of aggression was by Zimmerman.

Following someone isn't 'aggression'. Attacking is.

This case is not manslaughter. It is not first degree murder. It is more than assault.

Its a case of assault. One person jumped another person. That's assault. Not murder.

You have to understand that ZIMMERMAN WAS THE INITIAL AGGRESSOR.

The person who jumped the other person .. THAT is the aggressor.
One person following another person does not make that follower an aggressor.

That's all you need to know.

Not even close.

It doesn't matter that TMartin felt threatened and beat up some dumb ass that was following him.

Wrong. That's the ALL that matters. The person that did the attacking .. that is the perp.
Zimmerman wasn't a perp for following Martin.

Zimmerman started the confrontation.

Prove that Zimmerman jumped Martin. Go ahead. Give it a try. Following someone isn't 'starting the confrontation'. It may have not been the best thing to do. But it's not illegal and it's not assault. Either Martin jumped Zimmerman or Zimmerman jumped Martin. THAT is the crime. Nothing else matters.

I don't have to prove facts.

Actually you do. And facts are the only thing that matters in a Murder 2 trial.

Originally posted by Euphony

Not even close?!?

So you're saying: TMartin hunted down and attacked Zimmerman? What reason? BECAUSE ZIMMERMAN WAS FOLLOWING HIM. TMartin wasn't walking around looking for Zimmerman initially.

Martin didn't hunt down GZ, he waited until GZ walked back by where he was and came out and confronted him. Yes, Martin waited on GZ because GZ was following him. Martin got close to his house and decided to wait on GZ, and that is according to courtroom testimony by the girl that Martin was on the phone with.
No Martin wasn't walking around looking for GZ initially, but he could have made it home but instead chose to wait for GZ so he could confront him.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Euphony

 

No you don't understand Zimmerman was never the aggressor. He didn't even really follow Martin as he immediately lost track of him. He should have said I'm looking for him. He did not make any aggressive act and didn't even confront zimmerman. Assault was a reference to Martin assaulting Zimmerman. That was the only prosecutable crime committed that night.

Zimmerman will go free as all evidence suggests Martin made it home but rather than going in he waited on Zimmerman, confronntedand assaulted him and was killed in self defense. You say Zimmerman followed if that's true he didn't follow anymore than Martin followed him after deciding not to enter his house and instead wait on zimmerman. The only difference being Martin was the one that confronnted and made it physical.

Lol you don't have to prove facts? That's lucky since there isn't one to support what you say. I guess you will say that everyone was wrong and it's racial bias when zimmerman goes free?

edit on 29-6-2013 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)

Ok, that might be what was said, but lets think about this; why in the hell would TMartin have anything to do with Zimmerman? You're trying to make it out like Zimmerman was just sitting there doing nothing when TMartin just walked up to him and jumped him. The only reason TMartin would have reacted to Zimmerman is if he felt threatened.

reply to post by Euphony


Yes of course they are. One implicates he was given a direct order by someone with the authority to give orders aand the other is the truth and reality that he was given a suggestion by a non authority figure.

Also it's worth mentioning that even if it had been an order he followed it and so he wouldn't have disobeyed and still would have been fine. See.. zimmerman followed the suggestion of the dispatch and quit following. Martin jumped Zimmerman when he was on his way to his truck.

reply to post by Euphony


What do you mean not even close? It's fact. He didn't know what Zimmerman was doing. Even if he thought he was following him why did he wait for him rather than going in his house when ge got there? It didn't give him the right to beat zimmerman up. He was followed because he ran. He was probably being suspicious to catch zimmermans attention. After all he was busted with burgler tools and women's jewelry, so for all we know he was casing houses.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by WonderBoi

 

There are actually very few if any holes in his story. Almost all of the questions you asked can be explained with common sense. Like the jacket movin. It could happen easily in a fight on thground. Also the close range sht, single shot, supports his story. Also the neighbor stepping out, on the stand he said Trayvon was on top. Also the grass stains on Trayvons knees support it. Oh and the stipling on trayvons skin indicates his shirt was hanging down off his skin when he was shot, also indicative that he was on top.
When I have more time I can answer every question you have. This really shouldn't have gone to trial. The police called it correct and Zimmerman was justified in his self defense.

Everything you described shows that Trayvon was winning the fight. It does not prove that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman.

If I go out and pick a fight, and I shoot someone because I am losing that fight, it is not self defense. Had I not started that fight, I would not have had to "defend" myself with lethal force.

And actually the whole jacket moving part of the story does not add up for me either. Have you ever mounted another person while in a fight and rained down punches? In a position like that, your knees are usually up around the waist of the person your punching. Unless you look down, you wouldnt see a gun on the hip. You would be sitting on the hips, stomach or chest.

reply to post by olaru12


I am invested because I have a huge problem with this new fad of trial by media. I wish people like Nancy grace were locked up. They take cases and turn the country (apparently most of which are brainless) and turn them against a defendent before they hit trial. They polluute the jury pool and subvert justice. So I insist on being vocal if it helps at all.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Euphony

 

What do you mean not even close? It's fact. He didn't know what Zimmerman was doing. Even if he thought he was following him why did he wait for him rather than going in his house when ge got there? It didn't give him the right to beat zimmerman up. He was followed because he ran. He was probably being suspicious to catch zimmermans attention. After all he was busted with burgler tools and women's jewelry, so for all we know he was casing houses.

Being suspicious = being black?

jewelry was a separate instance.

Being suspicious to catch Zimmermans attention?? So now TMartin went into this subdivision with the intent to find Zimmerman? Interesting....

Originally posted by Euphony

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by Euphony

 

Following is not an act of aggression it isn’t considered stalking in Florida I already posted the link to FL statutes showing that.

Throwing a punch is definitive of being the aggressor. Maybe you do not care what the law is on this matter but your opinion doesn’t matter in court only the letter of the law.

Florida laws: In Florida chloroform is an acceptable baby sitter too.

Let's talk common sense.

Following someone (stalking someone) IS most definitely an act of aggression.

AS I said following is not a crime and I stated I already posted the statutes of stalking and FYI none apply to Zimmerman following.

Your common sense imperative isn’t going to hold up in court and common sense dictates following someone is not an act of aggression your entire premise is a fail in that respect.

So to recap

Following is not an act of aggression.

There was no stalking so it does not apply

Originally posted by Euphony

Being suspicious = being black?

jewelry was a separate instance.

Being suspicious to catch Zimmermans attention?? So now TMartin went into this subdivision with the intent to find Zimmerman? Interesting....

Being suspicious, means Martin was acting suspiciously and it caught GZ's attention. Not that he was acting suspicious specifically to catch GZ's attention.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Following someone isn't 'aggression'. Attacking is.

Are you sure about this? Try following a cop some time and see if they feel threatened or perceive it as a possible act of aggression. I can assure you, you would quickly find out that "following" is not as innocent as you make it sound.

Let me ask you this question.....

If your 17 year old daughter is walking down the street at night, in the dark, and she sees a stranger watching her and following her in a car, what would you do? How would you tell her to react to such a situation? Would you tell her it was nothing and to just go about her business? Or would you tell her to trust her gut instinct?

Personally, I could see how Trayvon would consider Zimmerman a threat, and if you believe the girl who was on the phone with him when she says Trayvon said he was being followed by some "creepy ass cracker" , then it is easy to assume that Trayvon did view Zimmerman as a threat.