Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Evidence was provided. He had embraced thug "culture". Furthermore, no evidence has been presented that he was a fine outstanding citizen headed towards academic honors. And it was asked for.
So, you are saying... he deserved to die, based upon information collected that may or may not have been true? That no matter what occurred, he "deserved it", due to any flaw in his teen mentality? Oh, and if he HAD undoubtedly been a "fine, outstanding citizen headed toward academic honors", what would you have thought of the outcome, then?
it appears you have not been reading and comprehending actual information.. stuck in denial over your buddy, Zimmy.
Your opinion of me isn't relevant to the topic. Furthermore, insults are not a replacement for a logical argument or point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by In2itive_1
So, you are saying... he deserved to die, based upon information collected that may or may not have been true? That no matter what occurred, he "deserved it",...
Deserved? So after accusing me of not being able to understand the written word, you now decide to play word games?. LOL I'm not taking that bait.
Last edited by WaldoKitty; 02-03-2015 at 02:11 AM..
What facts can you cite to show that you know what happened? Take a look at the part I've put in boldface. Maybe you've said this other times in the many pages of this very long thread that I have not read, but this is the second time I have seen where you've talked about a fight that escalated, with TM eventually getting the upper hand, but I don't see the evidence to support this.
I'd say that the evidence--facts, not the way someone just kinda pictures the encounter unfolding--indicates that TM initiated face-to-face contact with GZ, and that TM then suddenly attacked GZ, knocked him to the ground, pinned him down in the MMA straddling pin, and began beating him.
That by itself does not mean that TM was at fault. You need to look at all of the evidence to answer that question. But, as I look at the evidence (again, facts, not just the way someone pictures the altercation developing), I see evidence of a sudden attack, no indication of any back-and-forth fight with TM ultimately gaining control. What do you know that makes you think it did happen this way?
So, how is it that what you perceive is not just "the way someone pictures the altercation developing"? What do you know that makes you think it did happen this way? Do you know that everything you are stating as "evidence--facts" came from Z himself and is not factual?
....Do you know that everything you are stating as "evidence--facts" came from Z himself and is not factual?
Under Florida law, GZ doesn't have to prove what he says is factual. It's the prosecution's job to prove that it isn't. They failed to do so. Case closed.
You can pontificate as much as you like over whether GZ is a liar. It's irrelevant to the point at hand.
I may do that if I have the time at some point. With as long a thread as this, it's easy to understand that you may have missed the relatively few posts I've scattered through the thread, but if you have seen either of two posts in particular, you'll know that I've made the point that, unlike in some television cop shows, real investigations don't usually involve any ah-hah moment where one single key piece of evidence makes a case. In the real world, investigation is a painstaking process of piecing together many bits of evidence and figuring out how they add up.
It would take quite a long post to go into all the evidence here and show how it all adds up. And, I'm sure that plenty of people would still refuse to believe what I could show must logically be regarded as the only plausible scenario, no matter how well I explained things.
Still, if I have the time, I might do it at some point in case a few of you might actually be open to that. IF I have time, so don't count on it.
The bottom line is that a forum like this doesn't lend itself well to the kind of detailed analysis and explanation it would take.
Anyone who is actually interested in facts, though, and in how the law views those facts, would be well advised to do quite a bit of reading about the case. Maybe even see if you can dig up a transcript of the trial, as well as information from online sources and the like. Then try to do a lot of reading and thinking, with an open mind.
It seems that in the time it took for you to explain why you cannot supply some evidence, you might have been able to do so. Hmmmm...
Even O'Mara and West would agree that TM was running in the general direction of his house. The question is what happened during the several minutes between running away and the fight.
Rachel said TM told her he was by the house. If true, he turned back based on where the fight happened. If not true, he was hiding somewhere before approaching the house. Unless you think Z could catch up to a running TM.
Yes, I believe that as he was nearing the residence, he saw that he was still being followed, as his stalker showed up right behind him and turned to face him. He was still on the phone as approached and the phone was heard been dropped by Rachel. I think not that much actually transpired between them, Z being ready to attack and if feeling threatened in any way (though he initiated the whole thing), just pulled his gun and shot. None of this "head slammimg", T "only having been on top" or him "having seen the gun underneath Z", all that "dialogue", with T having covered Z's nose and mouth while still hitting him... give us a break.
Of course, Z wanted his fable to be believed.. surprising anyone did, which a few still appear to.
You haven't supplied any "evidence" either. Hmmmm....
I have and many others (in the past hundred-some pages of posts) have repeatedly made logical points as to what occurred, based upon actual findings, unlike Z's fake story that some like you choose to buy. Just because the trial ended up as it did, doesn't mean it was not an ineffective trial with the wrong outcome.
Yes, I believe that as he was nearing the residence, he saw that he was still being followed, as his stalker showed up right behind him and turned to face him. He was still on the phone as approached and the phone was heard been dropped by Rachel. I think not that much actually transpired between them, Z being ready to attack and if feeling threatened in any way (though he initiated the whole thing), just pulled his gun and shot. None of this "head slammimg", T "only having been on top" or him "having seen the gun underneath Z", all that "dialogue", with T having covered Z's nose and mouth while still hitting him... give us a break.
Of course, Z wanted his fable to be believed.. surprising anyone did, which a few still appear to.
You believe at least two thing that I don't. First is that Z actually caught up to TM. Second is that Z 'just shot' while both were standing [then somehow faked them struggling on the ground ?]
FYI --- I don't have to believe everything Z said to think the state failed to prove its case.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
