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.
To everyone saying "Trayvon was just a boy who was executed by an older man with a gun" or something along those lines - I think the problem is that nuance gets lost. Here's what I think: I don't like Zimmerman, and I think he was responsible for creating the situation. But it's not like he was literally following Trayvon, and then shot and killed him. From what I understand, he stepped out of his car to see which way he went, and then Trayvon came back and attacked Zimmerman, and had the upper hand in the entire fight until he slammed Zimmerman's head into the concrete. Hindsight is 20/20, there is no way Zimmerman could have known that the situation would end like that. We can say "he shouldn't have followed Trayvon" and that may be correct. But a judgement error like that doesn't equal murder.
If this is Zimmerman's story, assuming he is telling the truth. I don't know why people are so quick to believe his version of events. He was facing murder charges. They had no other evidence because no one witnessed the whole thing and Martin was dead, so he couldn't tell his side of the story. It was all very convenient for Zimmerman. He could say whatever he liked, as long as it was't too outlandish, like it didn't fit the small amount of evidence they had (like the injuries on his body).
Like I have said multiple times but no one has acknowledged, Martin was on the phone with a friend who testified that he told her some creepy guy was following him. He noticed Zimmerman watching and following him. But again - we can't ask Trayvon now, can we? Can't ask him how he felt, what he saw, what happened?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez
Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. If you want to talk about Zimmerman's issues, be prepared to hear about Trayvon's. It wasn't me who initially diverted to things outside that night.
Zimmerman had every right to watch Martin.
Since we don't know for a fact who started the physical confrontation, we can't say who was guilty. You can assume all you want that Martin did nothing, but it's just your assumption. Based upon what is known and the timeline, I'll assume that most likely Martin attacked Zimmerman after getting pissed off about being followed by a "gay" man.
The fact of the matter is that Zimmerman was not, and should not have been, found guilty.
You can nash your teeth all you want, but saying Zimmerman is guilty of anything that night is purely speculation.
Trayvon's past is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with what happened. Zimmerman himself did not know Trayvon or anything about him. He acted entirely based on his perceptions that night. So why does Martin's past matter now, that he was shot dead, after it was determined he was not doing anything criminal that night? Once Zimmerman pulled that trigger, his past actions became relevant because HE DID ACT that night.
What it comes down to is this - Trayvon was doing nothing wrong. He was walking with some candy and a soda or something and talking on the phone. He was in his neighborhood. Zimmerman saw him and claimed he was acting suspicious, calling the police. He was following him, watching him, so he wouldn't lose sight of him until the police arrived. The dispatcher told him to top following Martin, that they "didn't need him to do that." Next thing we know, because literally we don't know for sure what happened next, there's a scuffle and Trayvon is shot dead. And for what? Because he looked suspicious? When he wasn't, not at that time, as it was determined he wasn't involved in criminal activity? And Martin's past matters why?
I don't have a problem talking about Trayvon's past, I just fail to see how it's relevant. Zimmerman himself didn't even know anything about Trayvon, and he's the one who pulled the trigger. Trayvon's past should be irrelevant because what he had done previously, if anything, had absolutely nothing to do with what happened that night and Zimmerman had no knowledge of any potential previous illicit activities. I'm not even sure if anything in Trayvon's past was discussed at trial (often this kind of stuff is inadmissible), especially because Zimmerman had no knowledge of any of it. It had nothing to do with this incident and shooting.
I'm not assuming that Martin did nothing. But I stand by my, and not just my, statement that Zimmerman should have stopped playing cops and robbers and let the police do their jobs. And unfortunately, Zimmerman did far more than just watch Martin. Perhaps Martin attacked Zimmerman because he noticed he was being followed. I don't see what thinking he was a "gay man" has to do with anything. Most people would be freaked out if they were being followed, and they would be on the defensive. It all goes back to that Zimmerman shouldn't have done what he did. He must have gotten out of the car for the altercation to even have happened. He shouldn't have done so. He was told to wait.
I have no doubt that Zimmerman was too involved in this. As a quote from the record I posted earlier said, had he stayed in the car and waited for the cops like he was told, none of it would have happened. He was out of line, even if Martin did attack him first.
I did not say Zimmerman was guilty of anything. I'm saying I am doubting his version of events, because we have nothing else to go off of since Trayvon is dead and no one else saw the whole thing, and that I think Zimmerman should have minded his own business and listened to the dispatcher, which he clearly did not because he somehow wound up outside his car.
This whole thread is ironic to me. Trayvon Martin was prosecuted by Angela Corey, a Republican who was State Attorney in Jacksonville and made national news for overcharging (including recommending the death penalty) on many cases. She encouraged a write-in candidate to get her election closed to democrats as that then makes a primary required, but she still lost handily to her Republican competitor last year. The reality is that Angela Corey overcharged on the TM case and lost. It has nothing to do with "liberals" but everything to do with the Angela Corey philosophy.
She did overcharge, I agree, but the jury can find lesser included offenses, including manslaughter. If the jury doesn't think there's enough evidence for the crime as charged, but there is for a lesser offense, they can convict for the lesser offense. I think the actual issue was they just had no evidence. Witnesses were all over the place, and only one guy saw the fight, but not even the whole thing. Basically it was Zimmerman's story against the witnesses who were inconsistent with one another, plus his injuries.
If this is Zimmerman's story, assuming he is telling the truth. I don't know why people are so quick to believe his version of events. He was facing murder charges. They had no other evidence because no one witnessed the whole thing and Martin was dead, so he couldn't tell his side of the story. It was all very convenient for Zimmerman. He could say whatever he liked, as long as it was't too outlandish, like it didn't fit the small amount of evidence they had (like the injuries on his body).
Like I have said multiple times but no one has acknowledged, Martin was on the phone with a friend who testified that he told her some creepy guy was following him. He noticed Zimmerman watching and following him. But again - we can't ask Trayvon now, can we? Can't ask him how he felt, what he saw, what happened?
Trayvon's past is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with what happened. Zimmerman himself did not know Trayvon or anything about him. He acted entirely based on his perceptions that night. So why does Martin's past matter now, that he was shot dead, after it was determined he was not doing anything criminal that night? Once Zimmerman pulled that trigger, his past actions became relevant because HE DID ACT that night.
What it comes down to is this - Trayvon was doing nothing wrong. He was walking with some candy and a soda or something and talking on the phone. He was in his neighborhood. Zimmerman saw him and claimed he was acting suspicious, calling the police. He was following him, watching him, so he wouldn't lose sight of him until the police arrived. The dispatcher told him to top following Martin, that they "didn't need him to do that." Next thing we know, because literally we don't know for sure what happened next, there's a scuffle and Trayvon is shot dead. And for what? Because he looked suspicious? When he wasn't, not at that time, as it was determined he wasn't involved in criminal activity? And Martin's past matters why?
I don't have a problem talking about Trayvon's past, I just fail to see how it's relevant. Zimmerman himself didn't even know anything about Trayvon, and he's the one who pulled the trigger. Trayvon's past should be irrelevant because what he had done previously, if anything, had absolutely nothing to do with what happened that night and Zimmerman had no knowledge of any potential previous illicit activities. I'm not even sure if anything in Trayvon's past was discussed at trial (often this kind of stuff is inadmissible), especially because Zimmerman had no knowledge of any of it. It had nothing to do with this incident and shooting.
I'm not assuming that Martin did nothing. But I stand by my, and not just my, statement that Zimmerman should have stopped playing cops and robbers and let the police do their jobs. And unfortunately, Zimmerman did far more than just watch Martin. Perhaps Martin attacked Zimmerman because he noticed he was being followed. I don't see what thinking he was a "gay man" has to do with anything. Most people would be freaked out if they were being followed, and they would be on the defensive. It all goes back to that Zimmerman shouldn't have done what he did. He must have gotten out of the car for the altercation to even have happened. He shouldn't have done so. He was told to wait.
I have no doubt that Zimmerman was too involved in this. As a quote from the record I posted earlier said, had he stayed in the car and waited for the cops like he was told, none of it would have happened. He was out of line, even if Martin did attack him first.
I did not say Zimmerman was guilty of anything. I'm saying I am doubting his version of events, because we have nothing else to go off of since Trayvon is dead and no one else saw the whole thing, and that I think Zimmerman should have minded his own business and listened to the dispatcher, which he clearly did not because he somehow wound up outside his car.
Not a single piece of physical evidence or witness testimony contradicts Zimmerman's story.
Zimmerman had every right to watch Martin as he waited for the cops.
If Zimmerman's past is relevant to that night, so is Martin's.
Nothing from that night proves Zimmerman did anything wrong.
Not a single piece of physical evidence or witness testimony contradicts Zimmerman's story.
Zimmerman had every right to watch Martin as he waited for the cops.
If Zimmerman's past is relevant to that night, so is Martin's.
Nothing from that night proves Zimmerman did anything wrong.
What don't you get? Zimmerman did more than watch. He got out of his car. He must have, in order to get in the fight and shoot Martin. Why did he do that? If he was afraid of Trayvon, for whatever reason, why did he? Simply put, yet again, he was told to wait for the police and not follow Trayvon. Next thing we know, there's a fight and Trayvon is dead. Zimmerman ultimately was wrong. He had no business dong what he was doing in the first place. This is even in the record, I believe for the arrest warrant or some other document, when it was said that he should have just stayed in the car. People investigating and involved with the case saying this. What more do you want?
Why do you say that Trayvon's past is relevant? Do you not understand that Zimmerman, who killed him and was suspicious of him, had no knowledge of Trayvon's past? When he pulled the trigger, when he called the police even prior, Trayvon's past was irrelevant because Zimmerman knew nothing about him. It's not relevant after the fact, it wasn't relevant then. It wasn't relevant to Zimmerman. Zimmerman made judgments about Trayvon based on what he saw, nothing else. He never knew, prior, that Trayvon smoked weed or was suspended from school or was possibly getting involved with crime. Why is this relevant after Martin is dead and can't even speak for himself now? Trayvon's past wasn't and isn't relevant to the case. It had nothing to do with what happened or Zimmerman's motives in the whole thing, whatever his intent was. Only some sleazy defense attorney would bring it up in an attempt to deflect attention from the guy who just shot and killed a 17 year old in his own neighborhood, and you're falling for it.
Witnesses were all over the place. Check out the reports. Many contradicted their own statements, or frankly eventually admitted that they didn't know. This is common with witnesses.
Michael Brown, OTOH had JUST robbed a store and shoved an employee, on camera. That is something that would naturally come up, and is far more relevant than anything Trayvon ever did. IIRC, Wilson was even advised of the robbery.
What don't you get? Zimmerman did more than watch. He got out of his car. He must have, in order to get in the fight and shoot Martin. Why did he do that? If he was afraid of Trayvon, for whatever reason, why did he? Simply put, yet again, he was told to wait for the police and not follow Trayvon. Next thing we know, there's a fight and Trayvon is dead. Zimmerman ultimately was wrong. He had no business dong what he was doing in the first place. This is even in the record, I believe for the arrest warrant or some other document, when it was said that he should have just stayed in the car. People investigating and involved with the case saying this. What more do you want?
Why do you say that Trayvon's past is relevant? Do you not understand that Zimmerman, who killed him and was suspicious of him, had no knowledge of Trayvon's past? When he pulled the trigger, when he called the police even prior, Trayvon's past was irrelevant because Zimmerman knew nothing about him. It's not relevant after the fact, it wasn't relevant then. It wasn't relevant to Zimmerman. Zimmerman made judgments about Trayvon based on what he saw, nothing else. He never knew, prior, that Trayvon smoked weed or was suspended from school or was possibly getting involved with crime. Why is this relevant after Martin is dead and can't even speak for himself now? Trayvon's past wasn't and isn't relevant to the case. It had nothing to do with what happened or Zimmerman's motives in the whole thing, whatever his intent was. Only some sleazy defense attorney would bring it up in an attempt to deflect attention from the guy who just shot and killed a 17 year old in his own neighborhood, and you're falling for it.
Witnesses were all over the place. Check out the reports. Many contradicted their own statements, or frankly eventually admitted that they didn't know. This is common with witnesses.
Michael Brown, OTOH had JUST robbed a store and shoved an employee, on camera. That is something that would naturally come up, and is far more relevant than anything Trayvon ever did. IIRC, Wilson was even advised of the robbery.
In order to watch Martin, Zimmerman could either drive his vehicle onto the sidewalk between buildings or get out of his vehicle to walk down the path to see which way Martin went. Completely and totally reasonable.
Trayvon's past is just as relevant as Zimmerman's. So if you feel Martin's past is irrelevant, you should feel the same of Zimmerman's other transgressions.
Not a single piece of physical evidence or witness testimony contradicts Zimmerman's story.
Zimmerman had every right to watch Martin as he waited for the cops.
If Zimmerman's past is relevant to that night, so is Martin's.
Nothing from that night proves Zimmerman did anything wrong.
The character of a dead man is irrelevant, because we're not here to examine the victim since he didn't pull the trigger.
Look at their histories, Zimmerman has a lengthy criminal history, Martin does not. look at their behavior, Zimmerman is pissed and stalks Martin even after being told not to by 911, Martin runs away from him and is scared. it takes a serious leap in logic to come to the conclusion that martin was the aggressor.
But Martin was a black guy in a hoodie, and some of you can't view him as anything but a murdering thug.
In order to watch Martin, Zimmerman could either drive his vehicle onto the sidewalk between buildings or get out of his vehicle to walk down the path to see which way Martin went. Completely and totally reasonable.
Trayvon's past is just as relevant as Zimmerman's. So if you feel Martin's past is irrelevant, you should feel the same of Zimmerman's other transgressions.
NO, it wasn't, because he was told NOT to follow Martin. You're completely wrong. This is in the record. The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following him. When Zimmerman answered, "yeah", the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." Zimmerman responded, "Okay."
A lawyer for Mr. Martin’s parents, Benjamin Crump, has said that Mr. Martin was speaking on his cellphone at the time with his girlfriend, and told her that he was being followed. Mr. Crump said that the girl heard him being asked what he was doing before the line went dead. [This was later testimony at trial.]
Mr. Zimmerman’s father, Robert Zimmerman, gave a different account: he has said that his son had lost sight of Mr. Martin, who then appeared from behind and challenged him.
So according to dad, Zimmerman was out of the car and following him, despite being told not to?
Zimmerman is the one who killed someone. He needs to account for what he did and why, and that may include scrutinizing things he has done or said, or knew, in the past, given this particular situation and its complexities. Trayvon is dead, and his past was completely unknown to Zimmerman at the time. It wasn't relevant when he pulled the trigger, it isn't now. Had Zimmerman known Trayvon and, let's say, knew for a fact that he had robbed a house in the neighborhood before, that would be entirely relevant. Actual knowledge of past acts and reason to be suspicious. But he had nothing of the sort. He knew nothing about Trayvon and anything he did or didn't do. Didn't even know who he was. Pulling up anything Trayvon did in the past is not relevant to the case at hand. It is just an attempt to make him look bad and excuse Zimmerman for being completely wrong that night, as Martin was not involved in criminal activity.
NO, it wasn't, because he was told NOT to follow Martin. You're completely wrong. This is in the record. The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following him. When Zimmerman answered, "yeah", the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." Zimmerman responded, "Okay."
A lawyer for Mr. Martin’s parents, Benjamin Crump, has said that Mr. Martin was speaking on his cellphone at the time with his girlfriend, and told her that he was being followed. Mr. Crump said that the girl heard him being asked what he was doing before the line went dead. [This was later testimony at trial.]
Mr. Zimmerman’s father, Robert Zimmerman, gave a different account: he has said that his son had lost sight of Mr. Martin, who then appeared from behind and challenged him.
So according to dad, Zimmerman was out of the car and following him, despite being told not to?
Zimmerman is the one who killed someone. He needs to account for what he did and why, and that may include scrutinizing things he has done or said, or knew, in the past, given this particular situation and its complexities. Trayvon is dead, and his past was completely unknown to Zimmerman at the time. It wasn't relevant when he pulled the trigger, it isn't now. Had Zimmerman known Trayvon and, let's say, knew for a fact that he had robbed a house in the neighborhood before, that would be entirely relevant. Actual knowledge of past acts and reason to be suspicious. But he had nothing of the sort. He knew nothing about Trayvon and anything he did or didn't do. Didn't even know who he was. Pulling up anything Trayvon did in the past is not relevant to the case at hand. It is just an attempt to make him look bad and excuse Zimmerman for being completely wrong that night, as Martin was not involved in criminal activity.
As you just quoted, the dispatcher said they didn't NEED Zimmerman to follow him. Although the dispatcher has zero authority to issue any orders, the dispatcher didn't say to not follow Martin, only that Zimmerman wasn't being requested to follow him. Additionally, right after that, the dispatcher asked where Martin was.
You should really familiarize yourself with this better.
As you just quoted, the dispatcher said they didn't NEED Zimmerman to follow him. Although the dispatcher has zero authority to issue any orders, the dispatcher didn't say to not follow Martin, only that Zimmerman wasn't being requested to follow him. Additionally, right after that, the dispatcher asked where Martin was.
You should really familiarize yourself with this better.
George Zimmerman should have left the matter to the authorities. If he wanted to be a cop, I guess he should've tried harder to get a police job.
I might have some sort of empathy for him if he'd been in his home and Trayvon had been on his property skulking around.
But, that is not what happened.
And, if you look at how Zimmerman has conducted himself, on the record, he doesn't look so innocent.
Before AND after he murdered Trayvon Martin.
There are many variables that could change for me to see this differently... say, the addition of another person whose life was at risk that Zimmerman was attempting to protect by exiting his vehicle and confronting Martin, for example.
Or, Martin having approached Zimmerman's car and threatened him directly.
Florida is a strange place.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
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.
