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.
Seriously? Do you disregard the physical evidence (cuts on the back of GZ head, Dr. report of a broken nose) and the eyewitness testimony that TM was on top of GZ beating him? Or is it your contention that GZ physically attacked TM first, and then shot TM when TM was getting the better of him? Because there is NO evidence of that.
Zim was alive in the end and was able to paint the picture that his head was being bashed into the concrete. The fact is, in the moments before Zim killed this kid, there was some wrestling on the ground. During that wrestling, Zim's head touched the concrete a maximum of two times, with neither of those contacts requiring a second of hospital care.
As you know, witnesses said they saw Zim on top as well. (Classic Hannity move there buddy, leaving that crucial part out!) And of course we all know that not one spec of TM's DNA was found on Zim or his gun. Nor was there any evidence on TM's hands that he punched anyone. The medical examiner When asked where TM was supposedly holding him (by the ears, cheeks, collar, etc) Zim said he didn't know.
If there was a witness to your last statement, Zimmerman would have been found guilty. Just because there wasn't a witness doesn't mean you didn't just precisely describe exactly what happened.
I know West used self defense as a reason but putting the victim on trial when he's dead and not able to face his accuser GZ who was the one following, even as he's told not to.
GZ should have put on an affirmative defense and gotten into the witness box to explain himself. He didn't do that for the State would have made minced meat out of his testimony..nothing but a bunch of lies told during that trial and the jurors identified with the offender, not the victim..
when will attorney's start making their clients take responsibility for their actions/behaviors..
Yes, the entire ordeal has been the absolute worst, finding it to be so frustrating and aggravating.
We were actually discussing a pattern that GZ exhibits of breaking rules and laws both. Since you are former LE, can you tell me how you felt about the wannabes who seem to try and step in and "help" you do your job?
These guidelines he broke are simply part of a pattern with GZ that seems to be escalating over time. I thought this was the topic here. GZ is really a loose cannon and I think it's quite possible he will kill again.
Oh, likely so, as he is allowed to roam. As he has, there is nothing preventing him to continue proving who he is - and who he was that night. He seemed so intent on becoming the HERO, making several, previous calls regarding suspicions, all motivated by his screwed-up psyche.
Other than what some believe, based only upon his recount of the incident, I feel he continued stalking, then when suddenly faced with T, he just reacted, as he does. I don't believe any of the dialogue or actions he claimed to have occurred between them was true.
Sure, let's just brush it under the rug, though the a___ himself continues proving how he is a hostile, violent guy who is capable of lashing out and committing murder - despite what that trial concluded.
How can it be self serving? Are you serious? Zimmerman killed somebody, he faced up to life in prison depending on the charges. Everything he said to police, prosecutors or his barber was what he wanted them to hear. There is no reason to believe anything he said was said for the purpose of establishing the truth, but rather to mitigate his exposure to prosecution. To be blunt, he's a liar. Zimmerman was never in a position (as was his right) to be examined and cross examined under oath, but you and others here continue to spew the nonsense that Martin attacked Zimmerman because that's what Zimmerman said. That comes nowhere near matching the definition of testimony. You really can't be serious, can you?
Yet all of this was presented at the trial by the prosecution NOT the defense. In fact the lead prosecutor was criticized for leaving out testimony given by Zimmerman that would be favorable to his acquittal. The lead prosecutor said in response to this criticism, it's not their job to present evidence favorable to the defense. It couldn't possibly be "self serving". So yes, I am serious, but it appears you really are not.
" To be blunt, he's a liar."
You have concluded that everything that Zimmerman states is a lie. I won't tell you how to think, that is your prerogative , but your "reality"/opinion isn't any sort of proof. It does however explain pretty much everything you have posted in this topic. In other words, it doesn't really matter what the real evidence shows, what is said in court by either side, the Fla. SYG law, etc. etc. etc, GZ in your reality is guilty. It's an irrational conclusion, but so be it. I have no desire to change your opinion.
Last edited by WaldoKitty; 01-26-2015 at 04:54 AM..
When Martin, made the decision to return to the scene, as described by star witness Rachel Jeantel, reasonable doubt was established and the case was over.
How does anyone know that? First of all, after being told that they "did not need him to follow", Z asked the dispatcher to "have them (Police) CALL him, and he would tell them where he was". This gave him the opportunity to keep stalking (not returning to his truck), so he might possibly "catch a criminal", himself.. his entire motivation, at any cost.
When Rachel overheard something, it was because Z had approached and yes, T likely turned toward Z or even if he sightly approached him, it doesn't matter, the phone dropped to the ground, immediately. I believe there was none of the other interaction Z wants those like yourself to think, he just reacted and was prepared to shoot. That's it.
Here is the part where, as they came face to face and T wondered WHY he was being followed, I feel Z could have "been an adult", saying "Hey, Sorry man.. we've had some break-ins around here and have just been keeping an eye on things.. I didn't recognize you. Where are you headed?" Then, T could have explained he was just visiting his Dad's girlfriend's home and point it out (or state the woman's name). Easy. Mature. Over. No rage, no killing. But, no...a suspicious wannabe stirred up trouble, caused fear in another, one reaction, another reaction..over.
And NO, T was not just some guy skulking about, in fact how familiar had he been with the residence? And returning from the store in the dark in the rain?
Seriously? Do you disregard the physical evidence (cuts on the back of GZ head, Dr. report of a broken nose) and the eyewitness testimony that TM was on top of GZ beating him? Or is it your contention that GZ physically attacked TM first, and then shot TM when TM was getting the better of him? Because there is NO evidence of that.
None of this is factual. The wounds turned out to be minor, just made to look bad. He had "pinhole" marks on and under his nose, where blood dribbled from. The head marks were just surface.. he looked much less worse after arriving at the Police station. Yes, a witness saw something, but it seemed uncertain. There was not grass or dirt stains on him. I don't believe anything Z said, besides his story kept changing. I know others do not want to believe this, but I feel he injured himself with his gun or something. He had to, since police were arriving soon.
Interesting. I'm unfamiliar with Freud's term "fantacist" (or I was until just now), but now I'm curious about whether Freud applied the term to people who actually acted out their fantasies, which Walter Mitty did not do.
Maybe someone can have more than one psychological problem going on. If "fantacists" do act out their fantasies, maybe GZ is a "fantacist" who also has OC tendencies.
It's a tough call when you don't know someone personally. Even though I'm not a professional psychologist, I'm pretty confident that my brother-in-law has OCPD. Since I know him personally, I can see how a number of details about his behavior fit what I've read about OCPD. Since I don't know Zimmerman personally, I'm doing a lot more reaching in this case.
Still, the way that Zimmerman seems unable to resist getting closely involved in situations that he views as being out of order is uncomfortably familiar when I think about my BIL.
Maybe GZ has more than one issue going on, or maybe I'd have a different view of the OC possibility if I knew GZ personally, but his behavior does make me wonder about OC tendencies.
I think -- could well be wrong and Freud is surely old-school now -- that the fantacist, using the WM stuff as a defense mechanism, did act upon it in some ways. That is, when stress levels rose the person went more deeply into the imagined persona and that lowered his stress. The fantasies would typically be heroic and somewhat bizarre for a situation. And here is my admitted leap across decades and continents, today's American fantacist might well employ guns because that is a power fantasy in today's America. I'm not in any way saying something against gun owners generally. My husband is a gun owner and hunter. I'm just saying it seems logical that some people might, when feelings generally helpless and stressed adopt a fantasy that involves them doing heroic things with guns. I'm not trying to prove something here. I don't know this to be true of GZ. It has simply been my thought and since you are trying to sort things out, that is how I've sorted it out.
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.
), but now I'm curious about whether Freud applied the term to people who actually acted out their fantasies, which Walter Mitty did not do.