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.
The part in red is an important point, and this is my take on it.
The evidence at trial established (sufficient for the jury to apparently believe it) That TM was on top of GZ administering a beating. Even though GZ was armed, it is not unreasonable for him to fear for his life at that point. A street fight between adult males (and let's be reasonable - TM was not the twelve year old child that the media portrayed him as) can EASILY result in death or debilitating injury. TM needn't be armed with a wepon of any sort, nor would he need to be joined by others in order for GZ to have that reasonable fear.
For the millionth time, TM did not just walk up and attack GZ like GZ claims. We know this because TM's body was NOT found where GZ says the 'attack' took place.
It's obvious that the 'attack' was precipitated by the typical pushing and shoving that people do when escalating a fight. Since one of the witnesses says that they heard arguing I think its safe to assume this is what happened. An armed person shouldn't be allowed to bait an unarmed person into an attack, which is what happened here.
Again, why did TMs body end up 40-50 feet down the sidewalk from where GZ claimed the attack took place? Either A) GZ turned the corner and confronted TM where his body was found or B) They moved from the place that GZ says the encounter was initiated to the place where the fight/shooting occurred.
GZ was found "not guilty" in court but what he did and the choices he made to get in that situation were despicable.
.....
GZ was found "not guilty" in court but what he did and the choices he made to get in that situation were despicable.
When TM made the choice to return to confront GZ, as testified by his girlfriend, it's was over. TM was in full control over that choice. If he had continued on home, he would be alive today.
For the millionth time, TM did not just walk up and attack GZ like GZ claims. We know this because TM's body was NOT found where GZ says the 'attack' took place.
It's obvious that the 'attack' was precipitated by the typical pushing and shoving that people do when escalating a fight. Since one of the witnesses says that they heard arguing I think its safe to assume this is what happened. An armed person shouldn't be allowed to bait an unarmed person into an attack, which is what happened here.
Again, why did TMs body end up 40-50 feet down the sidewalk from where GZ claimed the attack took place? Either A) GZ turned the corner and confronted TM where his body was found or B) They moved from the place that GZ says the encounter was initiated to the place where the fight/shooting occurred.
GZ was found "not guilty" in court but what he did and the choices he made to get in that situation were despicable.
Which is it? Obvious what happened, or is it an assumption?
Is your point B not a possibility?
Looks like things aren't as obvious as you thought.
When TM made the choice to return to confront GZ, as testified by his girlfriend, it's was over. TM was in full control over that choice. If he had continued on home, he would be alive today.
As you believe in Zimmy's story, I think there was more to it. TM was not in "full control", but it is possible if he would have hurried on to the residence, he may have avoided a confrontation. He was aware of being followed and was apparently looking over his shoulder, as the follower was not backing down. I believe when Z continued stalking and came upon T, that Z initiated conflict, which he is clearly prone to do.
If Z had been an adult, just conversing with one he did not recognize, T would be alive today.
If Z would have instead returned to his truck, T would be alive today.
If Z did not have impulse-control issues and other problems, T would be alive today.
If Z had gone shopping instead of creating suspicion in another, carrying a gun to eventually and hopefully prove himself in the eyes of others (because that was the goal)... T would be alive today...
As you believe in Zimmy's story, I think there was more to it. .....
Try again Son. I said nothing about GZ account. The "story", as you call it and as I indicated above, came from TM's girlfriend's sworn testimony in court.
This would be a one Rachel Jeantel.
People have an enormous capacity to believe anything but the truth, but I'll stick with what was presented in court and ignore the conspiracy theories.
Try again Son. I said nothing about GZ account. The "story", as you call it and as I indicated above, came from TM's girlfriend's sworn testimony in court.
This would be a one Rachel Jeantel.
People have an enormous capacity to believe anything but the truth, but I'll stick with what was presented in court and ignore the conspiracy theories.
RJ said that TM was running away from ZimmerBoy and ZimmerBoy caught up with (Him) TM.
Next thing to happen was that TM asked a so called Man who was Breathing hard ( Why Are You Following Me) that Boy/Man/Boy was ZimmerBoy who was Breathing Real Hard.
ZimmerBoy did not answer TM question of (Why Are You Following ME) , for what reason i can't even
imagine can any of you ZimmerBoy supporters help me figure this out please ???/?
After TM asked the Adult question ( Why Are You Following Me ) there was A THUMP and the sounds of a physical confrontation" which logic would dictate was started By The Person That Wasn't AskingQuestions.........ZimmerBoy.
Try again Son. I said nothing about GZ account. The "story", as you call it and as I indicated above, came from TM's girlfriend's sworn testimony in court.
This would be a one Rachel Jeantel.
People have an enormous capacity to believe anything but the truth, but I'll stick with what was presented in court and ignore the conspiracy theories.
as I recall her testimony, she seemed to goad TM to 'do something' and not to let the cracker get the best of him. words to that effect.
Having had a 17 yr old son myself, I can just expect anything could happen next under those circumstances. My son got into any number of things logic wouldn't have expected if his girl were watching/involved. Imagine 17 year old boys/young men are very much alike.
OK then let me try again " Logic " would have it that the Person Stalking and Chasing a person is the one who started " The Fight " between TM and GZ.
Logic wouldn't support the facts of a person running away from a confrontation which was what TM was doing starting a fight with ZimmerBoy.
Logic would support the fact that TM did NOT attack and start a fight with GZ.
Now is that better ????
It' is. So I will address it.
Your logic fails because you dismiss what the defendant says. Logic requires that you take into account all possible conditions. Bias is not logical.
Your logic fails because you haven't established that TM was running away. Rachael Jeantel's testimony proves this.
This isn't logic. This is an opinion
If you presented this in a course on logic, you would not receive a passing grade.
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.
