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.
Trayvon probably wasn't going to kill him with his bare hands.. just beat his azzz real good.
At this point though it's over and doesn't really need to be rehashed. George needs to realize pulling that trigger changed his life forever and deal with the consequences of his actions.
You don't kill an unarmed teenager and become a national hero.
He was a guy who wanted to be a cop, he wanted to be a hero and he had a history of being a thorn in the backside of the local police dept....
This is what happens when life isn't a movie.
Most of the above I agree with. Except, just because you are unarmed, doesn't mean that you can't be life threatening to someone. How many times would you let me beat your head into a sidewalk before you believed that you could have great bodily harm or die?
Every year there are about 600 people killed with hands, fists, or feet.
Following someone is not necessarily aggression, and in this case, definitely was not.
He was trying to keep Martin in sight while waiting for the police. You can't do that from the truck when Martin goes toward the center of the complex.
Nice try, but FAIL.
He appointed himself to begin following someone, based on false suspicions.. (and he has proven to be repeatedly aggressive).
He was told they "didn't need him to do that" (follow). (It was not his responsibility to track another FOR the police).
He asked for them to "just call him and he would tell them (police) where he was". He knew he was expected to return to his truck in the front of the complex, but if he had, could not have continued on his "mission" - (of catching someone, himself, so he could look good in they eyes of those he wanted to impress, having previously been unable to make it as a cop).
Don't you get it? This guy has real emotional problems. He caused the whole thing unnecessarily (and now we sit and debate what occurred, since it is outrageous). Why is it that when shown logic and reality by the majority, some remain rooted in such absurd fantasy? Talk about failing....
He appointed himself to begin following someone, based on false suspicions.. (and he has proven to be repeatedly aggressive).
He was told they "didn't need him to do that" (follow). (It was not his responsibility to track another FOR the police).
He asked for them to "just call him and he would tell them (police) where he was". He knew he was expected to return to his truck in the front of the complex, but if he had, could not have continued on his "mission" - (of catching someone, himself, so he could look good in they eyes of those he wanted to impress, having previously been unable to make it as a cop).
Don't you get it? This guy has real emotional problems. He caused the whole thing unnecessarily (and now we sit and debate what occurred, since it is outrageous). Why is it that when shown logic and reality by the majority, some remain rooted in such absurd fantasy? Talk about failing....
According the the established timeline, it was less than 3 minutes from the time G hung up from dispatch, till the shot was heard. How do you know that G wasnt headed back to his truck to meet police when the encounter happened? It's possible that he was complying with dispatch.
The narrative that he continued to search for T after dispatch told him that they didn't need him to look for T, is purely speculation.
According the the established timeline, it was less than 3 minutes from the time G hung up from dispatch, till the shot was heard. How do you know that G wasnt headed back to his truck to meet police when the encounter happened? It's possible that he was complying with dispatch.
The narrative that he continued to search for T after dispatch told him that they didn't need him to look for T, is purely speculation.
Yes. And the narrative that TM was angry and went back to confront him is purely....oh wait, that's based upon the testimony of his own girlfriend as to what TM said he was going to do.
That's the disconnect in these threads. By the time we heard his gf's testimony people had so made up their minds that they blocked it all out in their minds.
They think that somehow Zimmerman ran him down and then a fight broke out. Nope, TM went back.
Does it mean it's not still bad action on Zimmermans part? Nope. But it's enough to raise reasonable doubt of self defense when the victim says they are upset and are going to go confront the other person.
Don't you get it? This guy has real emotional problems. He caused the whole thing unnecessarily (and now we sit and debate what occurred, since it is outrageous). Why is it that when shown logic and reality by the majority, some remain rooted in such absurd fantasy? Talk about failing....
Zimmy did everything he was suppose to do under the conditions presented to him. People in any Neighborhood Watch group don't just report a suspicious activity or person and then go hide. They observe and report. That was done. They don't engage. Zimmy didn't. Anyone has a right to defend themselves. Zimmy did.
Bleeding hearst tried to crucify him. They failed. The State tried to convict him. They failed. The Government looked into charging him also. They failed.
People NOT living in reality, are still trying to convict him. And they are still failing....live with it, its over.
The "Majority" of the People think it was a justified shooting, including the Jury and the Federal Government, contrary to your imagined "Majority." Un-root yourself from this guilty fantasy....
Untrue. I live about 4 miles from The Retreat at Twin Lakes where this happened. I went there shortly after this happened. Curiosity got the best of me and I had to look at the scene. From where GZ's truck was parked, to TM's home was about 2 minutes. Plenty of time for TM to get home. I estimate where the blood on the sidewalk was is about 50 yards from TM's home. It's only logical that TM had to backtrack to find GZ. Testimony proved that GZ lost sight of TM. He was not following... he was searching. TM stated to Rachel that he was almost to his back step yet the incident occurred aprox 50 yards from his dad's house.
Let's recap. You first claimed, "However the encounter occurred at the other end of the complex." You also claimed Rachel said Martin had REACHED home.
I replied, "You got what Rachel said wrong and the location of the killing wrong. It was definitely not on "the other end of the complex."
You've since come back on to correct yourself on what Rachel said, admitting that she'd only said words to the effect that Martin was somewhere near home, but still not providing any quote of her saying he had actually reached home. This is not a trivial point. It's quite important. You can provide absolutely zero evidence Martin was ever any closer to home than the spot where he died, and Rachel's words don't do it for you. You can hypothesize he might have been, but there's absolutely no actual evidence he was. Your hypotheses notwithstanding, you have already clearly admitted you'd inaccurately stated what Rachel truly said, changing her words from words that imply "near" a location to words that implied "had reached a location." So, I was correct that you got what she said wrong.
Now, you come back on and admit that the body and the blood were only about 50 yards from TM's door. Do you consider 50 yards away from his door to be "the other end of the complex"? If so, I call BS on your claim to have ever walked the streets and sidewalks of the RATL. The location definitely is NOT the other end of the complex. It's just down the dog walk from his townhome's door, only about 10-12 doors away. Even allowing for some movement of the parties during the physical encounter, nobody can correctly claim the encounter happened on the other end of the complex. It didn't. So, again, I was correct that you had not stated things accurately.
I can perhaps give you a pass on this latter point, since you might have been referring to the point in time when Zimmerman first saw Martin, and that was over near Taaffee's home, which was the other end of the RATL, but that wasn't where the physical encounter we were speaking of occurred. That was just first visual contact.
You don't get a pass on changing Rachel's words from what she actually said to something that you think would better support a hypothesis you want to believe. In fact, you do it again with your newest claim she said "he was almost to his back step." She didn't. If you can't support your hypothesis without changing what a witness truly said, you should seriously question whether you have sufficient evidence to even believe your hypothesis. FYI most people would consider 50 yards somewhere near home, especially if they'd just walked and run a much greater distance. So, nothing in Martin's words, as relayed hearsay by Rachel, implies or must place him any closer to his townhome than where he died. There is no physical or witness evidence he "doubled back" after reaching home or being closer to home.
Mind ya, I'm not saying what you hypothesize COULDN'T have happened, but there's just no evidence you can point to that proves it did and no physical evidence that shows Martin was closer to home and then moved away from it for any reason.
Most of the above I agree with. Except, just because you are unarmed, doesn't mean that you can't be life threatening to someone. How many times would you let me beat your head into a sidewalk before you believed that you could have great bodily harm or die?
Every year there are about 600 people killed with hands, fists, or feet.
Dude, first you need to find a case where someone's bald head was beaten into a sidewalk. Seriously. This case isn't it.
In this case it wasn't a question weather G shot T. The question was if he shot T in self defense.
Here in Florida, the law says even if you were the initial aggressor, you can use deadly force if at the time you pulled the trigger you believed your life was in imminent danger or great bodily harm.
T would still be alive today if he would have just punched G and left it at that. Instead he mounted G and proceed to beat his head into the sidewalk.
If someone was on top of you and beating your head into the sidewalk, do you think that you would fear for your well being?
I'm well versed in this particular law because I teach this to my students that are seeking to obtain a CCW license.
If you are going to carry, you must know the laws in your state about when you can use deadly force.
That's just the thing. It's certain that Zimmerman's head was NOT beaten into a sidewalk. There's really no doubt about this from the medical evidence. The most that can be said is that his head struck (notice I did not say was pushed or forced into) some much softer, uneven surface (definitely not concrete) and with not much force behind it. George's claim someone was bashing his head into the ground is fiction. His lawyers admitted George "exaggerated" this part at trial, and even the witness who claimed to have seen MMA-style blows never saw this and even recanted having seen blows. He later downgraded his claims to having only seen some form of struggle with arms moving.
So, the medical evidence doesn't support it; the witness evidence doesn't support it; and George's lawyers have admitted it was an "exaggeration" (read lie) on George's part. If George's claim to justified use of lethal force rests on his actively sustaining this type of injury, then he was not justified in use of lethal force, because he wasn't sustaining this type of injury.
So, perhaps you should turn to another point in the encounter that would allow him to use lethal force to repel lethal force being used against him. I wouldn't look to George's claim of having his airway obstructed for it. That's also easily refuted.
Dude, first you need to find a case where someone's bald head was beaten into a sidewalk. Seriously. This case isn't it.
Seriously. Seems like no one uses or has common sense.
I never for a moment thought TM beat his head on the concrete leaving him an inch from wearing diapers and being spoon fed due to the pristeen condition GZ head was in. Besides those little lacerations, the three tiny pricks on the tip of his nose, doesn't mean TM was responsible for that. I remember the neighbor who said after GZ killed TM, he had his hand with gun in it to the back of his head, could he have given himself those injuries? Hmmm
The DNA evidence showed there was no GZ DNA on TM's hands, or under his fingernails, so TM must have been quite a magician to beat him as GZ claims. Plenty of GZ DNA all over Trayvon, GZ's bloody fingerprint on the undergarment of TM as he held this teen from fleeing his grasp.
The exaggerations from a 30 y/o man against a teenager is abhorrent. I believe GZ knew the right words to say to make it appear as if he acted in SD, when in reality, I believe GZ was in vigilante mode. He also lied when he said he didn't know about SYG. He was in college taking judicial classes and found out through the documents, he did know about that statute.
Liar, liar pants on fire, GZ will get his in the end.
He knows he intentionally took a life and will meet with his God on judgment day.
Yes. And the narrative that TM was angry and went back to confront him is purely....oh wait, that's based upon the testimony of his own girlfriend as to what TM said he was going to do.
That's the disconnect in these threads. By the time we heard his gf's testimony people had so made up their minds that they blocked it all out in their minds.
They think that somehow Zimmerman ran him down and then a fight broke out. Nope, TM went back.
Does it mean it's not still bad action on Zimmermans part? Nope. But it's enough to raise reasonable doubt of self defense when the victim says they are upset and are going to go confront the other person.
Could you provide the quote of Rachel saying Martin told her he was going to go back and confront Zimmerman? I don't recall her saying that. Thanks.
** BTW, please don't just respond by telling me to go listen to her hours of testimony on a hunting expedition for a quote I don't believe her testimony contains. You are claiming she said something specific. It's up to you to support your assertion with the necessary evidence. Know in advance that if she truly DID say this, and it's not an altering of her words to fit a hypothesis, then I will substantially change what I believe about this 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.
