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.
Yes, but whether or not he was acting as the neighborhood watch captain that night doesn't matter. Any private citizen has the right to investigate a crime, but there was no crime being committed, just walking in the rain. Why is that acting suspiciously? On TV there's an erectile dysfunction commercial (Viagra or Cialis) where the man's wife is beckoning him to walk outside in the pouring rain. I guess when 2 middle aged White people do it, that's supposed to be romantic.
Regarding the gun, yes it's against the rules, but he did have a permit, so that's one of those arguments that could go on for months and never be resolved. I mean, he did have the right to carry, but as you wrote, most NW programs not only discourage carrying a weapon, they prohibit it.
This article from last year supports not only the NW rules but shows what someone with a level head would do in the same situation. In this case, someone was committing a crime. Still, the man stayed inside, called the police (watch & report) and they caught the perpetrator down the street. Nobody was shot to death.
Based on all of those previous calls, Zimmerman strikes me as the uber nosy neighbor - the one that's always watching what everyone is doing. Remember that one call about someone's garage door being open?? Plus, he never wanted to give out his address in case 'they' could hear him? I bet he's the type that will call the cops on any teenager walking along at night - we have some in my neighborhood like that.
It could be argued for wrongful death that if Zimmerman was not so worried about making sure he could tell where this 'suspicious person' went, nothing would have happened. However, that simply doesn't equal second degree murder. Wrongful death? I think so. Second degree murder? Haven't seen anything to prove that yet.
By the way - maybe it's just me - but the whole time watching him in trial and then those phone calls to the cops (plus his 911 call), I get the feeling Zimmerman's a major wimp. Not sure why. Just a feeling. It's how he comes across to me.
He had only stopped at a convenient store. It wasn't even in his own neighborhood. There's nothing wrong with telling someone to turn down very loud music. I think it's very annoying. However, Dunn made an effort to drive his car over to an SUV full of teenagers listening to music and then put down the windows. Obviously the music wasn't bothering him that much, but it probably just wasn't his type of music. He said in the video that they turned it down right away. There were eyewitnesses too.
Oh. I thought they were sitting right next to each other.
I still wouldn't find any fault in that by itself though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by justNancy
Of course people should get involved when a crime is being committed or someone is being rude. I told a couple of teenagers who were using very foul language in a supermarket to clean up their language. But I wouldn't have walked across the parking lot to do it late at night if they weren't in front of me. (they told me to go F myself, but I didn't shoot them) He was driving home from a wedding and was probably very drunk. Why didn't he call the police after a shooting?
Well I wouldn't find any fault if you had, it might be risky, but not in the sense that you are doing anything wrong.
You'll have to ask him why he didn't call the cops. Guy went to a hotel and ordered pizza? Makes him look pretty damn guilty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JanND
Perhaps you prefer....Trayvon fought for his life. It seems George can stalk, harass, possibly physically accouste a teen, ending in shooting him. You only have George's word, your proof?. I'd consider the source....
Okay but you were implying that following by itself was somehow comparable to what I was saying. Which it isn't.
And you're stretching your earlier point now with stalking and harassment.
I said following was legal. That's it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JanND
Zimmerman himself described Trayvon as a late teen during his call w/ the dispatcher....Did you listen to his other 911 calls. He hid in his home when reporting adults who seemed suspect....But, a teen he follows, with a gun....Oh...A gun he forgot he had on??
Late teens usually means 17-19.
Even so, we're splitting hairs. It wouldn't be any less or more okay to shoot a 16, 17, or 18 year old.
All this "he was a child" stuff really means nothing, it's just a way to stir up emotion.
Unfortunately the site went down before I could finish my post.
However, I disagree that a private community is the same as a public street. Still, the FBI would identity themselves. They don't stalk private citizens who aren't being investigated for criminal activity. Regarding a P.I., why would a private investigator follow a 17 year old teenager? (and you call my post "a semantic argument"
As it pertains to "following" in the context of self defense, I really don't see any difference.
It's not as if this was one of these individuals' private property.
Quote:
Originally Posted by justNancy
We are talking about a strange man in a dark SUV following a 17 year old in the rain. He followed him in his car. He followed him on foot. This wasn't a case of someone "following" another person as if they were both headed to the same store. I lived in Boston for a long time, so I know the difference. Many times people are in back of you for several blocks. If you turn left and right and that person is still in back of you, there's something peculiar about his actions. Zimmerman never identified himself. We don't hear it on the 911 tape and he didn't mention it in his statements to the police or his reenactment at the scene.
I have no contention here as a matter of common sense.
Yes, but whether or not he was acting as the neighborhood watch captain that night doesn't matter. Any private citizen has the right to investigate a crime, but there was no crime being committed, just walking in the rain. Why is that acting suspiciously? On TV there's an erectile dysfunction commercial (Viagra or Cialis) where the man's wife is beckoning him to walk outside in the pouring rain. I guess when 2 middle aged White people do it, that's supposed to be romantic.
Regarding the gun, yes it's against the rules, but he did have a permit, so that's one of those arguments that could go on for months and never be resolved. I mean, he did have the right to carry, but as you wrote, most NW programs not only discourage carrying a weapon, they prohibit it.
This article from last year supports not only the NW rules but shows what someone with a level head would do in the same situation. In this case, someone was committing a crime. Still, the man stayed inside, called the police (watch & report) and they caught the perpetrator down the street. Nobody was shot to death.
The SPD neighborhood watch coordinator testified she does Not discuss carrying a gun in her presentation when a new nw organizes. So, not only was it legal for gz to have his gun, he was never told by the police coordinator that he should not carry a gun.
Earlier in feb. gz reported someone who got away. A week later the same guy was caught after commiting another crime. Watch and report didn't help the 1st time.
Why could gz perceive tm as acting suspiciously ? You should find Wendy Dorival's testimony. She said the very type of conditions gz observed that night were worth a call to dispatch. One objective of nw or a concerned citizen is to call Before a crime is committed, or would you prefer nobody call dispatch until they see a crime in progress.
Zimmerman already knew help was on the way. By that point he knew Trayvon was unarmed. His injuries do not support the notion that he was receiving a severe beating, he merely looks slightly roughed up. So, no, I don't believe he had reason to believe he would suffer grave bodily injury. In his paranoid mind he may have, but being paranoid doesn't justify killing unarmed children.
He brought about the whole incident. For him to go unpunished after killing someone like this would be a travesty. Trayvon did not instigate this whole sorry affair, Zimmerman did.
Did he frisk tm ?
gz only looks roughed up. you simply don't want to understand that it's wiser to use justifiable self defense before you suffer severe bodily inury or die.
You don't believe he had reason to believe he would suffer grave bodily injury. No shocker there.
WHY? I want to see the trial in real time and get my information in real time. Am I precluded from discussing the case because I didn't form an opinion ahead of time?? That's absurd.
If you are truly doing this 'experiment', yes, you should preclude yourself from reading anything about the trial or discussing the trial in any way.
That's what I keep thinking, but why would they waste a week and save the good stuff for the end? It's gonna have to be a real smoking gun to carry weight. I think if there were a big smoking gun, we would know it or at least have a hint. Trials are nothing like the old Perry Mason stories where someone ran up to the judge at the last minute and says, "I confess....just execute me now."
I honestly don't see how you can say it's possible Zimm was at fault, especially after the first week of testimony. But we go forward and wait for next week. I am absolutely convinced (at this point) they brought the case to put the burden onto a jury and get out from under a volatile situation.
The Trayvonistas keep saying Trayvon had the right to walk down the sidewalk. Well, so did George, and even more so since he actually lived there. George did not follow Trayvon to Brandy's house. If he had and the assault took place there, it would be 100% different than it is.
I expect the prosecution to rest Monday. I just don't think they have any big guns.
The state commonly presents its case chronologially. No surprise they did the witnesses early. Besides, it's usually better to keep the big stuff for closer to when the jury reaches a verdict, fresher in mind like singing last on american idol.
take just 2 issues that will come up when the state offers more evidence---
1. He punched me in the face 25-30 times. My reaction as a jurur would be, wtf, bs, the face wasn't the face of a guy pounded like that.
2. The only blood on tm was a little under the fingernails of one hand. My reaction again would be wtf. TM supposedly had his hands all over gz's face and head and that's all the blood on him. bs.
Too bad the evidence and testimony don't support your little theory. If M was trying to lose George, why didn't he simply walk inside his (father's girlfriends) house? Why leave there and approach him near the T if he was trying to lose him? And if you're responsibility as a NW volunteer is to "observe and report", which he was doing, how would he do so without following and observing from a distance? The testimony supports the theory that G was at or near the T, about 200 feet from Ms house, and was there throughout part of his call to dispatch. Makes sense as a location to try to observe from and report to police. Too bad M decided to attack an innocent man, but when you do so, sometime you find that he isn't the helpless victim you intend.
There already has been testimony that george was following Trayvon CLOSELY; RIGHT BEHIND HIM. Trayvon didn't even have to shout 'why are you following me', because george was right behind him. That's not following at a distance.
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.
?. I'd consider the source....
