(12-04-2012, 03:09 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [ -> ]Some folks don't like that narrative.
I'm not one of them. If I weren't afraid after discovering someone was basically stalking me I would do the same thing. I would have got in his face and demanded to know why I was being followed.
(12-04-2012, 03:09 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [ -> ] (12-04-2012, 03:05 PM)Jimbone Wrote: [ -> ] (12-04-2012, 02:57 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think it's an issue that Zimmerman considered a stranger in the area to be suspicious under the circumstances. He rightly called 911 and they told them that PD would be coming to handle it. That's where it should have ended, imo. Zimmerman was a "watch" person, not a member of the PD.
If I'm not mistaken, isn't Zimmerman claiming he was on his way back to his truck (after being told by 9-1-1 they didn't need him to follow) when the confrontation occurred? Isn't the narrative that he lost sight of Martin and Martin came up on him while walking through the apartments to his vehicle?
Some folks don't like that narrative.
It's only George's narrative as far as I know. It will be interesting what, if anything, can be proven at trial.
George is no stranger to perjury though.
I'm hoping that investigators and prosecution have means by which to confirm the following before trial; it would help to differentiate between what's possible/likely to have occurred and what's not. Zimmerman's account in his defense is just that at this point.
Where exactly was Zimmerman when he called 911?
Where exactly (and how far from him) was his truck when he made that call?
Where were Zimmerman and Martin in relation to where Zimmerman made the 911 call and what time did first ear witnesses start to hear the screams and call 911 (you can hear the altercation in progress in the background)?
Some speculation to such matters was published by media, propaganda groups and the like early on, IIRC. But, I don't think there's been any confirmation by LE and might not be before the case goes before a jury, if some/all of these details can even be confirmed at all.
(12-04-2012, 03:13 PM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ] (12-04-2012, 03:09 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [ -> ]Some folks don't like that narrative.
I'm not one of them. If I weren't afraid after discovering someone was basically stalking me I would do the same thing. I would have got in his face and demanded to know why I was being followed.
So you would escalate a confrontation then?
(12-04-2012, 03:41 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]I'm hoping that investigators and prosecution have means by which to confirm the following before trial; it would help to differentiate between what's possible/likely to have occurred and what's not. Zimmerman's account in his defense is just that at this point.
Where exactly was Zimmerman when he called 911?
Where exactly (and how far from him) was his truck when he made that call?
Where were Zimmerman and Martin in relation to where Zimmerman made the 911 call and what time did first ear witnesses start to hear the screams and call 911 (you can hear the altercation in progress in the background)?
Some speculation to such matters was published by media, propaganda groups and the like early on, IIRC. But, I don't think there's been any confirmation by LE and might not be before the case goes before a jury, if some/all of these details can even be confirmed at all.
They'll paint a pretty good timeline when they piece together Zimmerman's cell phone call times, his description of locations during the times of the call, and 9-1-1 calls from residents describing the fight. Since everything went into the same dispatch, the times will be uniform.
(12-04-2012, 04:38 PM)Jimbone Wrote: [ -> ]So you would escalate a confrontation then?
Why would you use the term escalate?
Are you saying you would be okay with being followed by George in the manner he was following that kid? No concern on your part, huh?
(12-04-2012, 04:41 PM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ] (12-04-2012, 04:38 PM)Jimbone Wrote: [ -> ]So you would escalate a confrontation then?
Why would you use the term escalate?
Are you saying you would be okay with being followed by George in the manner he was following that kid? No concern on your part, huh?
In what manner was he following Martin?
If he's just following, Martin escalated the incident by confronting Zimmerman. However, there is no evidence in either direction to show who instigated the physical confrontation... although circumstantially it would appear Martin did due to Zimmerman's lack of offensive hand wounds and obviously beaten face and head.
Or Zimmerman just missed his first punch.
It's all reasonable doubt. He walks.
(12-04-2012, 04:52 PM)Jimbone Wrote: [ -> ]In what manner was he following Martin?
You know damn well he was being a sneaky lil' fuck, enough so that he was reduced to whispering on the telephone.
(12-04-2012, 04:38 PM)Jimbone Wrote: [ -> ] (12-04-2012, 03:13 PM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ] (12-04-2012, 03:09 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: [ -> ]Some folks don't like that narrative.
I'm not one of them. If I weren't afraid after discovering someone was basically stalking me I would do the same thing. I would have got in his face and demanded to know why I was being followed.
So you would escalate a confrontation then?
I'm done messin' around with George for today, Gentlemen. I could have easily agreed with everything you both said but this was more fun. Thanks!
I don't know if somewhere in these 100 pages someone has already posted this link, but I found it to be quite a good read.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/5/27/44552/1872
It doesn't really matter what any of us may think about either TM or GZ. The bottom line is whether or not GZ will be found guilty as charged.
I agree with JimBone: GZ walks at the end of the day.
Interesting reading HG. Especially some of the witness testimony. The more I read, the more i think JB (and MS) may be right that he walks unless the state has some secret weapon up their sleeves. *sigh*
(12-04-2012, 06:05 PM)username Wrote: [ -> ]Interesting reading HG. Especially some of the witness testimony. The more I read, the more i think JB (and MS) may be right that he walks unless the state has some secret weapon up their sleeves. *sigh*
I wouldn't bet against him walking either.
It's gonna depend on the prosecution's ability to confirm incriminating timing and distance of events that night and inconsistencies or implausibility in Zimmerman's statements and testimony (along with the make-up of the jury) imo. If the prosecution is able to present a solid enough case that makes it difficult for defense lawyers to poke holes through and the jury understands and considers the evidence well, I could see Zimmerman going away for 25 years.
Lots of people were bettin' against Zimmerman being charged at all early on, and there was a considerable amount of surprise when he was charged with 2
nd degree murder instead of manslaughter. So, it may well be that the prosecutors have some damning evidence that they're holding close to the vest for obvious reasons.
50⁄
50 on Zimmerman walking, imo. I wouldn't bet on the verdict one way or the other at this time. JMO...
I would suspect that if the prosecution did have a secret weapon, they would shoot themselves in the foot with it.
By-passing the grand jury was IMO a political move.
There was fear that the grand jury, when presented with the evidence, would not return the desired charge. Perhaps a lesser charge, but not the murder charge desired by those wanting GZ's head on a spike.
HarleyGuy,
The only two trials that I've been able to catch almost in their entirety were OJ Simpson's and Casey Anthony's.
If Zimmerman's is open to the public and televised and/or streamed, I hope to follow it closely real time. I think it'll be very interesting legally and probably pretty passionate in that courtroom.
I just hope there's enough evidence to either convict or clear Zimmerman in accordance with what really happened that night.
(12-04-2012, 06:38 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ].............I just hope there's enough evidence to either convict or clear Zimmerman in accordance with what really happened that night.
Well there will be a verdict of course. Now whether or not it will truly reflect the actual events of that nite is quite another thing.
(12-04-2012, 06:53 PM)HarleyGuy Wrote: [ -> ] (12-04-2012, 06:38 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ].............I just hope there's enough evidence to either convict or clear Zimmerman in accordance with what really happened that night.
Well there will be a verdict of course. Now whether or not it will truly reflect the actual events of that nite is quite another thing.
That's the problem. Blacks may perceive any verdict that is less than 'guilty' as an unjust verdict wether or not it reflects what really happened that night.
(12-04-2012, 06:53 PM)HarleyGuy Wrote: [ -> ] (12-04-2012, 06:38 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ].............I just hope there's enough evidence to either convict or clear Zimmerman in accordance with what really happened that night.
Well there will be a verdict of course. Now whether or not it will truly reflect the actual events of that nite is quite another thing.
I agree; I don't anticipate a hung jury, but you never know.
Evidence reflecting a clear picture of what truly happened that night and an appropriate verdict (whether that be guilty or not guilty) is what I hope is possible.
(12-04-2012, 07:05 PM)ZEROSPHERES Wrote: [ -> ]That's the problem. Blacks may perceive any verdict that is less than 'guilty' as an unjust verdict wether or not it reflects what really happened that night.
I don't expect a big uproar (massive riots or anything) from the black community (unless idiots like Sharpton try to stoke the flames). Beyond his initial profiling, I don't see this as "white guy kills black kid". First, George isn't white which kind of takes the wind out of those sails and second, it hasn't been shown that George was racist.
Finally, I think the time lapse between the event and trial will further diffuse the situation. I may be wrong but that's my guess.
Justice is intended to be fair and unbiased, free from opinions and the interests of individual definitions of the law. To uphold the Law is a perspective that is defined differently by each person, but the law is written to limit each person’s abuse of the intended meaning. The law’s written definition is expected to protect an individual’s right, and allow justice to overcome individual opinions of what the law states.
Decisions by an individual determine the engagement to the law, but discretion to enforce the law determines the engagement to a crime. Discretion is a necessary element for the law, but dependence on individual discretion can misplace the meaning of the laws. Society entrusts the law with the burden of providing a ruling of what is right or wrong when a law is applied in a crime.
When George Zimmerman became Trayvon Martin’s judge and jury, he decided to follow a ‘suspicious person up to no good’. The decision to profile the teenager and initiate the confrontation began with George Zimmerman’s decision to interpret the law’s meaning and shoot him. When he shot the teenager, did the law overlook Trayvon Martin’s right to walk down the street without being profiled? Does the law only protect certain individuals from protection under the law?
