Zimmerman Trial Updates - Ongoing

[mcurrier]

I don't know what kind of neighborhood some of you live in where a black kind walking down the street is automatically a suspect.

Herein lies the (your) confusion. What, do we have to go back several weeks and rehash all of this stuff all over again?!?!

It wasn't as plain and simple and innocent as Martin simply out for a stroll and Zimmerman saying to himself "I'm gonna get me a black kid/guy".

1. There had already been robberies/burglaries in the neighborhood

2. Zimmerman was on the neighborhood watch group (not self-appointed as some may wish/spin)

3. a. Martin was dressed similar to suspects in previous robberies/burglaries; b. Martin was acting suspiciously and walking close to buildings rather than on sidewalk or in the street

4. Zimmerman did call 9-11 and report the situation (not something you do if you are intent on killing someone)

5. Zimmerman replied to the 9-11 dispatch operator when asked for a description of the suspicious person (Martin) that he could not positively see the race of the individual (thereby dispelling any spin on his actions being racially motivated.

All of this has been established as fact up to this point. Just based on these known facts, it is virtually impossible to spin it to make Zimmerman a racist vigilante out to kill himself a black person.

Those who have an agenda and those who have not closely followed the case act as if Zimmerman, the police and whoever else are just now making up a lot of this stuff, months after the incident, when in fact all of this was known at the time and only days after the incident. All of these things support what Zimmerman said happened. If he was just saying this now, two months later, that might be cause for suspicion of what actually went on, but these things were known from close to the time of the incident before this incident was known beyond it's local region and before it became a national story. And as more evidence and witnesses come out, it ALL seems to support Zimmerman.

So I don't see any racist bigots here, not Zimmerman, and not those who believe his story based on the facts.

(edited for punctuation that caused an unintended emoticon)

Edited May 18, 2012 by mcurrier

[Guest A10thunderbolt]

I don't see anything wrong with acting drunk to see if muggers will attack. I'm not doing it but we hire the police to catch BG that seems like a efficient way to catch them. Zimmerman is going to get off because, your not supposed to keep beating your attacker. according to eye witnesses he was being struck MMA style. If you defend you self and the BG falls down you don't continue beating him.

[mcurrier]

That is not necessarily true. It depends if there was intent there to instigate and then use deadly force.

Oh please. We are spinning wayyy out on that one.

[mcurrier]

Exactly. Why focus on one person's character and not the other? Martin was never convicted of drug possession. Besides, the majority of 17 year olds have used marijuana before. It hardly makes someone deserving of being shot over. I'd bet that neighborhood watch captain has smoked weed before too.

Because Martin's use/posession was a recent/current activity that a). was the cause of him not currently being in school at the time; . was supposedly the reason why he was staying with relatives where he was at near Zimmerman's neighborhood; c). Was the topic of current/recent posts on his Facebook page; d). may have been a contributing factor to his actions on the night of his death.

Either way it isn't the point. What I can't wrap my head around is why so many here are fine with judging the character of the dead guy but are so quick to defend the not dead guy. It doesn't add up.

One was where he was supposed to be, the other wasn't. The one who was is not required to go home and cower in his basement for fear of asking the other what he's doing there walking through yards. The one who doesn't belong there needn't act like a thug and attack the one who lives there as he's walking back to his truck and standing down because he wanted to act all bad and impress his friends.

I would gladly support someone who defended themselves, but there is a logical reason why I think Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter. If it was more logical to believe that Martin instigated this whole thing then that's the way I would lean, but it isn't logical.

It is absolutely logical to think that Martin instigated the events. Zimmerman had him under surveillance, Martin didn't like him, Martin ditched him, Zimmerman lost him and proceeded back to his vehicle, Martin followed and ambushed Zimmerman. This is what the facts and timeline of events bring out.

[mcurrier]

Innocent until proven guilty is enough reason for me.

There doesn't appear to be much on Martin's side

to give any credence to convicting Zimmerman.

Unless someone knows something I don't.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This.

[TMF]

The THC, knuckles, testimony from the

defendant, testimony from a witness and probably

more makes it a stretch that Zimmerman is even

culpable, besides, why do you want to beat up so bad

on someone trying to protect his neighborhood

that you can overlook all the evidence? There are

plenty of race baiters down there doing a bad enough

of a lynching on him. The presumption of innocence

is the court's job. Why do you want him to be guilty?

Or am I reading something wrong?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't want him to be guilty, I just think that it's logical that he instigated the incident. This is the part that makes him guilty of manslaughter because he entered into a scenario that he knew he may have have to use deadly force. If Martin had been committing a crime then I would think different.

The reason I say it is logical that Z instigated it is because he had admitted to following him. The only way for Martin to have instigated it would to attack him unprovoked. Since there is no evidence that Martin has done this before or had the intent to conduct such an attack when he went out for snacks suggests to me that Z instigated the incident. Martin wasn't following Z when the 911 call was made, it was the other way around. In fact Z was out of breath which suggests he was running. I have no problem with someone protecting their neighborhood from criminals, but no one has any evidence that Martin was committing a crime. Z did not witness him commit a crime. How/why did these two come face to face then? It just doesn't seem logical that Martin just got a wild hair and decided to beat the crap out of the next person he saw.

Does this mean I would convict him based on what I know or my logic? No, that's why we have courts. But I still will have an opinion on this because I'm not sitting on a jury. If he did nothing wrong he has nothing to worry about. Casey Anthony got away with killing her kid just a few miles up the road where Zimmerman will be tried.

Just another thing to add, before I heard the 911 tape I thought there was more to it. I figured Martin was up to no good and a citizen tried to stop him and had to defend himself. After hearing the 911 tape I don't believe that anymore. Walking home isn't a crime. Running away from someone following you isn't a crime. Cutting through yards to flee someone following suggests to me his rational fear of Zimmerman. Until someone can point out to me why a young man walking home from the store is a crime worthy of armed pursuit I will hold this opinion.

Edited May 18, 2012 by TMF 18B

[mikegideon]

Herein lies the (your) confusion. What, do we have to go back several weeks and rehash all of this stuff all over again?!?!

It wasn't as plain and simple and innocent as Martin simply out for a stroll and Zimmerman saying to himself "I'm gonna get me a black kid/guy".

1. There had already been robberies/burglaries in the neighborhood

2. Zimmerman was on the neighborhood watch group (not self-appointed as some may wish/spin)

3. a. Martin was dressed similar to suspects in previous robberies/burglaries; b. Martin was acting suspiciously and walking close to buildings rather than on sidewalk or in the street

4. Zimmerman did call 9-11 and report the situation (not something you do if you are intent on killing someone)

5. Zimmerman replied to the 9-11 dispatch operator when asked for a description of the suspicious person (Martin) that he could not positively see the race of the individual (thereby dispelling any spin on his actions being racially motivated.

All of this has been established as fact up to this point. Just based on these known facts, it is virtually impossible to spin it to make Zimmerman a racist vigilante out to kill himself a black person.

Those who have an agenda and those who have not closely followed the case act as if Zimmerman, the police and whoever else are just now making up a lot of this stuff, months after the incident, when in fact all of this was known at the time and only days after the incident. All of these things support what Zimmerman said happened. If he was just saying this now, two months later, that might be cause for suspicion of what actually went on, but these things were known from close to the time of the incident before this incident was known beyond it's local region and before it became a national story. And as more evidence and witnesses come out, it ALL seems to support Zimmerman.

So I don't see any racist bigots here, not Zimmerman, and not those who believe his story based on the facts.

(edited for punctuation that caused an unintended emoticon)

I agree with you 100%, except for one technicality. Zimmerman called the non-emergency number, not 911, which was the proper thing to do. His attorney made that correction several times in the bail hearing.

Edited May 18, 2012 by mikegideon

[mcurrier]

I don't want him to be guilty, I just think that it's logical that he instigated the incident. This is the part that makes him guilty of manslaughter because he entered into a scenario that he knew he may have have to use deadly force. If Martin had been committing a crime then I would think different.

So the security guard at Walmart or Kroger is instigating the alleged shoplifter if he follows them around and keeps them under surveillance? (and before you refute that Zimmerman was not authorized in his own neighborhood or had no authority, see the next section below)

The reason I say it is logical that Z instigated it is because he had admitted to following him. The only way for Martin to have instigated it would to attack him unprovoked. Since there is no evidence that Martin has done this before or had the intent to conduct such an attack when he went out for snacks suggests to me that Z instigated the incident. Martin wasn't following Z when the 911 call was made, it was the other way around. In fact Z was out of breath which suggests he was running. I have no problem with someone protecting their neighborhood from criminals, but no one has any evidence that Martin was committing a crime. Z did not witness him commit a crime. How/why did these two come face to face then? It just doesn't seem logical that Martin just got a wild hair and decided to beat the crap out of the next person he saw.

Zimmerman was keeping Martin under surveillance because:

1. There had already been robberies/burglaries in the neighborhood

2. Zimmerman was on the neighborhood watch group (not self-appointed as some may wish/spin)

3. a. Martin was dressed similar to suspects in previous robberies/burglaries; b. Martin was acting suspiciously and walking close to buildings rather than on sidewalk or in the street

4. Zimmerman did call 9-11 and report the situation (not something you do if you are intent on killing someone)

5. Zimmerman replied to the 9-11 dispatch operator when asked for a description of the suspicious person (Martin) that he could not positively see the race of the individual (thereby dispelling any spin on his actions being racially motivated.

Does this mean I would convict him based on what I know or my logic? No, that's why we have courts. But I still will have an opinion on this because I'm not sitting on a jury. If he did nothing wrong he has nothing to worry about. Casey Anthony got away with killing her kid just a few miles up the road where Zimmerman will be tried.

So, you've decided that Casey Anthony was guilty even after a court let her off? Sounds like your mind is made up here as well, and interestingly most of the evidence released to the public thus far supports Zimmerman. Hmmmm...

[mcurrier]

I agree with you 100%, except for one thing. Zimmerman called the non-emergency number, not 911, which was the proper thing to do. His attorney made that correction several times in the bail hearing.

Thank you. Slip of the typing, having meant that but fingers typed something similar.

[mcurrier]

What Zimmerman, Martin medical reports tell us and the media didn't

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/05/16/what-zimmerman-martin-medical-reports-tell-us-and-media-didnt/

From the article -

"The new medical reports on the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case tell us a lot. And it is not just for what they find, but also what they don’t find.

First, the reports provide striking evidence that Zimmerman did not start the fight with Martin, and that Zimmerman shot Martin in self-defense. Martin’s injuries were two-fold: broken skin on his knuckles and the fatal gunshot wound.

Zimmerman’s injuries involved: a fractured nose, a pair of black eyes, two lacerations to the back of his head and a minor back injury.

It takes considerable force to break the skin on multiple knuckles. The large range of injuries on Zimmerman indicates that the Martin’s attack was prolonged. But here is what is missing: where are the injuries to Zimmerman’s hands? Where are the bruises on Martin’s face or other parts of his body? The evidence paints a picture where Martin was the only person landing blows. "

"The broken skin on Martin’s knuckles and Zimmerman’s wounds obviously provide some justification for self-defense. But if Zimmerman is to have justifiably used self-defense, he can’t have provoked Martin’s attack.

The affidavit filed by the prosecutor against Zimmerman was extremely weak and had many glaring omissions. It does not answer the most crucial question: Who attacked whom? All it states is: “Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued.†“Confronted†does not mean “provoked†or “assaulted.†It may mean that Zimmerman merely followed Martin and asked him what he was doing in the neighborhood.

Surely Zimmerman had the right to investigate a strange person in his neighborhood. But, in any case, Zimmerman simply asking Martin why he was in the neighborhood doesn’t give Martin the right to start striking him or pounding his head into the concrete sidewalk.

Simple words do not justify hitting someone. "

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/05/16/what-zimmerman-martin-medical-reports-tell-us-and-media-didnt/#ixzz1vFzSy83z

[mcurrier]

NEW BLOODY PHOTOS DETAIL MORE OF GEORGE ZIMMERMAN’S INJURIES

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/new-bloody-photos-details-more-of-george-zimmermans-injuries/

[TMF]

There are

plenty of race baiters down there doing a bad enough

of a lynching on him.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

To answer that directly, I don't care what Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, NBPP, Anderson Cooper, Nancy Grace, Obama, Joy Beyhar or anyone else thinks. My opinion is formed independent of those clowns. Anyone that thinks Zimmerman is guilty because one of these people says so is an idiot incapable of forming their own opinion. Anyone that thinks Zimmerman is innocent because one of these people says otherwise is an idiot incapable of forming their own opinion.

[Mark@Sea]

If getting out of your vehicle is "instigating", why do we issue cruisers to cops? They must instigate a whole bunch of violence that wouldn't happen if they just drove on by.

Ultimately, it comes down to who started fighting. Physical evidence - not eyewitnesses, not phone records, not feeeeelings, plainly indicates that Martin started the fight. Physical evidence indicates that Zimmerman was losing, and in fact didn't land a punch of any consequence. Physical evidence indicates that Martin had Zimmerman pinned, and Zimmerman could reasonably say he was in fear for his life at the time he shot Martin.

Some folks decided who was guilty a month or so ago, and piffling things like facts won't interfere with their opinion.

Edited May 18, 2012 by Mark@Sea

[TMF]

So the security guard at Walmart or Kroger is instigating the alleged shoplifter if he follows them around and keeps them under surveillance? (and before you refute that Zimmerman was not authorized in his own neighborhood or had no authority, see the next section below)

So, you've decided that Casey Anthony was guilty even after a court let her off? Sounds like your mind is made up here as well, and interestingly most of the evidence released to the public thus far supports Zimmerman. Hmmmm...

Short answer, yes I believe she was responsible for the death of her child.

Next, Martin didn't commit a crime (you mentioned shoplifting) and he wasn't on private property. His father lived there.

[mikegideon]

Short answer, yes I believe she was responsible for the death of her child.

Next, Martin didn't commit a crime (you mentioned shoplifting) and he wasn't on private property. His father lived there.

His father's squeeze lived there, right?

[mcurrier]

Short answer, yes I believe she was responsible for the death of her child.

As do I.

Next, Martin didn't commit a crime (you mentioned shoplifting) and he wasn't on private property. His father lived there.

Shoplifters have also committed no crime until they leave the store. No one said Martin had committed a crime, neither did Zimmerman, but Martin did fit the description of recent crimes and was acting suspiciously. I believe, unless I'm mistaken, that Martin's father lived in the next neighborhood over, not the same one that Zimmerman lived in.

[mcurrier]

Zimmerman did not have the luxury of hitting the pause button as it were, and saying to himself while having his brains beat out by Martin, "let me check this guys record in the 'innocent son' database and see if he is merely making a statement for my following him by pounding my face or if he is really, really bad and intends to kill me". Zimmerman's primary thought, as would be any of ours, was self-preservation.

Another point towards his innocence, the police would not have released him without charges immediately after the incident saying to themselves, "story sounds good, you're free to go". They're a little more thorough than that. They surely checked everything out and the evidence at the time (fresher in minds than now) indicated that it was a self defense shooting. It is only a political case now.

[Mark@Sea]

Getting out of your car in public isn't a crime either...

[mikegideon]

Getting out of your car in public isn't a crime either...

Apparently it is, if he looks like Obama's son

[TMF]

As do I.

Shoplifters have also committed no crime until they leave the store. No one said Martin had committed a crime, neither did Zimmerman, but Martin did fit the description of recent crimes and was acting suspiciously. I believe, unless I'm mistaken, that Martin's father lived in the next neighborhood over, not the same one that Zimmerman lived in.

The difference is that Zimmerman was doing this as a citizen with nothing identifying as neighborhood watch. I don't care that Martin fits a description. I may fit the description of a criminal but if I'm followed or aggressed by someone I'm going to respond with force. That's why we have police. If a police officer is following me or stops me then I'm not going to assume its for the purpose of victimizing me. Put yourself in Martin's shoes. Think hard about how you would react, at least how you would you feel about some suspicious character following you.

[mcurrier]

The difference is that Zimmerman was doing this as a citizen with nothing identifying as neighborhood watch. I don't care that Martin fits a description. I may fit the description of a criminal but if I'm followed or aggressed by someone I'm going to respond with force. That's why we have police. If a police officer is following me or stops me then I'm not going to assume its for the purpose of victimizing me. Put yourself in Martin's shoes. Think hard about how you would react, at least how you would you feel about some suspicious character following you.

I don't think I could put myself in Martin's shoes, he was a thug, an attitude and lifestyle I'll never be able to relate to.

[mcurrier]

Police documents in George Zimmerman case

A police summary of the George Zimmerman case, including narratives and witness statements.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/interactive/2012/05/17/police-documents-in-george-zimmerman-case/

[Links2k]

To answer that directly, I don't care what Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, NBPP, Anderson Cooper, Nancy Grace, Obama, Joy Beyhar or anyone else thinks. My opinion is formed independent of those clowns. Anyone that thinks Zimmerman is guilty because one of these people says so is an idiot incapable of forming their own opinion. Anyone that thinks Zimmerman is innocent because one of these people says otherwise is an idiot incapable of forming their own opinion.

I agree.

[Links2k]

The difference is that Zimmerman was doing this as a citizen with nothing identifying as neighborhood watch. I don't care that Martin fits a description. I may fit the description of a criminal but if I'm followed or aggressed by someone I'm going to respond with force. That's why we have police. If a police officer is following me or stops me then I'm not going to assume its for the purpose of victimizing me. Put yourself in Martin's shoes. Think hard about how you would react, at least how you would you feel about some suspicious character following you.

Or if it were your giant teenager. I am constantly amazed by what passes for logic with kids. I can assure you that what Martin was thinking is not what one of us older guys would be thinking.

[Sam1]

Sadly, they have no choice but to convict him. Look at Rodney King, Florida don't want riots and ruin their tourist season!

Remember just a few months back what the jury down there did for Casey Anthony... They actually made a decision based on the court's terrible case and not running into the courtroom with their pitch forks and torches.