Zimmerman on Hannity Tonight

[Guest bkelm18]

We need to make a new tv show. ACSI: Armchair Crime Scene Investigators. I'm pretty sure we've beaten this horse to death.

[DaveTN]

Has new evidence come out that I missed? Didn't Zimmerman stop pursuing Martin and turn to walk back to his truck? Didn't Martin them pursue Zimmerman and jump him? As a neighborhood watch leader, Zimmerman was doing what he volunteered to do--watching strangers in his neighborhood, yet he's the bad guy? I'm confused more about who the real victim is.

Did Martin have a duty to retreat? We have no idea what happened between the times Zimmerman was chasing Martin and the time witnesses saw the fight. That’s why there is going to be a trial. Martin was an innocent citizen walking down the street until Zimmerman got out of his truck and went after him. Martin was then shot to death; he is the victim.

Martin could have left the scene and he'd be alive today.

And Zimmerman could have stayed in his truck until the Police got there and Martin would be alive and Zimmerman wouldn’t be facing many years in prison and death threats.

[daddyo]

We need to make a new tv show. ACSI: Armchair Crime Scene Investigators. I'm pretty sure we've beaten this horse to death.

Well, so far his lawyer seems like a pretty savvy guy, so I dunno. I personally think it's a bad idea.

And thanks for your own contribution to smacking the horsie....

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Did Martin have a duty to retreat? We have no idea what happened between the times Zimmerman was chasing Martin and the time witnesses saw the fight. That’s why there is going to be a trial. Martin was an innocent citizen walking down the street until Zimmerman got out of his truck and went after him. Martin was then shot to death; he is the victim.

And Zimmerman could have stayed in his truck until the Police got there and Martin would be alive and Zimmerman wouldn’t be facing many years in prison and death threats.

You could have re-phrased that statement you made by saying "Did Martin have a duty to assault?" What exactly is illegal about Zimmerman following someone around who looks suspicious? Did Zimmerman break any law by looking for him?

He's facing prison for many years because of racial politics. There is a strong presumption of guilt around

here.

Edited July 21, 2012 by 6.8 AR

[DaveS]

Has new evidence come out that I missed? Didn't Zimmerman stop pursuing Martin and turn to walk back to his truck? Didn't Martin them pursue Zimmerman and jump him? As a neighborhood watch leader, Zimmerman was doing what he volunteered to do--watching strangers in his neighborhood, yet he's the bad guy? I'm confused more about who the real victim is. Martin could have left the scene and he'd be alive today.

If I'm not mistaken, TM had a right to be where he was. He was trying to get back to the house where his Dad was. Is that not what happened? Was that even Z-man's neighborhood?

I've watched the interviews of late over several times, even his request for your money...Where does he ever show any emotion or remorse for killing the kid? He is too calm! I think if it was any of us, I'd think we'd all be a bit emotional about talking about killing this teen. More than that, I'd keep my mouth shut and not throw fuel on my own fire!!!

He's arrogant, he's cocky and would do the "same over again". I hope they never make him a "poster child" for HCP holders!

Just my opinion is all

Dave

[TMF]

He's facing prison for many years because of racial politics. There is a strong presumption of guilt around

here.

You know, the investigators tried to press charges looong before Al and Jesse got involved. Apparently there was something then. The only thing separating this from wild speculation about corruption is that first DA. What if he would have charged him in the first place at the advice of the investigators? Would people be screaming foul then?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Look at it from the other perspective. The original DA took what the investigators gave him

and decided there was nothing to prosecute him for. Evidently he viewed it as justified. Is that

not plausible? You want to side with the investigators? That's their job to "put people in jail"

and let the system sort it out. The original DA has much more credibility to me. First impressions

are usually less political and more correct. sit on this long enough and I'm sure you could

convict him for the disappearance of Jimmy Hoffa, also. Why not reincarnate the Nuremberg Trials?

You really want to stir the pot and hear some crying foul? Turn on and tune in. That's what

stirred this whole pot! Justice has no meaning in this case anymore. It's all racial politics and

will turn into gun control, especially with all the fool emotional spineless people who will fall into

the trap after the latest in Colorado added to it.

"Poor Trayvon" "Slain him down like a dog" Yeh, right. It's not political.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Oh yeh. Screw the DA. Investigators are always right, aren't they?

[DaveS]

Don't get riled up buddy! You are right in alot of ways. Everyone on here is right in their Opinions. That's what this is all about right?

Make ya deal...Let's meet this week, toward next weekend....Coffee or beers on me....

Let's chill (heaven know's I need to).....

Dave

Edited July 21, 2012 by wd-40

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I'd be glad to do that. Always like meeting good folks, Dave.

[daddyo]

Don't get riled up buddy! You are right in alot of ways. Everyone on here is right in their Opinions. That's what this is all about right?

Make ya deal...Let's meet this week, toward next weekend....Coffee or beers on me....

Let's chill (heaven know's I need to).....

Dave

LOL. Someone who's "riled up" telling someone else not to get "riled up". Now, that's funny!!

Edited July 21, 2012 by DaddyO

[DaveS]

LOL. Someone who's "riled up" telling someone else not to get "riled up". Now, that's funny!!

Ain't it though? I'm not riled up...not in the least...you may have me confused....maybe you should settle down a bit too....check your pressure guage!

Dave

Edited July 22, 2012 by wd-40

[Guest 6.8 AR]

And to correct possible misconceptions, I'm not riled up at all. Plus, when that thread began about the Trayvon Martin massacre, I stayed out of it for a long time while a lot of people "convicted" Zimmerman without enough thought to turn a water faucet on.

If we base our society on anything nowadays, we had better get back to what it was, because there are

too many, even around here, willing to jump to a wrong conclusion before enough information is available that justice is impossible. And there are the few who have kaleidoscope eyes stuck in their own former occupation or maybe have been just reading too many law enforcement magazines and want to suck up

to a group that gets paid by us to arrest and keep us jailed, that the only argument can be a simple "guilty" without much more than that, or the others, who base their opinion on pure emotion and throw logic right

out the door.

Sometimes you have to step back and use the system you have and respect it for the right result. Sometimes you have to rip the trash out of the system, like the political animals bastardizing that system. You, first, have to recognize the problem, then you have to fix it. We have a lot to fix and before we can do that we have to have a large enough group of people who think alike and vote alike to carry the weight.

I'm not holding my breath around here, but I do believe in miracles.

There are also those who take sides merely for entertainment's sake to create an argument. That's instructive, and stimulates one to think further, can be a useful tool to educate someone while letting

him find the right answers.

It's the one who takes a side for nothing more than it being the popular view that worries me. They might have gone back to the throne with a comic book, amusing themselves further, because it takes little thought to do that. The one who neglects to use any reason or logic might as well be at HuffPo emoting on one of their blogs and crying for more handouts, or becoming a Kos Kid. Got no time for that. Who does?

Wanting to keep a 2nd amendment doesn't mean putting blinders on and removing anything you see that might skew people to the other side out, even if it is a bad assumption. You have to make a correct assumption first, before you throw the baby out with the bath water. There are dangerous people out there who want to take us deeper into the communist abyss and we will lose until we learn the right message and throw that one back in their faces rejecting their ideology. Until we quit getting sidetracked by the opponents game of subterfuge and use the right arguments to win the ideology battle , and all these smaller battles against tyranny, we will fail.

Yes, your saying Zimmerman is guilty tells me all I need to know. Depressing as Hell, too.

Edited July 22, 2012 by 6.8 AR

[TMF]

Look at it from the other perspective. The original DA took what the investigators gave him

and decided there was nothing to prosecute him for. Evidently he viewed it as justified. Is that

not plausible? You want to side with the investigators? That's their job to "put people in jail"

and let the system sort it out. The original DA has much more credibility to me. First impressions

are usually less political and more correct. sit on this long enough and I'm sure you could

convict him for the disappearance of Jimmy Hoffa, also. Why not reincarnate the Nuremberg Trials?

You really want to stir the pot and hear some crying foul? Turn on and tune in. That's what

stirred this whole pot! Justice has no meaning in this case anymore. It's all racial politics and

will turn into gun control, especially with all the fool emotional spineless people who will fall into

the trap after the latest in Colorado added to it.

"Poor Trayvon" "Slain him down like a dog" Yeh, right. It's not political.

You're right. There still remains the possibility the the investigators got it wrong. I would still always lean towards the investigators on any case, since they are the ones collecting evidence and interacting with witnesses and participants. It is up to the DA to bless off one way or the other. However, don't confuse the DA's opinion not to press charges as an endorsement of a "justified" shoot. That isn't what happened at all.

I admit that it could be one or the other. But I don't forget that originally the investigators wanted to press charges. It hardly makes this black and white, as you suggested that there was no hint of suspicion from the LE side of the house until the media got involved.... that simply is not true. The picture you're painting is that Zimmerman was cleared of all wrongdoing and it was only because of Jesse and Al that law enforcement went after him. That is just not true. They wanted him charged from the start.

Furthermore, I watch the Investigation Discovery channel quite often. I've seen murder cases on there all the time where a DA will not press charges until there is enough evidence. There are folks that walk around for years with the police having suspicion of them the whole time, until there is that one piece of evidence that pushes the DA over the edge to press charges. I've also seen cases where the DA refuses to press charges for one reason or the other, only to be replaced by another DA years later who decides to press charges. It happens all the time without the help of Al and Jesse.

Sure, it's political with all the emotion "I am Treyvon" pleas. It has gone beyond the point of silly. But should that make me believe that Zimmerman did nothing wrong anymore than it should make me believe he did do something wrong? I don't thinks so. They aren't going to sway my opinion one way or the other... they are idiots. My opinion is based on just a couple of factors which push my logic in the direction of wrongdoing. If it weren't for that I'd probably not have an opinion at all.

I see where you're coming from in regards to the HCP carrier point of view. The fear that you could be the subject of a witch hunt if you were to lawfully defend yourself. I get that. But that doesn't mean that he didn't do anything wrong, and it isn't going to put my in his corner by default. We still don't have all the evidence, and once we do and the trial starts I think we will have a much clearer picture than what we have now. I'm prepared to eat my words if the trial starts and the only evidence they have is that Zimmerman is a white-hispanic and Treyvon is a twelve year old black kid. With a Murder 2 charge I just don't think that's how it's gonna go down. I think they have real evidence that points to his guilt... probably a lot more than what the original investigators had who wanted him charged with manslaughter.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I just wonder how many times an investigator would

say they don't want to see charges? How do you purport to know what was going on in their minds over the DA?

I still say there is a lot to prove his guilt than there

will be for him to have to assert his innocence

because he shouldn't have to prove anything.

There is already more than enough evidence

to give reasonable doubt for any honest juror.

There are liberals and. conservatives alike

who agree and that Ms. Corey will make a fool

of herself further. Purely political all the way

around.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TMF]

I still say there is a lot to prove his guilt than there

will be for him to have to assert his innocence

because he shouldn't have to prove anything.

As it should be. As far as the law is concerned he is innocent. Since the burden is on the prosecutiion to provide evidence there should be no worries in regards to Zimmerman being convicted of a crime he didn't commit. If there is no evidence pointing to his guilt, his lawyer could sit quietly through the whole trial, say nothing, and simply point out in his closing arguments that there is not enough proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, there is evidence the defense has that points to Zimmerman being in fear for his life, thus justifying deadly force (physical and witness). So if he is not guilty he should have no problems and the jury should have a quick deliberation, right?

Edited July 22, 2012 by TMF 18B

[DaveS]

My opinion is just that...an opinion!

I base that on a few questions of my own...

1) Who was "Standing their ground? My opinion: TM

2) How did Z-man get out of his truck, was he pulled out my TM, or did Z-man get out to look for TM?

3) What happened from the time Z talked to the 911 operator, and TM cracking his head on the side walk?

And now...

1) Why is Zman sticking his face on every video and news show, trying to convence america he did nothing wrong and "would do it again"...while showing NO emotion of having taken another persons life...My opinion: He could have poured on a little drama, shed a tear or two (whether he's right or wrong) He probably could have convenced me enough to change my mind.

2) "You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law".....and will! SHUT UP Zman!

3) Do I think Zman is guilty of 2nd Degree MURDER....NO!

4) Is he guilty of "Involuntary Manslaughter"? (I only base this on what I know) My opinion: Yes

5) Is he INNOCENT until proven guilty in a court of law? My opinion: Absolutely YES!

Going to the Trout Streams and "chill out"!

Dave

[daddyo]

My opinion is just that...an opinion!

I base that on a few questions of my own...

1) Who was "Standing their ground? My opinion: TM

2) How did Z-man get out of his truck, was he pulled out my TM, or did Z-man get out to look for TM?

3) What happened from the time Z talked to the 911 operator, and TM cracking his head on the side walk?

And now...

1) Why is Zman sticking his face on every video and news show, trying to convence america he did nothing wrong and "would do it again"...while showing NO emotion of having taken another persons life...My opinion: He could have poured on a little drama, shed a tear or two (whether he's right or wrong) He probably could have convenced me enough to change my mind.

2) "You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law".....and will! SHUT UP Zman!

3) Do I think Zman is guilty of 2nd Degree MURDER....NO!

4) Is he guilty of "Involuntary Manslaughter"? (I only base this on what I know) My opinion: Yes

5) Is he INNOCENT until proven guilty in a court of law? My opinion: Absolutely YES!

Going to the Trout Streams and "chill out"!

Dave

Not that you're "riled up" or anything like that.... LOL.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Standing your ground doesn't include coming

around from between the house and attacking

someone, does it? That's what Zimmerman's

testimony will be, since that's part of his claim of

self defense. Explain how Martin is standing his

ground by his actions. If he didn't assault Zimmerman

he had opportunity to flee instead of assaulting.

Martin took off, or lost Zimmerman, then attacked

him when Zimmerman was returning to his truck.

The few of you who think Zimmerman is guilty

of anything don't have anything based in

reality to back up your claims. Nothing in

the evidence will show to be in your favor

unless someone saw your version of

events.

If you just don't like people trying to protect

neighborhoods and neighbors, then say so.

I have yet to hear anything resembling

reason, mere supposition that I think is

based on emotion or some hell bent

idea that a gun was involved and will be bad

press for the 2nd amendment crowd.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest TankerHC]

I'm unaware of physical evidence other than the evidence of the altercation, such as Zimmerman's wounds and Treyvon's wounds. Other than that I know of no such evidence that suggests Martin intentionally ambushed Zimmerman in an unprovoked attack.

Three witnesses, all standing within feet of the incident, said that Martin jumped on Zimmerman, and was bashing his head into the ground. Two of the three were black and one was Spanish. Since then, all have retracted their witness statements.

[DaveTN]

Three witnesses, all standing within feet of the incident, said that Martin jumped on Zimmerman, and was bashing his head into the ground. Two of the three were black and one was Spanish. Since then, all have retracted their witness statements.

Feet? They all said they were in their apartments, couldn’t hear anything other than the shot and someone yelling for help, wasn’t sure who was who. How many feet?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

There were witnesses who claimed that, but I don't know about any specific distances and if

they heard or saw something and later retracted it, it makes me wonder how tainted things

really are and it points to there being a lot of pressure to make this guy guilty. Tell me what's

wrong with that picture.

If or when you catch yourself in a situation like this, and judging by your opinions of this case,

are some of you even going to be carrying? Because you won't make any better judgement

than George Zimmerman. It's too easy to make a mistake even when you're right. There's still

going to be something available in the laws to incriminate you. Bet your ass! There have been

too many precedents set throughout the years and too many laws written for you to say you

could have done any better, and I know I'm not Superman.

Some of your judgements tells me you shouldn't be carrying either.

As far as some kind of evidence showing Martin assaulted or jumped Zimmerman, what about the

wound evidence the investigators even agreed to? It sure made his story reasonable to someone

down there.

Someone also alluded to the lack of showing remorse by Zimmerman. Is there a magic amount of time,

or better yet, should he even be showing remorse? Sometimes instead of it being played up, a person,

having shown remorse at the situation, should display confidence towards his justification. That doesn't

mean being brash or cocky, just confident. I get tired of the acting being played up in the public eye. It

becomes phony eventually and is nonproductive. The emotional public, without using their brains for other

than a pumpkin, are the ones who cause the problem in the public eye. The media gets the rest of the

heavy lifting done to convict.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Hi 6.8. Not trying to prove any point. I don't know enough to root for Z's innocence or guilt. The jury will figure it out. Either it is Z's fault or it is M's fault or it is both. Dunno the most appropriate charge if any. Have suspicion Z is neither entirely guilty nor entirely innocent though neither extreme is impossible.

If I get in a tangle in my neighborhood maybe I'll make more mistakes than Z. Screw it up royally. Regardless whether it would be good or bad judgement on my part, am pretty sure that--

1. If I see a stranger who is not on my property acting odd I'll call the popo and maybe keep an eye on him if he's acting dang odd.

2. I ain't gonna confront a total stranger in the neighborhood, at night, who ain't even on my property.

3. If a total stranger at night goes onto a neighbor's property, then I might call the neighbor as well as the popo, if I know the neighbor's number.

4. If sounds of a disturbance occur at a neighbor's, I may or may not go help. It depends on whether I can figger out what the heck is happening and who I'm sposed to be helping. If I run over there not knowing, maybe the neighbor would be getting ready to shoot a burglar and maybe the neighbor will think I'm the burglar's accomplice and shoot me too. On the other hand maybe I would run over there not knowing and it turns out that a neighbor has flipped out and is accosting one of his friends or relatives. How the heck do I know who to help?

5. If I happen to approach a suspicious total stranger who is acting odd at night on my property, ask him what the hell is he doing on my property, and he starts a fight and I have to shoot him-- Then even if I committed no crime and I don't get prosecuted, such action would prove me incredibly stupid for not having good enough sense to stay inside the house after calling the popo.

6. If I happen to be out in the yard and some stranger enters the yard for no apparent reason and starts fighting, then I would shoot if necessary. They will either put me in jail or they won't.

7. If a dude breaks in my house acting aggressive rather than simply deranged (which happens once in awhile, low blood sugar, harmless drunk, confused elderly person, etc) then it is possible the dude might get shot and maybe I'll go to jail and maybe not. Or maybe I'd be the one to get shot. Ya pays yer money and takes yer chances.

8. Under no conceivable circumstance would I talk to TV talking head jokers. They are occasionally entertaining but I'm not an act for their circus. No way. No how. The TV audience can get along fine forever more without seeing me on TV.

If we ever see breakdown of law and order then maybe the rules of engagement need changing. The above ROE are for a normal geezer in a sleepy mixed-race middle class burb with a small-town police force that seems to do OK as far as I can tell.

A couple of years ago I was standing out in the yard at night looking at the stars. This middle age bearded redneck dude walked down the street. I had seen the guy a few times. He had been renting a little run-down house a block or two up the street. I said howdy as usual but he appeared distracted and didn't answer. Kept walking down the street. No big deal was just being neighborly.

So anyway next morning about daybreak a bunch of cop cars flashing lights, street blocked off in front of my house, swat guys walking up'n'down the street with M-16's. Only time I've seen that on the street. Didn't last long. That dude I said howdy to the previous night had freaked out. There had been some kind of standoff for awhile till they took him in with nobody getting hurt AFAIK. Just sayin, that guy most assuredly "wasn't right" the night before if he managed to be standing off SWAT a few hours later. Maybe I would have got a real surprise if the previous night I had took it upon myself to walk a few steps off my yard into the street, asked the guy what the hell is he doing walking on my street? See where I'm going with this? Or maybe that just proves me an abject coward for minding my own business. Live and let live.

Edited July 23, 2012 by Lester Weevils

[TMF]

Three witnesses, all standing within feet of the incident, said that Martin jumped on Zimmerman, and was bashing his head into the ground. Two of the three were black and one was Spanish. Since then, all have retracted their witness statements.

Nope. Not true.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Interesting, Lester. I've been fortunate enough

to have missed that kind of excitement, but I

imagine that will change the way the world is

changing.

You know as well as I that arguments about

one's situation, whether it be innocence or

guilt, or just plain be a situation in a story or

relationship, has to be based on some form

of reality like evidence or statements explaining

or setting the stage for the story. In Zimmerman's

case, there is only evidence and speculation, plus

the PC stupidity called injected racism and the

particular individuals who are forming the opinion

with their emotions playing a large part. Too many

variables to allow for objectivity. That makes it

difficult to form a reasonable opinion that is

believable. Even the detectives working the job

have a certain bias, plus their duty. When you

place your trust in a detective you might as well

prepare to stay locked up for a long time because

their job is to make arrests. I wouldn't trust that

kind of judgement and expect to remain free for

very long. It was the DA's job to determine if

a case was to be made and the first DA made

a decision based on those detectives info, not

a reccomendation by them. I just wish that toad

of a politician wasn't brought in to make this case

political.

Between Corey, the misinformed and the racial

misfits, there might be no justice. There's our

loser and Zimmerman will be a pawn.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk