Weed, fights and guns: Trayvon Martin’s text messages released

[mikegideon]

.

Edited July 2, 2013 by mikegideon

[JAB]

A "foot pursuit"???

You know, I always thought that a pursuer would be chasing someone...apparently however, it must mean that pursuer is the person who is returning to his vehicle and is then attacked including having his bead beat into the sidewalk.

I'm so glad we've cleared up the definition of "pursuit". ;)

 

Ummm...if he hadn't gotten out of his truck and pursued Martin on foot then why would he have needed to be 'returning' to his vehicle?  See, funny thing, one has to walk away from one's vehicle before one can return to one's vehicle.  Further, if one walks away from one's vehicle while engaged in following another person - and the latter person is walking away in an attempt to avoid the former - then one is engaged in what should properly be called a 'pursuit'.

 

So, yes, Zimmerman pursued Martin on foot.  If he hadn't, there would have been no physical altercation and no need to shoot Martin.  Does that make Martin 'innocent' and Zimmerman 'guilty' of murder?  Not necessarily - but it does mean that Zimmerman's ill-advised choice to PURSUE Martin in the first place contributed to the whole mess.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The evidence also shows that Zimmerman stopped his truck and got out.  If he had stayed in his truck and let the cops do their job then the whole situation could have been avoided.  Therefore, the situation didn't simply 'come to him'.  He wasn't chilling out on his porch and sipping lemonade when some thug kid jumped him.  Instead, he left his vehicle and followed Martin on foot. Therefore, he actively participated in the series of events that led to the confrontation.  Is he guilty of murder?  I don't know but if he had stayed his ass in his vehicle instead of going looking for Martin after alerting the cops then what followed would never have happened.

What does getting out of his vehicle have to do with anything legal? It doesn't go to show anything. Active participation

in what? Are you saying he picked a fight by getting out of his vehicle? That's a pretty low threshold for criminality. It

could get you or I in trouble by going to a minute mart and ending up in a fight with someone without anything else being

involved.

 

Stupid may be one thing, but criminality is a stretch.

[mikegideon]

What does getting out of his vehicle have to do with anything legal? It doesn't go to show anything. Active participation

in what? Are you saying he picked a fight by getting out of his vehicle? That's a pretty low threshold for criminality. It

could get you or I in trouble by going to a minute mart and ending up in a fight with someone without anything else being

involved.

 

Stupid may be one thing, but criminality is a stretch.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoG0O9xH6-U

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I should have expected that. :D

[JAB]

What does getting out of his vehicle have to do with anything legal? It doesn't go to show anything. Active participation

in what? Are you saying he picked a fight by getting out of his vehicle? That's a pretty low threshold for criminality. It

could get you or I in trouble by going to a minute mart and ending up in a fight with someone without anything else being

involved.

 

Stupid may be one thing, but criminality is a stretch.

 

You will notice that I said,

 

 

Is he guilty of murder?  I don't know but if he had stayed his ass in his vehicle instead of going looking for Martin after alerting the cops then what followed would never have happened.

 

I wasn't speaking to the criminality or lack thereof of Zimmerman's actions.  Instead, I was speaking to the assertion that the situation 'came to Zimmerman' as posted by KKing, above.  My point was that the situation didn't just 'come' to Zimmerman.  It isn't like Zimmerman was just walking down the street, minding his own business and got jumped.  Instead, he got out of his vehicle and followed Martin.  He didn't simply get out of his vehicle to go into a minute mart where he happened to get into an altercation - he got out of his vehicle and followed Martin.  Does that rise to the level of criminally responsible?  Maybe not but it does rise to the level of actively participating in a series of events that were entirely and easily avoidable.

 

In other words, Zimmerman may or may not be 'guilty' in a legal, criminal sense but he certainly isn't 'innocent' of blame in a practical sense nor was he a passive victim that was blindsided by a series of events over which he had no control - he made a choice to get out of his vehicle and a choice to follow Martin on foot.  Therefore, it isn't something that could have happened to anyone, as KKing seems to be implying, because hopefully most people would have the brains not to get out of their vehicle and follow Martin in the first place.  That is what I was saying.   

Edited July 2, 2013 by JAB

[Guest 6.8 AR]

No, and I agree with you. My stomach is growling... :D

[Mark@Sea]

Best comment on another forum;  "Simple legal question. Should BDLR (the prosecuting attorney) send GZ a bill for GZ’s defense before or after the “not guilty” verdict is read?

 

  Yeah, Zimmerman (neighborhood watch captain, remember?) shouldn't have gotten out of his truck.  He should have just driven through the yards where Martin was trespassing so that he could tell the dispatcher which way Martin ran. 

 

  Even with the transcript of the call between Z and police dispatch, even after Martins' girlfriend reported that Martin got to his dad's yard and then went back to ambush Zimmerman (who was by then on his way back to his vehicle), even with all the physical evidence, some people are really wedded to their original theory that Zimmerman was 'pursuing' Martin and is thus guilty of causing the incident.  Is there some sort of mental block preventing them from processing new information?

 

  Or is this just another instance of the 'don't get involved' mentality at work?

Edited July 2, 2013 by Mark@Sea

[leroy]

Has anyone else seen this:  http://finance.yahoo.com/news/zimmerman-prosecutor-angela-corey-criminally-120000903.html

 

What is this?  Anyone know....

leroy

Edited July 2, 2013 by leroy

[mikegideon]

Has anyone else seen this:  http://finance.yahoo.com/news/zimmerman-prosecutor-angela-corey-criminally-120000903.html

 

What is this?  Anyone know....

leroy

 

It's a "Citizen's" Grand Jury. They have no authority. A buddy of mine called it to my attention when I posted it on Facebook

[RobertNashville]

Ummm...if he hadn't gotten out of his truck and pursued Martin on foot then why would he have needed to be 'returning' to his vehicle?  See, funny thing, one has to walk away from one's vehicle before one can return to one's vehicle.  Further, if one walks away from one's vehicle while engaged in following another person - and the latter person is walking away in an attempt to avoid the former - then one is engaged in what should properly be called a 'pursuit'.

 

So, yes, Zimmerman pursued Martin on foot.  If he hadn't, there would have been no physical altercation and no need to shoot Martin.  Does that make Martin 'innocent' and Zimmerman 'guilty' of murder?  Not necessarily - but it does mean that Zimmerman's ill-advised choice to PURSUE Martin in the first place contributed to the whole mess.

 

Did Zimmerman attempt to follow Martin to see where he had gone?  Apparently.  Did he engage in a “foot pursuit”? No.

 

Calling Zimmerman's actions a "foot pursuit" seems a pejoritive in this context; designed to paint Zimmerman’s acts as something they weren’t.

 

If you want to believe Zimmerman is guilty then of course, he was in a “foot pursuit”; I say that because using phrases like “foot pursuit” seems intentionally designed to conjure up a picture of the want-a-be cop chasing down a fleeing suspect just like we’ve all seen happen a thousand times on “Cops”.  Not only does this conjure up a picture of a cop-want-a-be (which the evidence shows the Zimmerman was NOT) but it also ignores Zimmerman’s story that he got out of his vehicle to find the street signs so he could give the 911 operator a good location (and while, again, those want to believe Zimmerman is guilty won’t believe Zimmerman’s story, so far, all the evidence of the PROSECUTION’S own witnesses has not only not contradicted Zimmerman’s story but has actually supported Zimmerman's story).

 

You make a large and unsupported leap of logic to assume that had Zimmerman never gotten out of his truck there would never have been a physical altercation and no need for Zimmerman to shoot Martin - the assertion is simply without substance.

 

1.  Were I trying to give police an exact location of some of the streets in my neighborhood on a rainy night I’d probably have to get out of my truck to.

 

2. Further, there is simply NOTHING WRONG with a man getting out of his truck whether it’s to locate a street sign or to see where a suspicious person has gone. NOTHING WRONG and NOTHING ILLEGAL.

 

3. Finally; there is nothing about Zimmerman staying in his truck that would have created some magical protection from Martin.

Based on what we know of Martin it seems reasonable to conclude that Martin was either a thug or on his way to being one…as such, it’s not unreasonable to conclude that Martin was going to have a “confrontation” and whether it took place on the sidewalk or not doesn’t change that dynamic. In other words, there is zero reason to believe that Martin wouldn’t have attacked Zimmerman even if Zimmerman was in/had never gotten out of his truck and if he had so attacked Zimmerman, the law in most states recognizes that the victim is at a distinct disadvantage when seated in a vehicle and attacked – in those cases, a victim has even less options to resist than if the victim is out walking (sitting in a vehicle and especially if you are belted in is akin to being locked in a cage when someone is trying to pound you).

 

People are free to believe anything they want but at this point, believing that Zimmerman caused this problem is a belief not based on any of the evidence I've seen.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Has anyone else seen this:  http://finance.yahoo.com/news/zimmerman-prosecutor-angela-corey-criminally-120000903.html

 

It's a big deal if true.

 

leroy

 

I have nothing against Larry Klayman, but is this "citizens grand jury" just 12 fellas he scared up off a street corner? If so, maybe it is somehow constitutionally sound under some theory or t'other, but kinda sounds like Montana Freeman grand jury indictments? We all know how much weight those indictments carried. :)

[RobertNashville]

...Even with the transcript of the call between Z and police dispatch, even after Martins' girlfriend reported that Martin got to his dad's yard and then went back to ambush Zimmerman (who was by then on his way back to his vehicle), even with all the physical evidence, some people are really wedded to their original theory that Zimmerman was 'pursuing' Martin and is thus guilty of causing the incident.  Is there some sort of mental block preventing them from processing new information? Or is this just another instance of the 'don't get involved' mentality at work?

I'm not sure which it is but it does seem that some people (and not just on this forum) who seem to feel this is all Zimmerman's fault because he got out of his vehicle...for those folks I doubt any evidence will ever convince them otherwise.

[RichardR]

but he certainly isn't 'innocent' of blame in a practical sense nor was he a passive victim

I disagree, but only because Zimmerman's motivation for doing so was benign/innocent/noble in the sense he was attempting to "do the responsible neighborhood watch thing" by directing responding police officers to the suspicious person's/Trayvon's exact location.

Zimmerman wasn't chasing, he was only following at a distance & he was only observing, not attempting to make contact.

Specific words have specific connotations, let's all try to use the proper terminology for what actually happened, instead of purposely using misleading words in an attempt to villify an innocent man.

[TripleDigitRide]

One thing has been quite evident; if you're ever involved in a similar situation, keep your mouth shut. I understand Zimmerman feeling the need to clear his name, but the prosecution can and will every single word against you. If it weren't for so much talking, I think the prosecution would have had about 30 minutes of evidence.

Don't talk to your wife, best friend, parents, no one.

[bubbiesdad]

One thing has been quite evident; if you're ever involved in a similar situation, keep your mouth shut. I understand Zimmerman feeling the need to clear his name, but the prosecution can and will every single word against you. If it weren't for so much talking, I think the prosecution would have had about 30 minutes of evidence.

Don't talk to your wife, best friend, parents, no one.

 

 

Took a handgun defense class, one for inside the home, another outside the home. Also a  home defense shotgun  class. Teaching assistant was a police officer. You do not say anything other than, "I feared for my life", or "I need to speak to an attorney".

Or suggesting that you may be having chest pains. In which case they are required to get medical attention for you.

[RobertNashville]

...Or suggesting that you may be having chest pains. In which case they are required to get medical attention for you.

 

Gues what happens when you try that...you get tansported to the hospital where they determine that ther is nothing wrong with you. Now everyone knows you are a liar...guess what the investigaring officers and the DA are going to think?  Gues what will come out at trial?

 

It's important that a person be cautions of what he says and how he says it but there is one universal truth in this situation; when you do speak TELL THE TRUTH; criminals lie.

Edited July 2, 2013 by RobertNashville

[knewcomb]

In todays society, if you are silent, you might as well be guilty because thats how it will be twisted. Its unfortunate.

[RichardR]

I please da fif!

Fif




Five



One two three four FIF!

[raydog1]

Gues what happens when you try that...you get tansported to the hospital where they determine that ther is nothing wrong with you. Now everyone knows you are a liar...guess what the investigaring officers and the DA are going to think?  Gues what will come out at trial?

 

It's important that a person be cautions of what he says and how he says it but there is one universal truth in this situation; when you do speak TELL THE TRUTH; criminals lie.

 

Kinda like what happened today?:

 

"Dr. Valerie Rao, who was called by the prosecution to provide her assessment of Zimmerman's injuries based on photos, cast doubt on Zimmerman's claim his head was repeatedly bashed against the pavement as he fought with Martin in the Feb. 26, 2012 incident.

"The injuries are so minor that the word slam implies great force," Rao said in response to questioning by prosecutor John Guy. "There was not great force used here."

 

Rao said Zimmerman's injuries were not only "not life threatening" but were also "very insignificant." She said the injuries to the back of Zimmerman's head were consistent with hitting the ground but the injuries on his face were from consistent with one punch or strike."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/02/detective-returns-to-stand-in-zimmerman-trial/?test=latestnews#ixzz2Xvimhlds

[Joseg]

okay, so if he would continued to get his head bashed on the concrete and he would have gotten knocked out, I guess then and only then could you use the images..  At least she said there was some trauma to the back of the head.. 

[KKing]

Gues what happens when you try that...you get tansported to the hospital where they determine that ther is nothing wrong with you. Now everyone knows you are a liar...guess what the investigaring officers and the DA are going to think? Gues what will come out at trial?

It's important that a person be cautions of what he says and how he says it but there is one universal truth in this situation; when you do speak TELL THE TRUTH; criminals lie.

Kinda like what happened today?:

"Dr. Valerie Rao, who was called by the prosecution to provide her assessment of Zimmerman's injuries based on photos, cast doubt on Zimmerman's claim his head was repeatedly bashed against the pavement as he fought with Martin in the Feb. 26, 2012 incident.
"The injuries are so minor that the word slam implies great force," Rao said in response to questioning by prosecutor John Guy. "There was not great force used here."

Rao said Zimmerman's injuries were not only "not life threatening" but were also "very insignificant." She said the injuries to the back of Zimmerman's head were consistent with hitting the ground but the injuries on his face were from consistent with one punch or strike."


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/02/detective-returns-to-stand-in-zimmerman-trial/?test=latestnews#ixzz2Xvimhlds

I read this and can't help but think...very easy to say for the person that didn't get their head beat on concrete. I'm sorry, but getting my head banged ONCE on the concrete without me being able to escape from someone on top of me and I'll be in reasonable fear of my life. Getting punched is one thing, getting your head bounced off concrete is another Edited July 2, 2013 by KKing

[raydog1]

I read this and can't help but think...very easy to say for the person that didn't get their head beat on concrete. I'm sorry, but getting my head banged ONCE on the concrete without me being able to escape from someone on top of me and I'll be in reasonable fear of my life. Getting punched is one thing, getting your head bounced off concrete is another

 

 

I agree completely!  But I also can't help but think. . .if Zimmerman is exaggerating about the "attack" then what other parts of his interview should I question?

 

This trial's getting interesting.

[crossfire]

Kinda like what happened today?:

 

"Dr. Valerie Rao, who was called by the prosecution to provide her assessment of Zimmerman's injuries based on photos, cast doubt on Zimmerman's claim his head was repeatedly bashed against the pavement as he fought with Martin in the Feb. 26, 2012 incident.

"The injuries are so minor that the word slam implies great force," Rao said in response to questioning by prosecutor John Guy. "There was not great force used here."

 

 

Rao said Zimmerman's injuries were not only "not life threatening" but were also "very insignificant." She said the injuries to the back of Zimmerman's head were consistent with hitting the ground but the injuries on his face were from consistent with one punch or strike."

 

Kinda like what happened today?:

 

"Dr. Valerie Rao, who was called by the prosecution to provide her assessment of Zimmerman's injuries based on photos, cast doubt on Zimmerman's claim his head was repeatedly bashed against the pavement as he fought with Martin in the Feb. 26, 2012 incident.

"The injuries are so minor that the word slam implies great force," Rao said in response to questioning by prosecutor John Guy. "There was not great force used here."

 

Rao said Zimmerman's injuries were not only "not life threatening" but were also "very insignificant." She said the injuries to the back of Zimmerman's head were consistent with hitting the ground but the injuries on his face were from consistent with one punch or strike."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/02/detective-returns-to-stand-in-zimmerman-trial/?test=latestnews#ixzz2Xvimhlds

 

"The injuries are so minor that the word slam implies great force," Rao said in response to questioning by prosecutor John Guy. "There was not great force used here."

Click here for full coverage of the George Zimmerman Trial

Rao said Zimmerman's injuries were not only "not life threatening" but were also "very insignificant." She said the injuries to the back of Zimmerman's head were consistent with hitting the ground but the injuries on his face were from consistent with one punch or strike. 

 

Under questioning by defense attorney Mark O'Mara, Rao acknowledged she was appointed by state attorney Angela Corey, who is overseeing the prosecution of Zimmerman. She also conceded that while Zimmerman's injuries were consistent with one punch, it does not mean that he was not hit repeatedly.

"Could it of been four times?" O'Mara asked Rao, who replied, "That's not my opinion but it is possible." 

 

If your going to quote the article use all of it, not just the part that fits your agenda. There has been quite enough of that BS from the news media with this case. :2cents:

 

Edited July 3, 2013 by crossfire

[Garufa]

What is it with all the quoting and no commenting lately?