Go Back   Matt-Hughes.com Official Forums > General Discussions > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 07-18-2013, 09:49 PM
Neezar's Avatar
Neezar Neezar is offline
SupaDupaMod
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: South
Posts: 6,478
Send a message via Yahoo to Neezar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NateR View Post
I don't think that's the right way to phrase it, because you're making it sound like Zimmerman went into the situation with the intent of committing a crime.
What do think Zimmerman's intent was?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NateR View Post
A better way to state it would be to say that Zimmerman knew he didn't to anything wrong, but was surprised to actually be charged with a crime for defending himself.
How can you chase someone down and then shoot them because they are beating your ass and call that self defense?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NateR View Post
Anytime, someone is in the process of committing a crime and they get killed while the victim is trying to stop that crime, then it should never be considered anything more than manslaughter. Murder was always the wrong charge to file.
Who exactly was committing a crime?
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 07-18-2013, 09:51 PM
Neezar's Avatar
Neezar Neezar is offline
SupaDupaMod
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: South
Posts: 6,478
Send a message via Yahoo to Neezar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by County Mike View Post
Not Guilty was the correct verdict. Whether you agree with him getting out of his car and following Trayvon or not, it wasn't against the law. The only time a law was broken in the entire scenario was when Trayvon Martin attacked George Zimmerman and beat him up.

You can accuse George Zimmerman of bad judgement but not of breaking any laws. He only used his gun when he felt his life was in danger, and rightfully so.
Zimmerman chased him down.

Was Martin not acting in self defense because Zimmerman was attempting to detain (a criminal charge of false imprisonment) him?
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 07-18-2013, 09:57 PM
Neezar's Avatar
Neezar Neezar is offline
SupaDupaMod
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: South
Posts: 6,478
Send a message via Yahoo to Neezar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonnie View Post

I think if we had video of the incident between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin we would see things play out as George Zimmerman said they happened. Also, it said in the article you linked (I posted/bolded above) that Zimmerman was using the stand your ground law in his defense, from what I understand, that is not correct, his defense lawyer Mr. O'Mara said they did not rely on that provision in the courtroom because Mr. Zimmerman had no option to retreat. However, I did read where it was included in the jury instructions; it's kind of confusing! lol From what I understand if Zimmerman had claimed stand your ground, he would not now be able to be sued civilly by Trayvon's family, but since he didn't, if they so choose they can sue him for wrongful death.

Rodriguez had the opportunity to avoid continuing/escalating the confrontation by walking away/ (And Zimmerman couldn't have stayed in his car? lol) retreating before using force. His neighbor told him to leave, but he refused. I believe Trayvon Martin decided he was going to confront George Zimmerman, and then he hit him in the nose to quickly gain advantage, and when Zimmerman went down, he got on top of him. Zimmerman couldn't retreat.
Again, how do you chase someone down and then say you had no option to retreat? lol

Chasing someone down is FORCING a confrontation.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 07-18-2013, 11:10 PM
Bonnie Bonnie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Where the bluebonnets bloom
Posts: 6,587
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neezar View Post
Zimmerman chased him down.

Was Martin not acting in self defense because Zimmerman was attempting to detain (a criminal charge of false imprisonment) him?
There was no evidence presented that Zimmerman chased him down or was trying to detain him...where are you getting that from?

One of the alternate jurors said that they had the phone records of Rachel Jeantel, Trayvon's girl friend who testified for the state, which shows the time of their calls when this started, etc., and she testified that Trayvon said he was near his father's fiancÚ's which is at the opposite end of the "T" of the sidewalk where the confrontation started so how does he end up back at the "T" where George Zimmerman is if he didn't backtrack to confront Zimmerman? If Zimmerman "chased" him to where he told Rachel he was, why wasn't the confrontation at that spot? The only thing that makes sense is that Trayvon decided to go back.

The prosecutors (both of them) kept painting a picture of a scared child; if he was so scared, why didn't he walk on to his father's fiancÚ's apt since he was so close to it, why go back if he's so scared of this person? The prosecutors repeatedly called Trayvon a "child" using the word wanting the jurors to see him as this very young, small, defenseless scared child, if that's the case, what is this "child" doing walking all by himself to the store and back in the pitch black? And it was very very dark at night behind those apts they said. So which is he, the little child they painted him to be or the adult teenager who decided he was bigger than the other guy and could take him?

People keep acting like Zimmerman did something wrong or illegal by getting out of his car, that by doing so he deserved the beating he was getting and he should have just taken it like a "man"; but that same thinking can be used when it comes to Trayvon and his bad judgement, not that anyone would dare say that out loud! IMO, they both made bad judgement calls that led to this avoidable tragedy.

The prosecutors wanted to make their case all about "emotion" because they had no case. As much as these jurors might have wanted to give Trayvon's parents someone to pay for their son's life, they followed the law, they did their job, a job they didn't ask for.
__________________

Last edited by Bonnie; 07-19-2013 at 03:03 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 07-19-2013, 03:20 AM
Neezar's Avatar
Neezar Neezar is offline
SupaDupaMod
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: South
Posts: 6,478
Send a message via Yahoo to Neezar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonnie View Post
There was no evidence presented that Zimmerman chased him down or was trying to detain him...where are you getting that from?

A witness stated she saw two men running about 10 feet apart just before the incident. If Martin was chasing Zimmerman don't you think he would have told that?


One of the alternate jurors said that they had the phone records of Rachel Jeantel, Trayvon's girl friend who testified for the state, which shows the time of their calls when this started, etc., and she testified that Trayvon said he was near his father's fiancÚ's which is at the opposite end of the "T" of the sidewalk where the confrontation started so how does he end up back at the "T" where George Zimmerman is if he didn't backtrack to confront Zimmerman? If Zimmerman "chased" him to where he told Rachel he was, why wasn't the confrontation at that spot? The only thing that makes sense is that Trayvon decided to go back.

"Near" to Martin could have meant in the neighborhood, couldn't it? I mean did he say he was right at the front door? The girlfriend heard the beginning of that confrontation, didn't she? Did she mention Martin running before the scuffle? If not then Martin was lying about where he was or Zimmerman confronted him in front of his father's fiancÚ's place.


The prosecutors (both of them) kept painting a picture of a scared child; if he was so scared, why didn't he walk on to his father's fiancÚ's apt since he was so close to it, why go back if he's so scared of this person? The prosecutors repeatedly called Trayvon a "child" using the word wanting the jurors to see him as this very young, small, defenseless scared child, if that's the case, what is this "child" doing walking all by himself to the store and back in the pitch black? And it was very very dark at night behind those apts they said. So which is he, the little child they painted him to be or the adult teenager who decided he was bigger than the other guy and could take him?

What kind of person, child, or man he was didn't concern me in this so I will leave that be.

People keep acting like Zimmerman did something wrong or illegal by getting out of his car, that by doing so he deserved the beating he was getting and he should have just taken it like a "man"; but that same thinking can be used when it comes to Trayvon and his bad judgement, not that anyone would dare say that out loud! IMO, they both made bad judgement calls that led to this avoidable tragedy.

And which bad judgment call did Martin make?

The prosecutors wanted to make their case all about "emotion" because they had no case. As much as these jurors might have wanted to give Trayvon's parent's someone to pay for their son's life, they followed the law, they did their job, a job they didn't ask for.
To me, considering.......

- Zimmerman voices his disgust that they always get away.

- Zimmerman plainly states the boy is running away.

- Zimmerman gets out to pursue Martin.

- Zimmerman has a gun.

- Dispatcher wanted Zimmerman to meet police at the mailboxes and he tells them to call when they get there and he will tell them where he is. That clearly shows he doesn't intend on staying at the car.

-Zimmerman originally said he was getting out of his car to look at a street sign and was walking back to his car. It was no where near his car.

.....I believe Zimmerman kept looking after he hung up with 911. Located Martin, that is when girlfriend heard the beginning of the confrontation, Martin ran. I think Zimmerman chased him and caught him or Martin decided to turn and fight. Then when Zimmerman was losing he got scared and shot the kid.

Of course, I can't prove it. But to me, all the circumstantial evidence points to a forced or at the very least a provoked confrontation with Zimmerman being the clear aggressor.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 07-19-2013, 05:04 AM
flo's Avatar
flo flo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: The Great Pacific Northwest
Posts: 7,716
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neezar View Post
To me, considering.......

Of course, I can't prove it. But to me, all the circumstantial evidence points to a forced or at the very least a provoked confrontation with Zimmerman being the clear aggressor.
A jury, who heard all the evidence and examined it in detail, disagrees.

The bad judgement call Trayvon Martin made was to attack George Zimmerman and beat him.

If thugs had been breaking into my neighborhood and terrorizing people, I'd be disgusted that they always get away as well. Wouldn't you, Denise? He was a neighborhood watchperson, he has a right to have a gun. He had a right to defend himself against a beating.

When he was originally interviewed and the police said they had a video of the incident to gauge his reaction, they testified that Zimmerman said "Thank God, I was hoping somebody would videotape it". He was also very upset when the police told him that Martin died.

Why would the prosecution withhold discovery evidence from the defense? Particularly the pictures of Zimmerman's wounds? That's very troubling. Read Prof. Dershowitz re: State's Atty. Corey.
__________________
http://www.matt-hughes.com/forums/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=339&dateline=13068036  43

Rejoice ever more. 1 Thessalonians 5:16

Last edited by flo; 07-19-2013 at 06:46 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 07-19-2013, 05:09 AM
flo's Avatar
flo flo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: The Great Pacific Northwest
Posts: 7,716
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neezar View Post
If someone was following me through a neighborhood at night, I would turn around and try to whip the shyte out of them, too.

Zimmerman should have taken his ass whoopin' like a man and left the gun out of it.

After voicing his displeasure with these guys(criminals/burglars" in his mind) always getting away, Zimmerman got out of his car with a GUN and followed someone he admits to thinking is a criminal. Geez. You can't get any more intent than that.

Prosecution did a shoddy job, imo.

ps how can you chase someone and be "standing your ground"? lol
"Standing your ground" was not an issue with either side in this trial. It was self defense. What testimony said he was chasing Martin?

Zimmerman said that Martin saw his gun and was reaching for it. If this is true, he had a right to defend himself.

If someone was beating me and they reached for my gun, I'd use it to protect myself. Ditto for my friends and loved ones if they are attacked.

This whole thing is a tragedy for both families. The jury couldn't surmise or base their judgement on sympathy or "what if" or "maybe". They could only consider the law. It's terrible what this case is doing to the country, it is dividing people in ways I haven't seen for a long time. It's sad that the children murdered in Chicago and all over the country don't get the same concern. It's sickening to see it made into a racial issue when it-clearly-is-not. I pray that the whole thing will just end.
__________________
http://www.matt-hughes.com/forums/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=339&dateline=13068036  43

Rejoice ever more. 1 Thessalonians 5:16

Last edited by flo; 07-19-2013 at 05:44 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 07-19-2013, 06:00 AM
Bonnie Bonnie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Where the bluebonnets bloom
Posts: 6,587
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neezar View Post

A witness stated she saw two men running about 10 feet apart just before the incident. If Martin was chasing Zimmerman don't you think he would have told that?

I'm going by where they were at the "T" of the sidewalk and where they ended up right near there, where Trayvon was shot. I believe Zimmerman told the 911 operator he lost sight of the guy. He said he walked up the sidewalk to the front of the apts to see the address and was walking back when Trayvon appeared in front of him there at the "T". Everything seems to back what Zimmerman told the police. The police even lied and told Zimmerman they had video from a nearby camera that had caught the whole incident to see how he would react, but the detective testified Zimmerman was relieved to hear they had video that would prove/back up what he was telling them happened.

"Near" to Martin could have meant in the neighborhood, couldn't it? I mean did he say he was right at the front door? The girlfriend heard the beginning of that confrontation, didn't she? Did she mention Martin running before the scuffle? If not then Martin was lying about where he was or Zimmerman confronted him in front of his father's fiancÚ's place.

I believe Trayvon told Rachel he was almost there to the apt. They showed a layout of the apartments and sidewalk where the confrontation took place and where the fiancÚ's apt is in distance from there, it wasn't far from where this took place, I believe right down the sidewalk in the opposite direction of the "T".

What kind of person, child, or man he was didn't concern me in this so I will leave that be.

I only brought that up because if Trayvon did backtrack to confront Zimmerman (which is what I believe happened) it does not fit with someone who is scared of the guy who he thinks is following him. Logically, you'd think if he is scared, he would have run the rest of the way to the nearby apartment and tell someone that a guy was following him. In the trial, the defense had a board showing the actual times of the calls and they showed a 4 minute gap between calls where Trayvon had plenty of time to get safely to the apartment. Mr. O'Mara actually had the jury/courtroom be silent for 4 minutes to effectively show how long 4 minutes is. They couldn't tell the jury what Trayvon was doing in those 4 minutes when he could have gone home, but they know for sure he didn't go home.

And which bad judgment call did Martin make?

I believe they showed in the trial he had plenty of time to get safely home, but for whatever reason he chose not to go home, that was the first bad decision. The second was confronting Zimmerman, and the third, fatal decision was physically attacking Zimmerman. From the evidence of Zimmerman's injuries, and the eyewitness who described who he saw on the bottom by what they were wearing, I do believe Trayvon was the aggressor in the physical attack.

To me, considering.......

- Zimmerman voices his disgust that they always get away.

There'd been a bunch of burglaries in that gated community and it was young black men committing them. They even said one had been arrested, but he was later released (not sure on bond or what), this was before the incident with Trayvon. Knowing what was going on at the time, I believe that gives what he said some context, don't you. And he didn't say it as the prosecutors portrayed it to the jury, angry and with ill will; even the 911 operator testified to that.

- Zimmerman plainly states the boy is running away.

Yes, but he later said, not really running, but more of a skip. The prosecutor actually skipped in the courtroom, he just looked silly.

- Zimmerman gets out to pursue Martin.

I know "follow" can be pursue, or stalk, or chase, but I just don't think Zimmerman was doing any of those, I think he simply wanted to see where this person was going, if he was up to something. Again, I think it comes back to what was happening in the community with all the burglaries.

- Zimmerman has a gun.

Yes, he is carrying a gun legally, apparently he carried it with/on him most of the time except when at work. Did this make him feel safe to get out of his vehicle, in the dark and the rain, probably

- Dispatcher wanted Zimmerman to meet police at the mailboxes and he tells them to call when they get there and he will tell them where he is. That clearly shows he doesn't intend on staying at the car.

He didn't have to stay in his car. I think that's why he walked down the sidewalk to the front of the apartments to see the address so he could tell them where he was at. I'm not sure where the mailboxes were, if they were back near the clubhouse area where he first sees Trayvon(?).

-Zimmerman originally said he was getting out of his car to look at a street sign and was walking back to his car. It was no where near his car.

Yes, I think he told them there wasn't a street sign there where he was. As I said above, I think that's why he said he walked up the sidewalk to the front of the apartments where it was lighted to see the address on the building. He said he was walking back to his car from there when Trayvon confronted him at the "T".

.....I believe Zimmerman kept looking after he hung up with 911. Located Martin, that is when girlfriend heard the beginning of the confrontation, Martin ran. I think Zimmerman chased him and caught him or Martin decided to turn and fight. Then when Zimmerman was losing he got scared and shot the kid.

Of course, I can't prove it. But to me, all the circumstantial evidence points to a forced or at the very least a provoked confrontation with Zimmerman being the clear aggressor.
The GF was a "hear" witness as to what Trayvon told her, but I'm skeptical of some of what she tried to say she heard, but I do think she is important as far as establishing "time" like when the call ends, plus they are able to look at the phone records to establish times.

I believe the facts...Zimmerman's injuries, the guy who came out of his apartment and testified who he saw on the bottom, the person yelling for help, the forensics--the fact we know the hoodie was away from Trayvon's body because of the powder tattooing on his chest which backs up Zimmerman's claim Trayvon was leaning over him at the time he shot him...I believe these things point to Zimmerman telling the truth. Not to mention the lead detective who investigated, the one who said he tried to trip Zimmerman up to see if he was lying--remember I told you he lied and told Zimmerman there was video of the incident?--he even came to the conclusion that Zimmerman was telling the truth.

There's a reason the police and original prosecutor refused to arrest and charge him. And the FBI investigated and found no evidence that race was a factor in the shooting.

I wish these two had never laid eyes on each other that night.
__________________

Last edited by Bonnie; 07-19-2013 at 04:43 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 07-19-2013, 06:13 AM
Bonnie Bonnie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Where the bluebonnets bloom
Posts: 6,587
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck View Post
Interesting but absolutely useless in this discussion.

You realize that things like facts and the truth have no place in a race based discussion whipped into a frenzy by a greedy irresponsible media right???
Yeah, facts and truth, they don't want those pesky things getting in the way of their agenda!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 07-19-2013, 06:44 AM
flo's Avatar
flo flo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: The Great Pacific Northwest
Posts: 7,716
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck View Post
Interesting but absolutely useless in this discussion.

You realize that things like facts and the truth have no place in a race based discussion whipped into a frenzy by a greedy irresponsible media right???
Heh, right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonnie View Post
I wish these two had never laid eyes on each other that night.
I wish that too, Bonnie. One family wouldn't be grief-stricken over their dead child and another family wouldn't be in fear of their lives and future in this country.
__________________
http://www.matt-hughes.com/forums/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=339&dateline=13068036  43

Rejoice ever more. 1 Thessalonians 5:16

Last edited by flo; 07-19-2013 at 06:49 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.