|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP.
If you make an uninformed post, or one that isn't relevant to the discussion, you will be moderated. If in doubt, don't post. |
On July 12 2013 13:14 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 13:05 Plansix wrote:On July 12 2013 13:00 Kaitlin wrote:On July 12 2013 12:58 zlefin wrote:On July 12 2013 11:19 LegalLord wrote:On July 12 2013 11:16 zlefin wrote:
Perhaps it should be a group separate from the jury. But i'd like SOME group to be in charge of just assessing the situation, figuring out what happened, and making recommendations. Trial jury's dont' decide what actually happened, they decide guilty or not guilty, and some findings of fact, but not too many, and not nearly as much analysis about what happened and what could be done; and the evidentiary rules are different.
What I want is a more thorough incident report and analysis. Similar to, but on a far smaller scale of course, than the 9/11 commission report. You mean something along the lines of the police investigation that happened? seeing as that's NOTHING like what I described, no. Please try learning more about commissions and reports, and see the things I actually referenced before referring to something that is obviously very different. The problem with your idea is that you have no consideration for the concept of limited resources. Im confused, he wants a separate group to be put together to find the "truth" and the jury to figure out if the party is guilty. If you get the "truth", why do you need a jury? I think he wants a commission to investigate the investigation resulting in a report to determine the facts of what happened to be submitted to a court where it is tried before a jury for them to determine if the report resulting from the commissions' investigation of the investigation is accurate beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm not sure what his suggestion will be for the subsequent pre-sentencing investigation.
Yeah, that fucking redundant. Also, there is no way to confirm if the commission is correct.
Commission: We have confirmed that the jury's verdict was correct.
Judge: Great, your findings will be viewed by the Overseers commission, to confirm your commission made the correct decision that the jury made the correct decision. After that, those findings will be further reviewed. We can't be to careful.
|
I see the people here are idiots, since you're too stupid to look up anything about the 9/11 report, and the obvious values of reviewing a situation to try make things better, I shan't bother you with my intelligence past this post.
What a commission could do, is figure out what happened, and make recommendations for what people can do, and what legal changes could be made.
And George Zimmerman pretty clearly is culpable in some broad sense, that's why there was already a civil settlement reached between martin's family and GZ/homeowner's group., the question is of what, and how serious is it (probably not very). A commission could help answer that.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On July 12 2013 13:26 zlefin wrote:
I see the people here are idiots, since you're too stupid to look up anything about the 9/11 report, and the obvious values of reviewing a situation to try make things better, I shan't bother you with my intelligence past this post.
What a commission could do, is figure out what happened, and make recommendations for what people can do, and what legal changes could be made.
And George Zimmerman pretty clearly is culpable in some broad sense, that's why there was already a civil settlement reached between martin's family and GZ/homeowner's group., the question is of what, and how serious is it (probably not very). A commission could help answer that.
Yeah, that's not necessary, the fact set isn't that complex.. We have all the information we need. It just sounds like a waste of time and money.
Also, you may want to refrain from insulting people because they disagree with you. TL generally frowns on that.
|
On July 12 2013 13:26 zlefin wrote:
I see the people here are idiots, since you're too stupid to look up anything about the 9/11 report, and the obvious values of reviewing a situation to try make things better, I shan't bother you with my intelligence past this post.
What a commission could do, is figure out what happened, and make recommendations for what people can do, and what legal changes could be made.
And George Zimmerman pretty clearly is culpable in some broad sense, that's why there was already a civil settlement reached between martin's family and GZ/homeowner's group., the question is of what, and how serious is it (probably not very). A commission could help answer that.
please take your intelligence elsewhere and stop making up shit. GZ hasnt settled a lawsuit, and the fact that an insurer paid out on a claim really means very little in the grand scheme of things. they pay out as a matter of course.
|
On July 12 2013 13:26 zlefin wrote:
I see the people here are idiots, since you're too stupid to look up anything about the 9/11 report, and the obvious values of reviewing a situation to try make things better, I shan't bother you with my intelligence past this post.
What a commission could do, is figure out what happened, and make recommendations for what people can do, and what legal changes could be made.
And George Zimmerman pretty clearly is culpable in some broad sense, that's why there was already a civil settlement reached between martin's family and GZ/homeowner's group., the question is of what, and how serious is it (probably not very). A commission could help answer that.
The 9/11 Commission was as a result of the most significant terrorist attack in the history of the world, which as changed the world as we know it, and sought to figure out what went wrong and what needed to be changed in the national security of the, arguably, most powerful country in the history of the world.
You want a system to create commissions for any and every interaction between two individuals in order to figure out what exactly happened, and whether a crime occurred ? Who is the idiot ?
|
If I don't respond immediately, it's because I've gone to the store before the riots hit.
|
On July 12 2013 13:31 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 13:26 zlefin wrote:
I see the people here are idiots, since you're too stupid to look up anything about the 9/11 report, and the obvious values of reviewing a situation to try make things better, I shan't bother you with my intelligence past this post.
What a commission could do, is figure out what happened, and make recommendations for what people can do, and what legal changes could be made.
And George Zimmerman pretty clearly is culpable in some broad sense, that's why there was already a civil settlement reached between martin's family and GZ/homeowner's group., the question is of what, and how serious is it (probably not very). A commission could help answer that. The 9/11 Commission was as a result of the most significant terrorist attack in the history of the world, which as changed the world as we know it, and sought to figure out what went wrong and what needed to be changed in the national security of the, arguably, most powerful country in the history of the world. You want a system to create commissions for any and every interaction between two individuals in order to figure out what exactly happened, and whether a crime occurred ? Who is the idiot ?
I think all that really needs to happen is better training from the local police that maintains the Neighbourhood Watch in the area.
|
On July 12 2013 13:33 Kaitlin wrote:
If I don't respond immediately, it's because I've gone to the store before the riots hit.
on the ground live reporting from kaitlin.
|
I can't wait for the Defense's closing argument. This case is the perfect setup for a ground 'n pound - MMA style. Does a simple majority decide, or must the jury be unanimous?
|
On July 12 2013 12:47 FatChicksUnited wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 12:16 Myrddraal wrote:
Well from her testimony (which I do agree is shaky) it sounded like Zimmerman initially was the aggressor and tried to grab Trayvon or something 'she heard Trayvon saying, "Get off. Get off,"'. There wouldn't be much physical evidence if he didn't actually actually physically hit him, and under the circumstances it would be understandable that Trayvon felt the need to defend himself since he had done nothing wrong and (as far as we know) received no explanation, though of course at a certain point Trayvon got the upper hand and was no longer defending himself.
By "something wrong prior" I meant that assuming that the above scenario was the case, that he followed Trayvon (not inherently wrong), attempted to subdue him (not extremely wrong, possibly only worthy of an assault charge) and after fearing for his life he killed Trayvon. So if this were the sequence of events, what he did initially may not be worthy of a harsh conviction, the result was the death of a person and I still feel he would be responsible. So according to her testimony, Trayvon left his father's fiancee's backyard, and went out looking for Zimmerman. Then Zimmerman approached him and attempted to physically subdue him, despite having no good reason for doing so, as he only observed Trayvon walking in the rain and not doing anything unlawful (not being sarcastic here). Pretty odd behavior for Zimmerman. And now you, hearing her testimony, believe it over a much more plausible version of events, which is the version put forward by Zimmerman and his defensive team, and you want to send Zimmerman to jail for it? I realize that there's a non-zero chance that Zimmerman did act completely out of line that night, and it's really impossible to know for sure. But on balance, Zimmerman's story seems much likelier, to me at least. Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 12:16 Myrddraal wrote:On July 12 2013 11:56 sc2superfan101 wrote:
I want anyone to give me a scenario in which it is at all possible, given the evidence we've now seen, that Zimmerman somehow ran down a physically fit, 17 year old football player, and then started a fight only to get on the losing end (John Good's testimony), and then take back control of the fight (without injuring Trayvon in any way) and shoot him.
Because that sequence of events is 100% required to have occurred for Zimmerman to be guilty of what he's charged, and that, to me, is so unbelievably absurd a scenario that you might as well say that Zimmerman used his secret spiderman powers to do it. I was under the impression that he did most of his pursuing in his car, though correct me if I am wrong. He had to get out of his car to track Trayvon for a while. According to him, he lost Trayvon after a while, and was walking back towards his car when the incident occurred. Keep in mind that this is a good distance from Trayvon's home, where Rachel testified that Trayvon told her he was.
Well I admit the idea that he went into the backyard and back out doesn't make sense to me, but the only explanation that makes sense to me is that she was confused and thought he made it back but he didn't, since I don't understand why she would lie about that since it does not help Trayvon's innocence, (assuming that it is implausible that he made there it back due to the distance).
The part that I find more plausible is the actual confrontation and dialogue that she claims took place. Based on the evidence we do have, Zimmerman was following him and did not want him to get away, Trayvon was running away at some point, her description of the start of the actual encounter makes a lot more sense to me.
I just can't see Trayvon, running scared on a rainy night, suddenly deciding "nah fuck it, I can take this guy" and sneaking up and attacking Zimmerman from some bushes, also without any explanation. I mean it is possible, I just don't see it as likely, if he could outrun Zimmerman easily, why not keep running? If someone is following you, wouldn't you try to find out why before attacking them and pummelling their face into the ground? Neither account fully adds up, they are both fairly sketchy.
I'm not saying that he should be convicted based on this testimony alone, which is why I hoped for a recording of the phone conversation so we would have something solid, but based on the evidence it seems to me that he did something wrong and should be punished.
|
I dunno if this has been mentioned yet, but I'm seriously getting sick of CNN's reporting on this case.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/11/opinion/francis-zimmerman-trial/index.html?hpt=hp_c2
They just spout off the most insane inaccurate shit, label it as an opinion and then link the "opinion" piece in every actual article that is about the facts of the case. The whole premise of this opinion piece is ridiculous and is just self serving ego jerking.
|
On July 12 2013 13:51 Myrddraal wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 12:47 FatChicksUnited wrote:On July 12 2013 12:16 Myrddraal wrote:
Well from her testimony (which I do agree is shaky) it sounded like Zimmerman initially was the aggressor and tried to grab Trayvon or something 'she heard Trayvon saying, "Get off. Get off,"'. There wouldn't be much physical evidence if he didn't actually actually physically hit him, and under the circumstances it would be understandable that Trayvon felt the need to defend himself since he had done nothing wrong and (as far as we know) received no explanation, though of course at a certain point Trayvon got the upper hand and was no longer defending himself.
By "something wrong prior" I meant that assuming that the above scenario was the case, that he followed Trayvon (not inherently wrong), attempted to subdue him (not extremely wrong, possibly only worthy of an assault charge) and after fearing for his life he killed Trayvon. So if this were the sequence of events, what he did initially may not be worthy of a harsh conviction, the result was the death of a person and I still feel he would be responsible. So according to her testimony, Trayvon left his father's fiancee's backyard, and went out looking for Zimmerman. Then Zimmerman approached him and attempted to physically subdue him, despite having no good reason for doing so, as he only observed Trayvon walking in the rain and not doing anything unlawful (not being sarcastic here). Pretty odd behavior for Zimmerman. And now you, hearing her testimony, believe it over a much more plausible version of events, which is the version put forward by Zimmerman and his defensive team, and you want to send Zimmerman to jail for it? I realize that there's a non-zero chance that Zimmerman did act completely out of line that night, and it's really impossible to know for sure. But on balance, Zimmerman's story seems much likelier, to me at least. On July 12 2013 12:16 Myrddraal wrote:On July 12 2013 11:56 sc2superfan101 wrote:
I want anyone to give me a scenario in which it is at all possible, given the evidence we've now seen, that Zimmerman somehow ran down a physically fit, 17 year old football player, and then started a fight only to get on the losing end (John Good's testimony), and then take back control of the fight (without injuring Trayvon in any way) and shoot him.
Because that sequence of events is 100% required to have occurred for Zimmerman to be guilty of what he's charged, and that, to me, is so unbelievably absurd a scenario that you might as well say that Zimmerman used his secret spiderman powers to do it. I was under the impression that he did most of his pursuing in his car, though correct me if I am wrong. He had to get out of his car to track Trayvon for a while. According to him, he lost Trayvon after a while, and was walking back towards his car when the incident occurred. Keep in mind that this is a good distance from Trayvon's home, where Rachel testified that Trayvon told her he was. Well I admit the idea that he went into the backyard and back out doesn't make sense to me, but the only explanation that makes sense to me is that she was confused and thought he made it back but he didn't, since I don't understand why she would lie about that since it does not help Trayvon's innocence, (assuming that it is implausible that he made there it back due to the distance). The part that I find more plausible is the actual confrontation and dialogue that she claims took place. Based on the evidence we do have, Zimmerman was following him and did not want him to get away, Trayvon was running away at some point, her description of the start of the actual encounter makes a lot more sense to me. I just can't see Trayvon, running scared on a rainy night, suddenly deciding "nah fuck it, I can take this guy" and sneaking up and attacking Zimmerman from some bushes, also without any explanation. I mean it is possible, I just don't see it as likely, if he could outrun Zimmerman easily, why not keep running? If someone is following you, wouldn't you try to find out why before attacking them and pummelling their face into the ground? Neither account fully adds up, they are both fairly sketchy. I'm not saying that he should be convicted based on this testimony alone, which is why I hoped for a recording of the phone conversation so we would have something solid, but based on the evidence it seems to me that he did something wrong and should be punished.
Judging from his texts and his social media profiles, I can definitely see Martin doing something along those lines.
|
On July 12 2013 13:46 Savant wrote:
I can't wait for the Defense's closing argument. This case is the perfect setup for a ground 'n pound - MMA style. Does a simple majority decide, or must the jury be unanimous?
unanimous to convict. not sure whether its unanimous to acquit. if zimmerman convinces one juror, mistrial i believe.
|
On July 12 2013 14:00 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:I dunno if this has been mentioned yet, but I'm seriously getting sick of CNN's reporting on this case. http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/11/opinion/francis-zimmerman-trial/index.html?hpt=hp_c2They just spout off the most insane inaccurate shit, label it as an opinion and then link the "opinion" piece in every actual article that is about the facts of the case. The whole premise of this opinion piece is ridiculous and is just self serving ego jerking.
The people who broke this story, the people who pushed it and escalated it, the people with other agendas want so hard for Zimmerman to be a cold blooded racist who murdered an innocent black child.
|
On July 12 2013 13:51 Myrddraal wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 12:47 FatChicksUnited wrote:On July 12 2013 12:16 Myrddraal wrote:
Well from her testimony (which I do agree is shaky) it sounded like Zimmerman initially was the aggressor and tried to grab Trayvon or something 'she heard Trayvon saying, "Get off. Get off,"'. There wouldn't be much physical evidence if he didn't actually actually physically hit him, and under the circumstances it would be understandable that Trayvon felt the need to defend himself since he had done nothing wrong and (as far as we know) received no explanation, though of course at a certain point Trayvon got the upper hand and was no longer defending himself.
By "something wrong prior" I meant that assuming that the above scenario was the case, that he followed Trayvon (not inherently wrong), attempted to subdue him (not extremely wrong, possibly only worthy of an assault charge) and after fearing for his life he killed Trayvon. So if this were the sequence of events, what he did initially may not be worthy of a harsh conviction, the result was the death of a person and I still feel he would be responsible. So according to her testimony, Trayvon left his father's fiancee's backyard, and went out looking for Zimmerman. Then Zimmerman approached him and attempted to physically subdue him, despite having no good reason for doing so, as he only observed Trayvon walking in the rain and not doing anything unlawful (not being sarcastic here). Pretty odd behavior for Zimmerman. And now you, hearing her testimony, believe it over a much more plausible version of events, which is the version put forward by Zimmerman and his defensive team, and you want to send Zimmerman to jail for it? I realize that there's a non-zero chance that Zimmerman did act completely out of line that night, and it's really impossible to know for sure. But on balance, Zimmerman's story seems much likelier, to me at least. On July 12 2013 12:16 Myrddraal wrote:On July 12 2013 11:56 sc2superfan101 wrote:
I want anyone to give me a scenario in which it is at all possible, given the evidence we've now seen, that Zimmerman somehow ran down a physically fit, 17 year old football player, and then started a fight only to get on the losing end (John Good's testimony), and then take back control of the fight (without injuring Trayvon in any way) and shoot him.
Because that sequence of events is 100% required to have occurred for Zimmerman to be guilty of what he's charged, and that, to me, is so unbelievably absurd a scenario that you might as well say that Zimmerman used his secret spiderman powers to do it. I was under the impression that he did most of his pursuing in his car, though correct me if I am wrong. He had to get out of his car to track Trayvon for a while. According to him, he lost Trayvon after a while, and was walking back towards his car when the incident occurred. Keep in mind that this is a good distance from Trayvon's home, where Rachel testified that Trayvon told her he was. I just can't see Trayvon, running scared on a rainy night, suddenly deciding "nah fuck it, I can take this guy" and sneaking up and attacking Zimmerman from some bushes, also without any explanation.
I can understand that line of reasoning if it was coming from the jury but we, as third party onlookers have information the jury doesn't - namely the cell phone contents, which shows Trayvon leaning towards a thug life.
The most ridiculous thing I've heard from CNN yet is the suggestion that the screams might be Zimmerman. But rather than screams for help, screams of joy as Zimmerman pummeled Trayvon. I have no idea how to square this.
|
|
|
On July 12 2013 14:07 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 13:46 Savant wrote:
I can't wait for the Defense's closing argument. This case is the perfect setup for a ground 'n pound - MMA style. Does a simple majority decide, or must the jury be unanimous? unanimous to convict. not sure whether its unanimous to acquit. if zimmerman convinces one juror, mistrial i believe.
Seems like only having 6 jurors should work in the prosecutions favor then. Still gonna be tough to convince 6 people to say they believe the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman is guilty of at least manslaughter.
On July 12 2013 14:32 SilverLeagueElite wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 13:51 Myrddraal wrote:On July 12 2013 12:47 FatChicksUnited wrote:On July 12 2013 12:16 Myrddraal wrote:
Well from her testimony (which I do agree is shaky) it sounded like Zimmerman initially was the aggressor and tried to grab Trayvon or something 'she heard Trayvon saying, "Get off. Get off,"'. There wouldn't be much physical evidence if he didn't actually actually physically hit him, and under the circumstances it would be understandable that Trayvon felt the need to defend himself since he had done nothing wrong and (as far as we know) received no explanation, though of course at a certain point Trayvon got the upper hand and was no longer defending himself.
By "something wrong prior" I meant that assuming that the above scenario was the case, that he followed Trayvon (not inherently wrong), attempted to subdue him (not extremely wrong, possibly only worthy of an assault charge) and after fearing for his life he killed Trayvon. So if this were the sequence of events, what he did initially may not be worthy of a harsh conviction, the result was the death of a person and I still feel he would be responsible. So according to her testimony, Trayvon left his father's fiancee's backyard, and went out looking for Zimmerman. Then Zimmerman approached him and attempted to physically subdue him, despite having no good reason for doing so, as he only observed Trayvon walking in the rain and not doing anything unlawful (not being sarcastic here). Pretty odd behavior for Zimmerman. And now you, hearing her testimony, believe it over a much more plausible version of events, which is the version put forward by Zimmerman and his defensive team, and you want to send Zimmerman to jail for it? I realize that there's a non-zero chance that Zimmerman did act completely out of line that night, and it's really impossible to know for sure. But on balance, Zimmerman's story seems much likelier, to me at least. On July 12 2013 12:16 Myrddraal wrote:On July 12 2013 11:56 sc2superfan101 wrote:
I want anyone to give me a scenario in which it is at all possible, given the evidence we've now seen, that Zimmerman somehow ran down a physically fit, 17 year old football player, and then started a fight only to get on the losing end (John Good's testimony), and then take back control of the fight (without injuring Trayvon in any way) and shoot him.
Because that sequence of events is 100% required to have occurred for Zimmerman to be guilty of what he's charged, and that, to me, is so unbelievably absurd a scenario that you might as well say that Zimmerman used his secret spiderman powers to do it. I was under the impression that he did most of his pursuing in his car, though correct me if I am wrong. He had to get out of his car to track Trayvon for a while. According to him, he lost Trayvon after a while, and was walking back towards his car when the incident occurred. Keep in mind that this is a good distance from Trayvon's home, where Rachel testified that Trayvon told her he was. I just can't see Trayvon, running scared on a rainy night, suddenly deciding "nah fuck it, I can take this guy" and sneaking up and attacking Zimmerman from some bushes, also without any explanation. I can understand that line of reasoning if it was coming from the jury but we, as third party onlookers have information the jury doesn't - namely the cell phone contents, which shows Trayvon leaning towards a thug life.
Don't the evidence/testimonies indicate Trayvon was nearly home and then went back a pretty decent distance (~200 ft?) where him and GZ had their confrontation? I'm a little fuzzy on the exact details but if that is the case, isn't that a pretty good indicator that he wasn't "scared" or "running away"?
|
On July 12 2013 14:01 ConGee wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 13:51 Myrddraal wrote:On July 12 2013 12:47 FatChicksUnited wrote:On July 12 2013 12:16 Myrddraal wrote:
Well from her testimony (which I do agree is shaky) it sounded like Zimmerman initially was the aggressor and tried to grab Trayvon or something 'she heard Trayvon saying, "Get off. Get off,"'. There wouldn't be much physical evidence if he didn't actually actually physically hit him, and under the circumstances it would be understandable that Trayvon felt the need to defend himself since he had done nothing wrong and (as far as we know) received no explanation, though of course at a certain point Trayvon got the upper hand and was no longer defending himself.
By "something wrong prior" I meant that assuming that the above scenario was the case, that he followed Trayvon (not inherently wrong), attempted to subdue him (not extremely wrong, possibly only worthy of an assault charge) and after fearing for his life he killed Trayvon. So if this were the sequence of events, what he did initially may not be worthy of a harsh conviction, the result was the death of a person and I still feel he would be responsible. So according to her testimony, Trayvon left his father's fiancee's backyard, and went out looking for Zimmerman. Then Zimmerman approached him and attempted to physically subdue him, despite having no good reason for doing so, as he only observed Trayvon walking in the rain and not doing anything unlawful (not being sarcastic here). Pretty odd behavior for Zimmerman. And now you, hearing her testimony, believe it over a much more plausible version of events, which is the version put forward by Zimmerman and his defensive team, and you want to send Zimmerman to jail for it? I realize that there's a non-zero chance that Zimmerman did act completely out of line that night, and it's really impossible to know for sure. But on balance, Zimmerman's story seems much likelier, to me at least. On July 12 2013 12:16 Myrddraal wrote:On July 12 2013 11:56 sc2superfan101 wrote:
I want anyone to give me a scenario in which it is at all possible, given the evidence we've now seen, that Zimmerman somehow ran down a physically fit, 17 year old football player, and then started a fight only to get on the losing end (John Good's testimony), and then take back control of the fight (without injuring Trayvon in any way) and shoot him.
Because that sequence of events is 100% required to have occurred for Zimmerman to be guilty of what he's charged, and that, to me, is so unbelievably absurd a scenario that you might as well say that Zimmerman used his secret spiderman powers to do it. I was under the impression that he did most of his pursuing in his car, though correct me if I am wrong. He had to get out of his car to track Trayvon for a while. According to him, he lost Trayvon after a while, and was walking back towards his car when the incident occurred. Keep in mind that this is a good distance from Trayvon's home, where Rachel testified that Trayvon told her he was. Well I admit the idea that he went into the backyard and back out doesn't make sense to me, but the only explanation that makes sense to me is that she was confused and thought he made it back but he didn't, since I don't understand why she would lie about that since it does not help Trayvon's innocence, (assuming that it is implausible that he made there it back due to the distance). The part that I find more plausible is the actual confrontation and dialogue that she claims took place. Based on the evidence we do have, Zimmerman was following him and did not want him to get away, Trayvon was running away at some point, her description of the start of the actual encounter makes a lot more sense to me. I just can't see Trayvon, running scared on a rainy night, suddenly deciding "nah fuck it, I can take this guy" and sneaking up and attacking Zimmerman from some bushes, also without any explanation. I mean it is possible, I just don't see it as likely, if he could outrun Zimmerman easily, why not keep running? If someone is following you, wouldn't you try to find out why before attacking them and pummelling their face into the ground? Neither account fully adds up, they are both fairly sketchy. I'm not saying that he should be convicted based on this testimony alone, which is why I hoped for a recording of the phone conversation so we would have something solid, but based on the evidence it seems to me that he did something wrong and should be punished. Judging from his texts and his social media profiles, I can definitely see Martin doing something along those lines.
But why run and then change his mind? How exactly do you propose that plays out? He's running away, loses Zimmerman takes it as an opportunity to sneak up on the creepy guy who is following him?
And if we're going to make those kinds of judgements.
Pretty odd behavior for Zimmerman.
Did you listen to the 911 calls? All of his behaviour was odd, he sounded disturbed, not to mention he's a racist wannabe cop! (last parts are sarcasm, his behaviour was pretty odd).
On July 12 2013 14:32 SilverLeagueElite wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 13:51 Myrddraal wrote:On July 12 2013 12:47 FatChicksUnited wrote:On July 12 2013 12:16 Myrddraal wrote:
Well from her testimony (which I do agree is shaky) it sounded like Zimmerman initially was the aggressor and tried to grab Trayvon or something 'she heard Trayvon saying, "Get off. Get off,"'. There wouldn't be much physical evidence if he didn't actually actually physically hit him, and under the circumstances it would be understandable that Trayvon felt the need to defend himself since he had done nothing wrong and (as far as we know) received no explanation, though of course at a certain point Trayvon got the upper hand and was no longer defending himself.
By "something wrong prior" I meant that assuming that the above scenario was the case, that he followed Trayvon (not inherently wrong), attempted to subdue him (not extremely wrong, possibly only worthy of an assault charge) and after fearing for his life he killed Trayvon. So if this were the sequence of events, what he did initially may not be worthy of a harsh conviction, the result was the death of a person and I still feel he would be responsible. So according to her testimony, Trayvon left his father's fiancee's backyard, and went out looking for Zimmerman. Then Zimmerman approached him and attempted to physically subdue him, despite having no good reason for doing so, as he only observed Trayvon walking in the rain and not doing anything unlawful (not being sarcastic here). Pretty odd behavior for Zimmerman. And now you, hearing her testimony, believe it over a much more plausible version of events, which is the version put forward by Zimmerman and his defensive team, and you want to send Zimmerman to jail for it? I realize that there's a non-zero chance that Zimmerman did act completely out of line that night, and it's really impossible to know for sure. But on balance, Zimmerman's story seems much likelier, to me at least. On July 12 2013 12:16 Myrddraal wrote:On July 12 2013 11:56 sc2superfan101 wrote:
I want anyone to give me a scenario in which it is at all possible, given the evidence we've now seen, that Zimmerman somehow ran down a physically fit, 17 year old football player, and then started a fight only to get on the losing end (John Good's testimony), and then take back control of the fight (without injuring Trayvon in any way) and shoot him.
Because that sequence of events is 100% required to have occurred for Zimmerman to be guilty of what he's charged, and that, to me, is so unbelievably absurd a scenario that you might as well say that Zimmerman used his secret spiderman powers to do it. I was under the impression that he did most of his pursuing in his car, though correct me if I am wrong. He had to get out of his car to track Trayvon for a while. According to him, he lost Trayvon after a while, and was walking back towards his car when the incident occurred. Keep in mind that this is a good distance from Trayvon's home, where Rachel testified that Trayvon told her he was. I just can't see Trayvon, running scared on a rainy night, suddenly deciding "nah fuck it, I can take this guy" and sneaking up and attacking Zimmerman from some bushes, also without any explanation. I can understand that line of reasoning if it was coming from the jury but we, as third party onlookers have information the jury doesn't - namely the cell phone contents, which shows Trayvon leaning towards a thug life.
I don't know, it's one thing to lean towards a thug life, and it's another to attack a grown man who's following you on a rainy night. Maybe you guys are right, maybe he was just stupid, but judging Zimmerman he was equally likely to do something stupid.
|
On July 12 2013 14:48 Myrddraal wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 14:01 ConGee wrote:On July 12 2013 13:51 Myrddraal wrote:On July 12 2013 12:47 FatChicksUnited wrote:On July 12 2013 12:16 Myrddraal wrote:
Well from her testimony (which I do agree is shaky) it sounded like Zimmerman initially was the aggressor and tried to grab Trayvon or something 'she heard Trayvon saying, "Get off. Get off,"'. There wouldn't be much physical evidence if he didn't actually actually physically hit him, and under the circumstances it would be understandable that Trayvon felt the need to defend himself since he had done nothing wrong and (as far as we know) received no explanation, though of course at a certain point Trayvon got the upper hand and was no longer defending himself.
By "something wrong prior" I meant that assuming that the above scenario was the case, that he followed Trayvon (not inherently wrong), attempted to subdue him (not extremely wrong, possibly only worthy of an assault charge) and after fearing for his life he killed Trayvon. So if this were the sequence of events, what he did initially may not be worthy of a harsh conviction, the result was the death of a person and I still feel he would be responsible. So according to her testimony, Trayvon left his father's fiancee's backyard, and went out looking for Zimmerman. Then Zimmerman approached him and attempted to physically subdue him, despite having no good reason for doing so, as he only observed Trayvon walking in the rain and not doing anything unlawful (not being sarcastic here). Pretty odd behavior for Zimmerman. And now you, hearing her testimony, believe it over a much more plausible version of events, which is the version put forward by Zimmerman and his defensive team, and you want to send Zimmerman to jail for it? I realize that there's a non-zero chance that Zimmerman did act completely out of line that night, and it's really impossible to know for sure. But on balance, Zimmerman's story seems much likelier, to me at least. On July 12 2013 12:16 Myrddraal wrote:On July 12 2013 11:56 sc2superfan101 wrote:
I want anyone to give me a scenario in which it is at all possible, given the evidence we've now seen, that Zimmerman somehow ran down a physically fit, 17 year old football player, and then started a fight only to get on the losing end (John Good's testimony), and then take back control of the fight (without injuring Trayvon in any way) and shoot him.
Because that sequence of events is 100% required to have occurred for Zimmerman to be guilty of what he's charged, and that, to me, is so unbelievably absurd a scenario that you might as well say that Zimmerman used his secret spiderman powers to do it. I was under the impression that he did most of his pursuing in his car, though correct me if I am wrong. He had to get out of his car to track Trayvon for a while. According to him, he lost Trayvon after a while, and was walking back towards his car when the incident occurred. Keep in mind that this is a good distance from Trayvon's home, where Rachel testified that Trayvon told her he was. Well I admit the idea that he went into the backyard and back out doesn't make sense to me, but the only explanation that makes sense to me is that she was confused and thought he made it back but he didn't, since I don't understand why she would lie about that since it does not help Trayvon's innocence, (assuming that it is implausible that he made there it back due to the distance). The part that I find more plausible is the actual confrontation and dialogue that she claims took place. Based on the evidence we do have, Zimmerman was following him and did not want him to get away, Trayvon was running away at some point, her description of the start of the actual encounter makes a lot more sense to me. I just can't see Trayvon, running scared on a rainy night, suddenly deciding "nah fuck it, I can take this guy" and sneaking up and attacking Zimmerman from some bushes, also without any explanation. I mean it is possible, I just don't see it as likely, if he could outrun Zimmerman easily, why not keep running? If someone is following you, wouldn't you try to find out why before attacking them and pummelling their face into the ground? Neither account fully adds up, they are both fairly sketchy. I'm not saying that he should be convicted based on this testimony alone, which is why I hoped for a recording of the phone conversation so we would have something solid, but based on the evidence it seems to me that he did something wrong and should be punished. Judging from his texts and his social media profiles, I can definitely see Martin doing something along those lines. But why run and then change his mind? How exactly do you propose that plays out? He's running away, loses Zimmerman takes it as an opportunity to sneak up on the creepy guy who is following him? And if we're going to make those kinds of judgements. Did you listen to the 911 calls? All of his behaviour was odd, he sounded disturbed, not to mention he's a racist wannabe cop! (last parts are sarcasm, his behaviour was pretty odd). Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 14:32 SilverLeagueElite wrote:On July 12 2013 13:51 Myrddraal wrote:On July 12 2013 12:47 FatChicksUnited wrote:On July 12 2013 12:16 Myrddraal wrote:
Well from her testimony (which I do agree is shaky) it sounded like Zimmerman initially was the aggressor and tried to grab Trayvon or something 'she heard Trayvon saying, "Get off. Get off,"'. There wouldn't be much physical evidence if he didn't actually actually physically hit him, and under the circumstances it would be understandable that Trayvon felt the need to defend himself since he had done nothing wrong and (as far as we know) received no explanation, though of course at a certain point Trayvon got the upper hand and was no longer defending himself.
By "something wrong prior" I meant that assuming that the above scenario was the case, that he followed Trayvon (not inherently wrong), attempted to subdue him (not extremely wrong, possibly only worthy of an assault charge) and after fearing for his life he killed Trayvon. So if this were the sequence of events, what he did initially may not be worthy of a harsh conviction, the result was the death of a person and I still feel he would be responsible. So according to her testimony, Trayvon left his father's fiancee's backyard, and went out looking for Zimmerman. Then Zimmerman approached him and attempted to physically subdue him, despite having no good reason for doing so, as he only observed Trayvon walking in the rain and not doing anything unlawful (not being sarcastic here). Pretty odd behavior for Zimmerman. And now you, hearing her testimony, believe it over a much more plausible version of events, which is the version put forward by Zimmerman and his defensive team, and you want to send Zimmerman to jail for it? I realize that there's a non-zero chance that Zimmerman did act completely out of line that night, and it's really impossible to know for sure. But on balance, Zimmerman's story seems much likelier, to me at least. On July 12 2013 12:16 Myrddraal wrote:On July 12 2013 11:56 sc2superfan101 wrote:
I want anyone to give me a scenario in which it is at all possible, given the evidence we've now seen, that Zimmerman somehow ran down a physically fit, 17 year old football player, and then started a fight only to get on the losing end (John Good's testimony), and then take back control of the fight (without injuring Trayvon in any way) and shoot him.
Because that sequence of events is 100% required to have occurred for Zimmerman to be guilty of what he's charged, and that, to me, is so unbelievably absurd a scenario that you might as well say that Zimmerman used his secret spiderman powers to do it. I was under the impression that he did most of his pursuing in his car, though correct me if I am wrong. He had to get out of his car to track Trayvon for a while. According to him, he lost Trayvon after a while, and was walking back towards his car when the incident occurred. Keep in mind that this is a good distance from Trayvon's home, where Rachel testified that Trayvon told her he was. I just can't see Trayvon, running scared on a rainy night, suddenly deciding "nah fuck it, I can take this guy" and sneaking up and attacking Zimmerman from some bushes, also without any explanation. I can understand that line of reasoning if it was coming from the jury but we, as third party onlookers have information the jury doesn't - namely the cell phone contents, which shows Trayvon leaning towards a thug life. I don't know, it's one thing to lean towards a thug life, and it's another to attack a grown man who's following you on a rainy night. Maybe you guys are right, maybe he was just stupid, but judging Zimmerman he was equally likely to do something stupid.
Maybe he wanted to teach a creepy ass cracker a lesson for looking at him the wrong way or following him? I'm not saying we should take George Zimmerman's word as 100% truth, but this would be somewhat consistent with when George claimed Martin said "You got a fuckin problem homie?" followed by "Well you do now"
|
On July 12 2013 14:48 Myrddraal wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 14:01 ConGee wrote:On July 12 2013 13:51 Myrddraal wrote:On July 12 2013 12:47 FatChicksUnited wrote:On July 12 2013 12:16 Myrddraal wrote:
Well from her testimony (which I do agree is shaky) it sounded like Zimmerman initially was the aggressor and tried to grab Trayvon or something 'she heard Trayvon saying, "Get off. Get off,"'. There wouldn't be much physical evidence if he didn't actually actually physically hit him, and under the circumstances it would be understandable that Trayvon felt the need to defend himself since he had done nothing wrong and (as far as we know) received no explanation, though of course at a certain point Trayvon got the upper hand and was no longer defending himself.
By "something wrong prior" I meant that assuming that the above scenario was the case, that he followed Trayvon (not inherently wrong), attempted to subdue him (not extremely wrong, possibly only worthy of an assault charge) and after fearing for his life he killed Trayvon. So if this were the sequence of events, what he did initially may not be worthy of a harsh conviction, the result was the death of a person and I still feel he would be responsible. So according to her testimony, Trayvon left his father's fiancee's backyard, and went out looking for Zimmerman. Then Zimmerman approached him and attempted to physically subdue him, despite having no good reason for doing so, as he only observed Trayvon walking in the rain and not doing anything unlawful (not being sarcastic here). Pretty odd behavior for Zimmerman. And now you, hearing her testimony, believe it over a much more plausible version of events, which is the version put forward by Zimmerman and his defensive team, and you want to send Zimmerman to jail for it? I realize that there's a non-zero chance that Zimmerman did act completely out of line that night, and it's really impossible to know for sure. But on balance, Zimmerman's story seems much likelier, to me at least. On July 12 2013 12:16 Myrddraal wrote:On July 12 2013 11:56 sc2superfan101 wrote:
I want anyone to give me a scenario in which it is at all possible, given the evidence we've now seen, that Zimmerman somehow ran down a physically fit, 17 year old football player, and then started a fight only to get on the losing end (John Good's testimony), and then take back control of the fight (without injuring Trayvon in any way) and shoot him.
Because that sequence of events is 100% required to have occurred for Zimmerman to be guilty of what he's charged, and that, to me, is so unbelievably absurd a scenario that you might as well say that Zimmerman used his secret spiderman powers to do it. I was under the impression that he did most of his pursuing in his car, though correct me if I am wrong. He had to get out of his car to track Trayvon for a while. According to him, he lost Trayvon after a while, and was walking back towards his car when the incident occurred. Keep in mind that this is a good distance from Trayvon's home, where Rachel testified that Trayvon told her he was. Well I admit the idea that he went into the backyard and back out doesn't make sense to me, but the only explanation that makes sense to me is that she was confused and thought he made it back but he didn't, since I don't understand why she would lie about that since it does not help Trayvon's innocence, (assuming that it is implausible that he made there it back due to the distance). The part that I find more plausible is the actual confrontation and dialogue that she claims took place. Based on the evidence we do have, Zimmerman was following him and did not want him to get away, Trayvon was running away at some point, her description of the start of the actual encounter makes a lot more sense to me. I just can't see Trayvon, running scared on a rainy night, suddenly deciding "nah fuck it, I can take this guy" and sneaking up and attacking Zimmerman from some bushes, also without any explanation. I mean it is possible, I just don't see it as likely, if he could outrun Zimmerman easily, why not keep running? If someone is following you, wouldn't you try to find out why before attacking them and pummelling their face into the ground? Neither account fully adds up, they are both fairly sketchy. I'm not saying that he should be convicted based on this testimony alone, which is why I hoped for a recording of the phone conversation so we would have something solid, but based on the evidence it seems to me that he did something wrong and should be punished. Judging from his texts and his social media profiles, I can definitely see Martin doing something along those lines. But why run and then change his mind? How exactly do you propose that plays out? He's running away, loses Zimmerman takes it as an opportunity to sneak up on the creepy guy who is following him? And if we're going to make those kinds of judgements. Did you listen to the 911 calls? All of his behaviour was odd, he sounded disturbed, not to mention he's a racist wannabe cop! (last parts are sarcasm, his behaviour was pretty odd). Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 14:32 SilverLeagueElite wrote:On July 12 2013 13:51 Myrddraal wrote:On July 12 2013 12:47 FatChicksUnited wrote:On July 12 2013 12:16 Myrddraal wrote:
Well from her testimony (which I do agree is shaky) it sounded like Zimmerman initially was the aggressor and tried to grab Trayvon or something 'she heard Trayvon saying, "Get off. Get off,"'. There wouldn't be much physical evidence if he didn't actually actually physically hit him, and under the circumstances it would be understandable that Trayvon felt the need to defend himself since he had done nothing wrong and (as far as we know) received no explanation, though of course at a certain point Trayvon got the upper hand and was no longer defending himself.
By "something wrong prior" I meant that assuming that the above scenario was the case, that he followed Trayvon (not inherently wrong), attempted to subdue him (not extremely wrong, possibly only worthy of an assault charge) and after fearing for his life he killed Trayvon. So if this were the sequence of events, what he did initially may not be worthy of a harsh conviction, the result was the death of a person and I still feel he would be responsible. So according to her testimony, Trayvon left his father's fiancee's backyard, and went out looking for Zimmerman. Then Zimmerman approached him and attempted to physically subdue him, despite having no good reason for doing so, as he only observed Trayvon walking in the rain and not doing anything unlawful (not being sarcastic here). Pretty odd behavior for Zimmerman. And now you, hearing her testimony, believe it over a much more plausible version of events, which is the version put forward by Zimmerman and his defensive team, and you want to send Zimmerman to jail for it? I realize that there's a non-zero chance that Zimmerman did act completely out of line that night, and it's really impossible to know for sure. But on balance, Zimmerman's story seems much likelier, to me at least. On July 12 2013 12:16 Myrddraal wrote:On July 12 2013 11:56 sc2superfan101 wrote:
I want anyone to give me a scenario in which it is at all possible, given the evidence we've now seen, that Zimmerman somehow ran down a physically fit, 17 year old football player, and then started a fight only to get on the losing end (John Good's testimony), and then take back control of the fight (without injuring Trayvon in any way) and shoot him.
Because that sequence of events is 100% required to have occurred for Zimmerman to be guilty of what he's charged, and that, to me, is so unbelievably absurd a scenario that you might as well say that Zimmerman used his secret spiderman powers to do it. I was under the impression that he did most of his pursuing in his car, though correct me if I am wrong. He had to get out of his car to track Trayvon for a while. According to him, he lost Trayvon after a while, and was walking back towards his car when the incident occurred. Keep in mind that this is a good distance from Trayvon's home, where Rachel testified that Trayvon told her he was. I just can't see Trayvon, running scared on a rainy night, suddenly deciding "nah fuck it, I can take this guy" and sneaking up and attacking Zimmerman from some bushes, also without any explanation. I can understand that line of reasoning if it was coming from the jury but we, as third party onlookers have information the jury doesn't - namely the cell phone contents, which shows Trayvon leaning towards a thug life. I don't know, it's one thing to lean towards a thug life, and it's another to attack a grown man who's following you on a rainy night. Maybe you guys are right, maybe he was just stupid, but judging Zimmerman he was equally likely to do something stupid.
Is pissed as he's running away from Zimmerman and decides that he wants to get revenge on him. Proceeds to attack him and gets carried away as he's attacking him.
I'm not saying that's what happened, but with Trayvon's history, it's a plausible explanation,
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
