"A homicide may be considered justified if it is done to prevent a very serious crime, such as rape, armed robbery, manslaughter or murder. The assailant's intent to commit a serious crime must be clear at the time." "The circumstances under which homicide is justified are usually considered to be that the defendant had no alternative method of self-defense or defense of another than to kill the attacker."
I don't really see those conditions being met by Zimmerman considering he was large enough to fight back (or even retreat with the threat of the gun) vs. an unarmed man roughly his size who was not displaying any obvious intentions to commit a serious crime simply by walking at night.
Zimmerman was pinned on the ground on his back while beaing beaten in the head by Trayvon at the time of the shooting.
Why do people keep repeating this as is if its fact?
The alternative, as has been stated many times, is that Zimmerman was not told to chase Martin. This is actual fact as it is recorded in the 911 call. That's what makes the court case so complicated.
Regardless of whether his head was getting beat, he has no concrete evidence for this, while the 911 call is concrete evidence.
Just wanted to mention that being told "we don't need you to do that" is not the same as being told "do not do that".
"A homicide may be considered justified if it is done to prevent a very serious crime, such as rape, armed robbery, manslaughter or murder. The assailant's intent to commit a serious crime must be clear at the time." "The circumstances under which homicide is justified are usually considered to be that the defendant had no alternative method of self-defense or defense of another than to kill the attacker."
I don't really see those conditions being met by Zimmerman considering he was large enough to fight back (or even retreat with the threat of the gun) vs. an unarmed man roughly his size who was not displaying any obvious intentions to commit a serious crime simply by walking at night.
Zimmerman was pinned on the ground on his back while beaing beaten in the head by Trayvon at the time of the shooting.
Why do people keep repeating this as is if its fact?
The alternative, as has been stated many times, is that Zimmerman was not told to chase Martin. This is actual fact as it is recorded in the 911 call. That's what makes the court case so complicated.
Regardless of whether his head was getting beat, he has no concrete evidence for this, while the 911 call is concrete evidence.
Just wanted to mention that being told "we don't need you to do that" is not the same as being told "do not do that".
What the dispatcher said means little IMO. He does not have any obligations to obey her orders.
No he doesn't, even if the dispatcher did tell him to stand down he certainly would be perfectly in the right to ignore her. I just wanted to mention that this isn't even the case so people should stop saying he was ordered to stop pursuing him. He wasn't.
"A homicide may be considered justified if it is done to prevent a very serious crime, such as rape, armed robbery, manslaughter or murder. The assailant's intent to commit a serious crime must be clear at the time." "The circumstances under which homicide is justified are usually considered to be that the defendant had no alternative method of self-defense or defense of another than to kill the attacker."
I don't really see those conditions being met by Zimmerman considering he was large enough to fight back (or even retreat with the threat of the gun) vs. an unarmed man roughly his size who was not displaying any obvious intentions to commit a serious crime simply by walking at night.
Zimmerman was pinned on the ground on his back while beaing beaten in the head by Trayvon at the time of the shooting.
Why do people keep repeating this as is if its fact?
The alternative, as has been stated many times, is that Zimmerman was not told to chase Martin. This is actual fact as it is recorded in the 911 call. That's what makes the court case so complicated.
Regardless of whether his head was getting beat, he has no concrete evidence for this, while the 911 call is concrete evidence.
Just wanted to mention that being told "we don't need you to do that" is not the same as being told "do not do that".
What the dispatcher said means little IMO. He does not have any obligations to obey her orders.
No he doesn't, even if the dispatcher did tell him to stand down he certainly would be perfectly in the right to ignore her. I just wanted to mention that this isn't even the case so people should stop saying he was ordered to stop pursuing him. He wasn't.
You read it wrong
The alternative, as has been stated many times, is that Zimmerman was not told to chase Martin.
Its also further clarified in the following posts.
"A homicide may be considered justified if it is done to prevent a very serious crime, such as rape, armed robbery, manslaughter or murder. The assailant's intent to commit a serious crime must be clear at the time." "The circumstances under which homicide is justified are usually considered to be that the defendant had no alternative method of self-defense or defense of another than to kill the attacker."
I don't really see those conditions being met by Zimmerman considering he was large enough to fight back (or even retreat with the threat of the gun) vs. an unarmed man roughly his size who was not displaying any obvious intentions to commit a serious crime simply by walking at night.
The opinion that he was large enough to fight back is pure speculation. He looked like he had been beaten up pretty bad in pictures taken the night of the shooting. You can't judge someone's ability to fight back based purely on size. There are other factors such as ability and strength.
Zimmerman made the choice to confront Martin even after being told to stay where he was, and if you choose to start shit with someone that can beat your ass, well your ass is going to be beaten in self-defense. There is no reason to think that Martin would have killed Zimmerman because he had no motive or weapon.
Zimmerman went up to Martin and spoke with him. That can't really be considered "starting shit" can it?
That doesn't sound like an order to me, more like a suggestion.
How on Earth do you know what happened when Zimmerman confronted Martin, no one does, that is the point. Maybe Zimmerman tried to intimidate Martin with his gun, wouldn't that explain and excuse his attack? The only story we have is from Zimmerman ofc he is going to say the kid attacked him for no reason. The fact that he was the initiator and the only one armed requires that we give Martin the benefit of the doubt that he feared for his life and attacked out of self-defense.
Also he could have defended himself regardless of Martin's size with his gun in a non-lethal fashion (intimidation or non-lethal blow), so it still doesn't qualify as justifiable homicide.
On May 29 2013 10:40 Aveng3r wrote: I dont see how the criminal background that he apparently had is really relevant to the events that transpired the night of the shooting. As the guy above me said, he had a bag of skittles and tea. Unless Zimmerman somehow knew who Martin was and also somehow knew about his hidden background, how are these facts really relevant to the incident itself? All of this aside, as some of the other posters have said, I think we need to know who initiated the confrontation, and I have no idea how we are ever going to figure that out for sure.
To be honest, I don't think anyone but George Zimmerman himself knows. The thing that kind of stuck out to me was the fact that Zimmerman seems like he is a pretty big dude to be getting his ass kicked by some young kid. I don't know if he provoked the fight or not, but that part is pretty surprising to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trayvon_Martin#Trayvon_Martin Martin wasn't some little kid. He was 17 years old, was 5'11" tall, and weighed 158lbs. Zimmerman was 5'7" tall, and weighed 185lbs. I don't think that's a substantial enough difference to be able to say that Zimmerman should've been able to protect himself without his gun, especially considering we know neither how fit either Zimmerman or Martin were, nor who threw the first blow. For all we know, Zimmerman could've been all fat, and Martin all muscle.
Edit: I'm not trying to say I know Zimmerman didn't murder Martin. But the fact of the matter is, I also don't know that he did. Innocent until proven guilty.
I'm not disputing the last part, obviously we don't have enough evidence to say one way or the other and I agree. Innocent until proven guilty. I just thought it was interesting to note that Zimmerman is substantially larger than Trayvon, and older, and from just an outside view seemingly more likely to hold his own. 185 lbs @ 5'7 is a LOT bigger than 158 lbs @ 5'11 and I think it's completely reasonable to suggest that if Zimmerman was unarmed he probably wouldn't have been killed by a tall skinny 17 year old kid. Again, not saying that he was right or wrong, just that I think it's plausible to suggest he may not have needed the gun to get out of there alive.
No it's not, lol.
I'm 5'11.
15lbs of muscle for me has translated to lifting more than triple the weight. Martin is about the weight I was before I started lifting rofl, and I still consider myself skinny.
Weight and strength are two different things. You can be large and weak, just like you can be small and strong. Even with that, unless you're dealing with professional fighters, 27 pounds isn't enough of a difference in itself to give a large advantage one way or the other. Not to mention the height advantage for trayvon would lessen the weight "advantage" (because that weight could just be fat) for zimmerman even more.
Point is, they're too close in weight/height to say one would have a definite advantage over the other. It's entirely plausible zimmerman was knocked to the ground and pounded on.
"A homicide may be considered justified if it is done to prevent a very serious crime, such as rape, armed robbery, manslaughter or murder. The assailant's intent to commit a serious crime must be clear at the time." "The circumstances under which homicide is justified are usually considered to be that the defendant had no alternative method of self-defense or defense of another than to kill the attacker."
I don't really see those conditions being met by Zimmerman considering he was large enough to fight back (or even retreat with the threat of the gun) vs. an unarmed man roughly his size who was not displaying any obvious intentions to commit a serious crime simply by walking at night.
The opinion that he was large enough to fight back is pure speculation. He looked like he had been beaten up pretty bad in pictures taken the night of the shooting. You can't judge someone's ability to fight back based purely on size. There are other factors such as ability and strength.
Zimmerman made the choice to confront Martin even after being told to stay where he was, and if you choose to start shit with someone that can beat your ass, well your ass is going to be beaten in self-defense. There is no reason to think that Martin would have killed Zimmerman because he had no motive or weapon.
Zimmerman went up to Martin and spoke with him. That can't really be considered "starting shit" can it?
That doesn't sound like an order to me, more like a suggestion.
How on Earth do you know what happened when Zimmerman confronted Martin, no one does, that is the point. Maybe Zimmerman tried to intimidate Martin with his gun, wouldn't that explain and excuse his attack? The only story we have is from Zimmerman ofc he is going to say the kid attacked him for no reason. The fact that he was the initiator and the only one armed requires that we give Martin the benefit of the doubt that he feared for his life and attacked out of self-defense.
Also he could have defended himself regardless of Martin's size with his gun in a non-lethal fashion (intimidation or non-lethal blow), so it still doesn't qualify as justifiable homicide.
So let me get this straight. You think it's a possibility Zimmerman was waving a gun around and then Martin though his best bet was to rush him? You watch too many movies.
It's painfully obvious that Martin at some point attacked Zimmerman. Martin is clearly not a nice individual and has a history of violent behaviour. Zimmerman was beaten up pretty bad while Martin just had the bullet hole in his chest. The time frame from Zimmerman being on the phone to the fight. it's pretty clear what happened if you connect the dots.
"A homicide may be considered justified if it is done to prevent a very serious crime, such as rape, armed robbery, manslaughter or murder. The assailant's intent to commit a serious crime must be clear at the time." "The circumstances under which homicide is justified are usually considered to be that the defendant had no alternative method of self-defense or defense of another than to kill the attacker."
I don't really see those conditions being met by Zimmerman considering he was large enough to fight back (or even retreat with the threat of the gun) vs. an unarmed man roughly his size who was not displaying any obvious intentions to commit a serious crime simply by walking at night.
The opinion that he was large enough to fight back is pure speculation. He looked like he had been beaten up pretty bad in pictures taken the night of the shooting. You can't judge someone's ability to fight back based purely on size. There are other factors such as ability and strength.
Zimmerman made the choice to confront Martin even after being told to stay where he was, and if you choose to start shit with someone that can beat your ass, well your ass is going to be beaten in self-defense. There is no reason to think that Martin would have killed Zimmerman because he had no motive or weapon.
Zimmerman went up to Martin and spoke with him. That can't really be considered "starting shit" can it?
That doesn't sound like an order to me, more like a suggestion.
How on Earth do you know what happened when Zimmerman confronted Martin, no one does, that is the point. Maybe Zimmerman tried to intimidate Martin with his gun, wouldn't that explain and excuse his attack? The only story we have is from Zimmerman ofc he is going to say the kid attacked him for no reason. The fact that he was the initiator and the only one armed requires that we give Martin the benefit of the doubt that he feared for his life and attacked out of self-defense.
Also he could have defended himself regardless of Martin's size with his gun in a non-lethal fashion (intimidation or non-lethal blow), so it still doesn't qualify as justifiable homicide.
So let me get this straight. You think it's a possibility Zimmerman was waving a gun around and then Martin though his best bet was to rush him? You watch too many movies.
It's painfully obvious that Martin at some point attacked Zimmerman. Martin is clearly not a nice individual and has a history of violent behaviour. Zimmerman was beaten up pretty bad while Martin just had the bullet hole in his chest. The time frame from Zimmerman being on the phone to the fight. it's pretty clear what happened if you connect the dots.
I just stated that as an obvious example, there is any number of ways that Zimmerman could have made Martin fear for his life. Martin had noticed him watching him and even ran away from him, so maybe he feared being raped or kidnapped. The point is that we have to give Martin the benefit of the doubt because Zimmerman was the one who initiated the whole situation and had any violent intent going into it.
Also is thinking Martin charged Zimmerman with his gun really more outlandish than the story Zimmerman is trying to promote that Martin was just a raving lunatic that once confronted with a polite conversation tried to kill him? Come on...this defense is the most racist thing to happen yet in this case. It is truly sad how many people will buy into this image of a thug n*gger that will bash your head in the second you question him.
"A homicide may be considered justified if it is done to prevent a very serious crime, such as rape, armed robbery, manslaughter or murder. The assailant's intent to commit a serious crime must be clear at the time." "The circumstances under which homicide is justified are usually considered to be that the defendant had no alternative method of self-defense or defense of another than to kill the attacker."
I don't really see those conditions being met by Zimmerman considering he was large enough to fight back (or even retreat with the threat of the gun) vs. an unarmed man roughly his size who was not displaying any obvious intentions to commit a serious crime simply by walking at night.
The opinion that he was large enough to fight back is pure speculation. He looked like he had been beaten up pretty bad in pictures taken the night of the shooting. You can't judge someone's ability to fight back based purely on size. There are other factors such as ability and strength.
Zimmerman made the choice to confront Martin even after being told to stay where he was, and if you choose to start shit with someone that can beat your ass, well your ass is going to be beaten in self-defense. There is no reason to think that Martin would have killed Zimmerman because he had no motive or weapon.
Zimmerman went up to Martin and spoke with him. That can't really be considered "starting shit" can it?
That doesn't sound like an order to me, more like a suggestion.
How on Earth do you know what happened when Zimmerman confronted Martin, no one does, that is the point. Maybe Zimmerman tried to intimidate Martin with his gun, wouldn't that explain and excuse his attack? The only story we have is from Zimmerman ofc he is going to say the kid attacked him for no reason. The fact that he was the initiator and the only one armed requires that we give Martin the benefit of the doubt that he feared for his life and attacked out of self-defense.
Also he could have defended himself regardless of Martin's size with his gun in a non-lethal fashion (intimidation or non-lethal blow), so it still doesn't qualify as justifiable homicide.
So let me get this straight. You think it's a possibility Zimmerman was waving a gun around and then Martin though his best bet was to rush him? You watch too many movies.
It's painfully obvious that Martin at some point attacked Zimmerman. Martin is clearly not a nice individual and has a history of violent behaviour. Zimmerman was beaten up pretty bad while Martin just had the bullet hole in his chest. The time frame from Zimmerman being on the phone to the fight. it's pretty clear what happened if you connect the dots.
Zimmerman also has a history of very violent behaviour and for having a short temper.
"A homicide may be considered justified if it is done to prevent a very serious crime, such as rape, armed robbery, manslaughter or murder. The assailant's intent to commit a serious crime must be clear at the time." "The circumstances under which homicide is justified are usually considered to be that the defendant had no alternative method of self-defense or defense of another than to kill the attacker."
I don't really see those conditions being met by Zimmerman considering he was large enough to fight back (or even retreat with the threat of the gun) vs. an unarmed man roughly his size who was not displaying any obvious intentions to commit a serious crime simply by walking at night.
The opinion that he was large enough to fight back is pure speculation. He looked like he had been beaten up pretty bad in pictures taken the night of the shooting. You can't judge someone's ability to fight back based purely on size. There are other factors such as ability and strength.
Zimmerman made the choice to confront Martin even after being told to stay where he was, and if you choose to start shit with someone that can beat your ass, well your ass is going to be beaten in self-defense. There is no reason to think that Martin would have killed Zimmerman because he had no motive or weapon.
Zimmerman went up to Martin and spoke with him. That can't really be considered "starting shit" can it?
That doesn't sound like an order to me, more like a suggestion.
How on Earth do you know what happened when Zimmerman confronted Martin, no one does, that is the point. Maybe Zimmerman tried to intimidate Martin with his gun, wouldn't that explain and excuse his attack? The only story we have is from Zimmerman ofc he is going to say the kid attacked him for no reason. The fact that he was the initiator and the only one armed requires that we give Martin the benefit of the doubt that he feared for his life and attacked out of self-defense.
Also he could have defended himself regardless of Martin's size with his gun in a non-lethal fashion (intimidation or non-lethal blow), so it still doesn't qualify as justifiable homicide.
So let me get this straight. You think it's a possibility Zimmerman was waving a gun around and then Martin though his best bet was to rush him? You watch too many movies.
It's painfully obvious that Martin at some point attacked Zimmerman. Martin is clearly not a nice individual and has a history of violent behaviour. Zimmerman was beaten up pretty bad while Martin just had the bullet hole in his chest. The time frame from Zimmerman being on the phone to the fight. it's pretty clear what happened if you connect the dots.
I just stated that as an obvious example, there is any number of ways that Zimmerman could have made Martin fear for his life. Martin had noticed him watching him and even ran away from him, so maybe he feared being raped or kidnapped. The point is that we have to give Martin the benefit of the doubt because Zimmerman was the one who initiated the whole situation and had any violent intent going into it.
Also is thinking Martin charged Zimmerman with his gun really more outlandish than the story Zimmerman is trying to promote that Martin was just a raving lunatic that once confronted with a polite conversation tried to kill him? Come on...this defense is the most racist thing to happen yet in this case. It is truly sad how many people will buy into this image of a thug n*gger that will bash your head in the second you question him.
It's not really the issue of whether people buy into it or not. The question is: is there a reasonable chance that Zimmerman fired after being beaten up badly, in self defense? If the answer to that is yes, even if you don't think that it was the case, then you have to find him not guilty. The evidence does show Zimmerman being badly beaten and Martin with only the gunshot wound as an injury, which suggests that, no matter what provocation occurred, Martin was indeed beating the shit out of Zimmerman who then fired in self defense. Anything else is just speculation really, and that's not enough to convict a man on.
"A homicide may be considered justified if it is done to prevent a very serious crime, such as rape, armed robbery, manslaughter or murder. The assailant's intent to commit a serious crime must be clear at the time." "The circumstances under which homicide is justified are usually considered to be that the defendant had no alternative method of self-defense or defense of another than to kill the attacker."
I don't really see those conditions being met by Zimmerman considering he was large enough to fight back (or even retreat with the threat of the gun) vs. an unarmed man roughly his size who was not displaying any obvious intentions to commit a serious crime simply by walking at night.
The opinion that he was large enough to fight back is pure speculation. He looked like he had been beaten up pretty bad in pictures taken the night of the shooting. You can't judge someone's ability to fight back based purely on size. There are other factors such as ability and strength.
Zimmerman made the choice to confront Martin even after being told to stay where he was, and if you choose to start shit with someone that can beat your ass, well your ass is going to be beaten in self-defense. There is no reason to think that Martin would have killed Zimmerman because he had no motive or weapon.
Zimmerman went up to Martin and spoke with him. That can't really be considered "starting shit" can it?
That doesn't sound like an order to me, more like a suggestion.
How on Earth do you know what happened when Zimmerman confronted Martin, no one does, that is the point. Maybe Zimmerman tried to intimidate Martin with his gun, wouldn't that explain and excuse his attack? The only story we have is from Zimmerman ofc he is going to say the kid attacked him for no reason. The fact that he was the initiator and the only one armed requires that we give Martin the benefit of the doubt that he feared for his life and attacked out of self-defense.
Also he could have defended himself regardless of Martin's size with his gun in a non-lethal fashion (intimidation or non-lethal blow), so it still doesn't qualify as justifiable homicide.
So let me get this straight. You think it's a possibility Zimmerman was waving a gun around and then Martin though his best bet was to rush him? You watch too many movies.
It's painfully obvious that Martin at some point attacked Zimmerman. Martin is clearly not a nice individual and has a history of violent behaviour. Zimmerman was beaten up pretty bad while Martin just had the bullet hole in his chest. The time frame from Zimmerman being on the phone to the fight. it's pretty clear what happened if you connect the dots.
I just stated that as an obvious example, there is any number of ways that Zimmerman could have made Martin fear for his life. Martin had noticed him watching him and even ran away from him, so maybe he feared being raped or kidnapped. The point is that we have to give Martin the benefit of the doubt because Zimmerman was the one who initiated the whole situation and had any violent intent going into it.
Also is thinking Martin charged Zimmerman with his gun really more outlandish than the story Zimmerman is trying to promote that Martin was just a raving lunatic that once confronted with a polite conversation tried to kill him? Come on...this defense is the most racist thing to happen yet in this case. It is truly sad how many people will buy into this image of a thug n*gger that will bash your head in the second you question him.
It's not really the issue of whether people buy into it or not. The question is: is there a reasonable chance that Zimmerman fired after being beaten up badly, in self defense? If the answer to that is yes, even if you don't think that it was the case, then you have to find him not guilty. The evidence does show Zimmerman being badly beaten and Martin with only the gunshot wound as an injury, which suggests that, no matter what provocation occurred, Martin was indeed beating the shit out of Zimmerman who then fired in self defense. Anything else is just speculation really, and that's not enough to convict a man on.
Please don't say something like "anything else is just speculation", when your entire post is pure speculation...
If Zimmerman assaulted Trayvon which is a likely possibility considering Zimmerman has a record of assaulting police officers, people and domestic violence and was generally known by people that knew him for having a bad temper. Doing so gives Trayvon a right to slam Zimmermans head into the pavement, however now that Zimmerman is in fear for his life, is he allowed to pull out the gun and shoot him? I don't know, but seems weird if its allowed.
A random person grabs me and throws me, or wrestles me, do I have to wait for you to bloody my face before I can fight back? I don't think so. In fact the exact same excuse would apply to Trayvon, than to Zimmerman. Of course the only person that can give an account to what happened, is the person that is still alive, so how do you think the story will be when his future career is at stake?
Also witness reports of people that I will admit only heard the event, paint a very different picture to the one and only witness that Zimmerman had.
"A homicide may be considered justified if it is done to prevent a very serious crime, such as rape, armed robbery, manslaughter or murder. The assailant's intent to commit a serious crime must be clear at the time." "The circumstances under which homicide is justified are usually considered to be that the defendant had no alternative method of self-defense or defense of another than to kill the attacker."
I don't really see those conditions being met by Zimmerman considering he was large enough to fight back (or even retreat with the threat of the gun) vs. an unarmed man roughly his size who was not displaying any obvious intentions to commit a serious crime simply by walking at night.
Zimmerman was pinned on the ground on his back while beaing beaten in the head by Trayvon at the time of the shooting.
Why do people keep repeating this as is if its fact?
The alternative, as has been stated many times, is that Zimmerman was not told to chase Martin. This is actual fact as it is recorded in the 911 call. That's what makes the court case so complicated.
Regardless of whether his head was getting beat, he has no concrete evidence for this, while the 911 call is concrete evidence.
Just wanted to mention that being told "we don't need you to do that" is not the same as being told "do not do that".
What the dispatcher said means little IMO. He does not have any obligations to obey her orders.
No he doesn't, even if the dispatcher did tell him to stand down he certainly would be perfectly in the right to ignore her. I just wanted to mention that this isn't even the case so people should stop saying he was ordered to stop pursuing him. He wasn't.
On May 30 2013 13:21 theaxis12 wrote: I just stated that as an obvious example, there is any number of ways that Zimmerman could have made Martin fear for his life. Martin had noticed him watching him and even ran away from him, so maybe he feared being raped or kidnapped. The point is that we have to give Martin the benefit of the doubt because Zimmerman was the one who initiated the whole situation and had any violent intent going into it.
We don't have to give Martin the benefit of the doubt. He's dead. He's not on trial. What was in his head is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is Zimmerman's perception of what was happening. Actually, your last sentence is complete garbage, since there's nothing wrong with "initiating the whole situation" when you are trying to keep aware of someone you don't recognize in the neighborhood, considering the recent crimes. You're also assuming Zimmerman had violent intent ? Please.
On May 30 2013 13:21 theaxis12 wrote: Also is thinking Martin charged Zimmerman with his gun really more outlandish than the story Zimmerman is trying to promote that Martin was just a raving lunatic that once confronted with a polite conversation tried to kill him? Come on...this defense is the most racist thing to happen yet in this case. It is truly sad how many people will buy into this image of a thug n*gger that will bash your head in the second you question him.
Yeah, totally unrealistic image of thugs.
Oh, wait, we see it all the time. Not to mention, Trayvon specifically liked to get in fights ... Did you not know that or conveniently ignore the facts that are out there ?
Lawyers for George Zimmerman will not be permitted to mention pictures of drugs and guns found on Trayvon Martin's cell phone during opening statements in Zimmerman's trial for murder next month, a judge ruled today.
Although I can somewhat agree with that ruling I am still uncomfortable with it. I understand Trayvon isn't the one on trial here, but I think those photos expose his character.
Also I still can't believe people are arguing about Zimmerman being "ordered" to not follow Trayvon. Are you guys unaware that 911 dispatchers have zero legal authority. Not only that but he wasn't necessarily told not to follow him. As for the confrontation that's still being disputed as well. It's not proven that Zimmerman approached (confronted) Trayvon. Everyone seems to be jumping the gun on this topic and it's really irritating at times. Yes Trayvon is dead and all we have is Zimmerman's testimony to rely on, but that doesn't mean we can just make our own accusations about what may or may not have happened.
Zimmerman told investigators he was returning to his vehicle when Martin approached him from his left rear and confronted him.
Lawyers for George Zimmerman will not be permitted to mention pictures of drugs and guns found on Trayvon Martin's cell phone during opening statements in Zimmerman's trial for murder next month, a judge ruled today.
Although I can somewhat agree with that ruling I am still uncomfortable with it. I understand Trayvon isn't the one on trial here, but I think those photos expose his character.
Also I still can't believe people are arguing about Zimmerman being "ordered" to not follow Trayvon. Are you guys unaware that 911 dispatchers have zero legal authority. Not only that but he wasn't necessarily told not to follow him. As for the confrontation that's still being disputed as well. It's not proven that Zimmerman approached (confronted) Trayvon. Everyone seems to be jumping the gun on this topic and it's really irritating at times. Yes Trayvon is dead and all we have is Zimmerman's testimony to rely on, but that doesn't mean we can just make our own accusations about what may or may not have happened.
Zimmerman told investigators he was returning to his vehicle when Martin approached him from his left rear and confronted him.
What we have is an armed man who was told not to follow someone, following that person anyway, and the person ending up dead because of it. Those are the facts of the case. Unless Z man had access to those photos before he followed travyon, those are irrelevant to the facts.
Lawyers for George Zimmerman will not be permitted to mention pictures of drugs and guns found on Trayvon Martin's cell phone during opening statements in Zimmerman's trial for murder next month, a judge ruled today.
Although I can somewhat agree with that ruling I am still uncomfortable with it. I understand Trayvon isn't the one on trial here, but I think those photos expose his character.
Also I still can't believe people are arguing about Zimmerman being "ordered" to not follow Trayvon. Are you guys unaware that 911 dispatchers have zero legal authority. Not only that but he wasn't necessarily told not to follow him. As for the confrontation that's still being disputed as well. It's not proven that Zimmerman approached (confronted) Trayvon. Everyone seems to be jumping the gun on this topic and it's really irritating at times. Yes Trayvon is dead and all we have is Zimmerman's testimony to rely on, but that doesn't mean we can just make our own accusations about what may or may not have happened.
Zimmerman told investigators he was returning to his vehicle when Martin approached him from his left rear and confronted him.
What we have is an armed man who was told not to follow someone, following that person anyway, and the person ending up dead because of it. Those are the facts of the case. Unless Z man had access to those photos before he followed travyon, those are irrelevant to the facts.
Whatever the dispatcher told Zimmerman means nothing, really. The dispatcher doesn't even know the entire situation except what Zimmernman describes, and she can only give out a standardized answer. I am guessing as time goes on Zimmerman will actually talk about why he followed him - and I am sure he will have a good reason for it (whether or not we can believe it or not).
Lawyers for George Zimmerman will not be permitted to mention pictures of drugs and guns found on Trayvon Martin's cell phone during opening statements in Zimmerman's trial for murder next month, a judge ruled today.
Although I can somewhat agree with that ruling I am still uncomfortable with it. I understand Trayvon isn't the one on trial here, but I think those photos expose his character.
Also I still can't believe people are arguing about Zimmerman being "ordered" to not follow Trayvon. Are you guys unaware that 911 dispatchers have zero legal authority. Not only that but he wasn't necessarily told not to follow him. As for the confrontation that's still being disputed as well. It's not proven that Zimmerman approached (confronted) Trayvon. Everyone seems to be jumping the gun on this topic and it's really irritating at times. Yes Trayvon is dead and all we have is Zimmerman's testimony to rely on, but that doesn't mean we can just make our own accusations about what may or may not have happened.
Zimmerman told investigators he was returning to his vehicle when Martin approached him from his left rear and confronted him.
What we have is an armed man who was told not to follow someone, following that person anyway, and the person ending up dead because of it. Those are the facts of the case. Unless Z man had access to those photos before he followed travyon, those are irrelevant to the facts.
Claiming something is a fact doesn't make it a fact. The transcript of his conversation says the dispatcher told him "you don't need to do that" and as we have discussed already, that conversation doesn't matter anyway. He doesn't have an obligation to obey an order from the dispatcher even if she was giving him one..which she wasn't.
Lawyers for George Zimmerman will not be permitted to mention pictures of drugs and guns found on Trayvon Martin's cell phone during opening statements in Zimmerman's trial for murder next month, a judge ruled today.
Although I can somewhat agree with that ruling I am still uncomfortable with it. I understand Trayvon isn't the one on trial here, but I think those photos expose his character.
Also I still can't believe people are arguing about Zimmerman being "ordered" to not follow Trayvon. Are you guys unaware that 911 dispatchers have zero legal authority. Not only that but he wasn't necessarily told not to follow him. As for the confrontation that's still being disputed as well. It's not proven that Zimmerman approached (confronted) Trayvon. Everyone seems to be jumping the gun on this topic and it's really irritating at times. Yes Trayvon is dead and all we have is Zimmerman's testimony to rely on, but that doesn't mean we can just make our own accusations about what may or may not have happened.
Zimmerman told investigators he was returning to his vehicle when Martin approached him from his left rear and confronted him.
What we have is an armed man who was told not to follow someone, following that person anyway, and the person ending up dead because of it. Those are the facts of the case. Unless Z man had access to those photos before he followed travyon, those are irrelevant to the facts.
Claiming something is a fact doesn't make it a fact. The transcript of his conversation says the dispatcher told him "you don't need to do that" and as we have discussed already, that conversation doesn't matter anyway. He doesn't have an obligation to obey an order from the dispatcher even if she was giving him one..which she wasn't.
It's literally the only thing we have that isn't testimony.
Z man says he's following someone. They inform him otherwise. Z man ends up near trav's house anyway with a dead body in front of him.
Those are the only facts we have apart from testimonies which we will trust or not trust based on whatever arbitrary creed you follow.
Lawyers for George Zimmerman will not be permitted to mention pictures of drugs and guns found on Trayvon Martin's cell phone during opening statements in Zimmerman's trial for murder next month, a judge ruled today.
Although I can somewhat agree with that ruling I am still uncomfortable with it. I understand Trayvon isn't the one on trial here, but I think those photos expose his character.
Also I still can't believe people are arguing about Zimmerman being "ordered" to not follow Trayvon. Are you guys unaware that 911 dispatchers have zero legal authority. Not only that but he wasn't necessarily told not to follow him. As for the confrontation that's still being disputed as well. It's not proven that Zimmerman approached (confronted) Trayvon. Everyone seems to be jumping the gun on this topic and it's really irritating at times. Yes Trayvon is dead and all we have is Zimmerman's testimony to rely on, but that doesn't mean we can just make our own accusations about what may or may not have happened.
Zimmerman told investigators he was returning to his vehicle when Martin approached him from his left rear and confronted him.
What we have is an armed man who was told not to follow someone, following that person anyway, and the person ending up dead because of it. Those are the facts of the case. Unless Z man had access to those photos before he followed travyon, those are irrelevant to the facts.
Claiming something is a fact doesn't make it a fact. The transcript of his conversation says the dispatcher told him "you don't need to do that" and as we have discussed already, that conversation doesn't matter anyway. He doesn't have an obligation to obey an order from the dispatcher even if she was giving him one..which she wasn't.
It's literally the only thing we have that isn't testimony.
Z man says he's following someone. They inform him otherwise. Z man ends up near trav's house anyway with a dead body in front of him.
Those are the only facts we have apart from testimonies which we will trust or not trust based on whatever arbitrary creed you follow.
You can't twist the facts to fit your narrative. What do you mean they inform him otherwise? They literally said "we don't need you to do that". The only facts you say? What about Zimmerman's beat up face? That's not a fact to you?
The operator informing zimmerman to not follow isn't really relevant. One thing to keep in mind is that just because zimmerman lost the fight doesn't mean he was in the right. We may never know who initiated the scuffle but if zimmerman did initiate it and used his gun after he started to lose than he is in the wrong. I wouldn't want to be on the jury.
On May 30 2013 13:21 theaxis12 wrote: I just stated that as an obvious example, there is any number of ways that Zimmerman could have made Martin fear for his life. Martin had noticed him watching him and even ran away from him, so maybe he feared being raped or kidnapped. The point is that we have to give Martin the benefit of the doubt because Zimmerman was the one who initiated the whole situation and had any violent intent going into it.
We don't have to give Martin the benefit of the doubt. He's dead. He's not on trial. What was in his head is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is Zimmerman's perception of what was happening. Actually, your last sentence is complete garbage, since there's nothing wrong with "initiating the whole situation" when you are trying to keep aware of someone you don't recognize in the neighborhood, considering the recent crimes. You're also assuming Zimmerman had violent intent ? Please.
On May 30 2013 13:21 theaxis12 wrote: Also is thinking Martin charged Zimmerman with his gun really more outlandish than the story Zimmerman is trying to promote that Martin was just a raving lunatic that once confronted with a polite conversation tried to kill him? Come on...this defense is the most racist thing to happen yet in this case. It is truly sad how many people will buy into this image of a thug n*gger that will bash your head in the second you question him.
Oh, wait, we see it all the time. Not to mention, Trayvon specifically liked to get in fights ... Did you not know that or conveniently ignore the facts that are out there ?
User was temp banned for this post.
Zimmerman may actually have had "violent intent".
Zimmerman also liked to get into fights, a lot. Unlike Trayvon the evidence is not in the form of texts (beating up snitches), but being fired from work for needlessly pushing his weight around, even at one point throwing a woman and breaking her ankle, and going to court for domestic violence. He was known by many to have a short temper and to start fights.
EPT
