Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (2 Viewers)

[The Commish]

EDIT: Anderson Cooper asks you if you'd have GZ on your neighborhood watch and you don't immediately say "No"? WTF is with that? Yes, please let's have the guy on our streets with a propensity to kill teenagers when he gets into trouble.

I'd like to have GZ on my neighborhood watch. Guy was on top of it. The woman who suffered the home invasion made him sound like a pretty good watch captain.

Really? The guy has made choices that help put him in life/death situations without any means to defend himself other than his gun (if we indeed believe he's an out of shape dough boy with no fighting skills). Why would you want him on your watch?

What choices? I don't think getting out of his car is a big deal. I don't think it's a big deal even if he followed Martin and asked him what he was up to. You;d prefer a watch captain that didn't look out for potential crimes?

So you're sitting here telling me that him getting out of his car or following Martin didn't help get to the point where they were in a scuffle and Zimmerman ends up shooting this kid? Is it your belief that if he stays in his car and lets the cops do their job, this still happens?

As to your question on my preference, my preference of the neighborhood watch is for them to observe, call the cops and let the cops do their job. That's my preference.

 

[RUSF18]

You left out

1. Assumed Martin was a criminal for no reason at all

WRONG.

 

[lod01]

 

[Henry Ford]

I want to clarify some points I tried to make earlier:

1. I believe that George Zimmerman initiated the confrontation between himself and Trayvon Martin. Even if he did not, I believe that George Zimmerman was the person responsible for that confrontation.

2. I do not believe George Zimmerman was ever seriously injured. I do not believe he ever reasonably feared for his life, or feared serious injury.

These two points are the main reasons I believe Zimmerman committed manslaughter. If Martin was the one who confronted Zimmerman, and Zimmerman truly an reasonably believed his life or serious injury was at risk, then he had the right to defend himself- I want to make clear that I do NOT dispute this argument- only the facts of what exactly happened here.

"Tim thinks" doesn't really get past reasonable doubt.

 

[glock]

Shut it doowwn!

 

[derek245583]

Also, and this was almost assuredly addressed somewhere in this 400 page thread...

If you are all alone in your neighborhood at night and you are caught in an altercation (for any reason) and getting your ### whooped. What would you do if you had a gun on you?

Surely that has been gone over. Maybe a vote taken or something...

 

[The Commish]

I agree he was unarmed... But how can we say for sure he was "doing nothing wrong"??

Isn't it entirely possible that Zimmerman stopped a theft by following him? Or that he was staking out places to go back to later and steal stuff?

You can say that using technicalities like the Zimmerman guys are. "Technically" walking between the houses in the rain is not illegal" just like "Technically Zimmerman following this kid wasn't illegal". It's disingenuous to suggest that since they weren't illegal they weren't wrong and didn't contribute to the outcome of the case, but here we are.

I'm not saying what Zimmerman did wasn't dumb or misguided or anything like that...

I'm just pointing out that there is still such a massive push to paint Martin in such a ridiculously positive light. I doubt any of those protesters in California know he was high when he died or that he regularly was in fights at school or had just been suspended for stealing or any of that stuff. They think he was a straight-laced, nice 12 year old kid (because that's all the media is willing to portray him as).

They also think George Zimmerman is 100% white.

Should also be noted that I don't speak for anyone but myself here. I am not aware of anyone in this thread that thinks Martin was squeaky clean. There's hyperbole to the effect of "child with a pack of skittles and an Arizona Tea" that pops up, but most understand that Martin made bad choices too. If you want to argue all your "possibilities" do it with those who are making the claims you are responding too.

I'm just pointing out that the media is utterly ridiculous (well, and Tim and possibly Clifford)...

That's all, carry on

Plenty of crazy on all sides. That's for sure.

 

[17seconds]

I guess if some of you think it's cool - even preferable under the right circumstances - for your neighborhood watch to kill people then I got nothing for you.

do you not think people have a right to defend themselves or is your right to self defense abrogated when you join the neighborhood watch?

Neither

 

[timschochet]

I , I

1. I , I

2. I . I

I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StfLy3pzno0

You used to have more to offer. Lately you've become a one-trick pony.

Says the guy who posts more "I"s here than in a song about finding solace from his isolation through the TV and radio.

Would you prefer if I said We?

 

[larry_boy_44]

I want to clarify some points I tried to make earlier:

1. I believe that George Zimmerman initiated the confrontation between himself and Trayvon Martin. Even if he did not, I believe that George Zimmerman was the person responsible for that confrontation.

2. I do not believe George Zimmerman was ever seriously injured. I do not believe he ever reasonably feared for his life, or feared serious injury.

These two points are the main reasons I believe Zimmerman committed manslaughter. If Martin was the one who confronted Zimmerman, and Zimmerman truly an reasonably believed his life or serious injury was at risk, then he had the right to defend himself- I want to make clear that I do NOT dispute this argument- only the facts of what exactly happened here.

Have you ever been in a fight where someone was on top of you and dropping punches MMA-style?

 

[RCon]

I want to clarify some points I tried to make earlier:

1. I believe that George Zimmerman initiated the confrontation between himself and Trayvon Martin. Even if he did not, I believe that George Zimmerman was the person responsible for that confrontation.

2. I do not believe George Zimmerman was ever seriously injured. I do not believe he ever reasonably feared for his life, or feared serious injury.

These two points are the main reasons I believe Zimmerman committed manslaughter. If Martin was the one who confronted Zimmerman, and Zimmerman truly an reasonably believed his life or serious injury was at risk, then he had the right to defend himself- I want to make clear that I do NOT dispute this argument- only the facts of what exactly happened here.

I just don't get your #1 here. There is literally no evidence that Z initiated the physical confrontation. Zero. So why do you keep on insisting that's what you believe happened?

Well first off, I do notice how careful you are to insert the word "physical", which I did not. There is no evidence as to who started the physical confrontation, outside of Zimmerman's self-serving testimony. However, so long as my point #2 is correct I would argue that Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter IF

1. Zimmerman physically assaulted Martin first, OR

2. Zimmerman initiated a confrontation which led to Martin physically assaulting Zimmerman, OR

3. Zimmerman chose to follow Martin which caused Martin to turn around and confront Zimmerman.

If any of the 3 happened, and if Zimmerman's injuries were not serious and he was not in reasonable fear of his life and/or serious injury, then he is guilty of manslaughter. Also, even if Zimmerman did reasonably fear serious injury or death, he is STILL guilty of manslaughter if he initiated the confrontation, physical or otherwise.

You're dead wrong on #2 and #3 above. It is the physical confrontation that matters in this case. Following someone != initiating a confrontation.

Also, there is literally zero evidence that "Zimmerman initiated a confrontation which led to Martin physically assaulting Zimmerman".

Is there any actual evidence that "Zimmerman chose to follow Martin which caused Martin to turn around and confront Zimmerman" past the point where he called 911?

Again, you're free to say you simply think he's a lying scumbag and discount everything he says, but that would put us at zero evidence in either direction, wouldn't it?

 

[17seconds]

What Juror B37 said in the CNN interview was pretty outrageous, IMO. She has so much sympathy for GZ it is baffles me.

When asked if she felt sorry for TM she answered that she felt sorry for both of them. ok... Remember one person is an adult who is a free man and the other is a minor and dead. Didn't even hint that TM has it worse than GZ. She said TM attacked GZ because he was angry and fed up with GZ (where is the evidence for that?). She stated GZ's narrative (the defendant!) as completely true - expressing no doubt whatsoever. She said she thinks GZ would have treated any other person of any race the same way. She even said she would have GZ on her neighborhood watch. wow

I haven't been on the side of the Sharptons of the world, but if that attitude doesn't drive home the fact that black life has less meaning then I don't know what does. It's so latently racist it's incredible. No way in hell she gives all of those answers if it was a white middle class 17yo. No damn way.

WOW. That minor flashed gang symbols and bragged about street-fighting, was suspended from school for thievery, and was 17 yo and over 150#.

I still find it ridiculous that so many can't even comprehend of a scenario where a kid like this wouldn't have attacked the "cracka" who had the audacity to try to follow him in the cracka's own neighborhood. It's almost obscene not to acknowledge this as a legitimate possibility given that all the evidence supports that story and NONE disputes it. INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY....you don't have to believe GZs tale...you have to PROVE it false.

It's not racism, it's common %#&*$ sense...find some.

You are totally ignorant of my view of the case. If I were a juror I would have found him not guilty. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt though, we are getting near 500 pages.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Also want to point out regarding the accusation that some in the media regarding the jurors as racist:

To suggest that someone who is not black cannot truly understand what it is to be black, and therefore may be lacking proper empathy in this case- that is NOT a racist argument IMO. It is a very controversial argument, and one which I'm not sure I agree with (frankly, sometimes I agree with it, sometimes I don't- in the case of the Zimmerman trial I probably don't agree with it.) But anyone who makes this argument is not calling the jurors racist.

No, but can we agree that anyone who would argue that is, themselves, racist?

 

[Spanky267]

I guess if some of you think it's cool - even preferable under the right circumstances - for your neighborhood watch to kill people then I got nothing for you.

do you not think people have a right to defend themselves or is your right to self defense abrogated when you join the neighborhood watch?

Speaking for myself, I think "self defense" should be out the window when you set the event in motion, but I stated that early on and that it would be hard to get me away from that opinion. That doesn't matter much to Florida law though and I'd have given the non guilty verdict because the law requires me to. For me, it had nothing to do with him being on neighborhood watch.

Its not that it doesnt matter much in Florida law. It doesnt matter much in any state. Nothing that Zimmerman did, that is known leads to the conclusion that he was the aggressor. The only way a common self defense assertion gets tossed is if Zimmerman was the aggressor. The state had no evidence to prove such an assertion. conceivably any neighborhood watch member who follows a suspicious character could be considered an "aggressor" by that logic.

Zimmerman was monumentally stupid. He put himself in danger. But I see nothing to indicate aggressive behavior on his part. No injuries on Martin besides the gunshot wound and the injuries on his knuckles. Maybe Zimmerman was punching Martin's knuckles with his nose and the back of his head own head.

 

[drummer]

I , I

1. I , I

2. I . I

I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StfLy3pzno0

You used to have more to offer. Lately you've become a one-trick pony.

Says the guy who posts more "I"s here than in a song about finding solace from his isolation through the TV and radio.

Would you prefer if I said We?

My preference has nothing to do with your isolation. Unless you're searching for approval. To which has everything to do with your isolation.

 

[timschochet]

Also want to point out regarding the accusation that some in the media regarding the jurors as racist:

To suggest that someone who is not black cannot truly understand what it is to be black, and therefore may be lacking proper empathy in this case- that is NOT a racist argument IMO. It is a very controversial argument, and one which I'm not sure I agree with (frankly, sometimes I agree with it, sometimes I don't- in the case of the Zimmerman trial I probably don't agree with it.) But anyone who makes this argument is not calling the jurors racist.

I am not sure if this is the right spot to put it...but how can people say "everyone's the same, we are all equal" then turn around and say "You dont know what its like to be such and such type of person, so cut them some slack...you werent raised that way"

If I treat everyone equally and on the same level playing field, then when they do something wrong they are going to be judged on that same level playing field.

I am honestly having a hard time understanding that. Help please.

"We are all equal" is not the equivalent of "everyone's the same." The first is an ideal, anyhow, not reality. African-Americans are NOT treated equally in our judicial system, and this is part of the whole problem.

 

[timschochet]

I want to clarify some points I tried to make earlier:

1. I believe that George Zimmerman initiated the confrontation between himself and Trayvon Martin. Even if he did not, I believe that George Zimmerman was the person responsible for that confrontation.

2. I do not believe George Zimmerman was ever seriously injured. I do not believe he ever reasonably feared for his life, or feared serious injury.

These two points are the main reasons I believe Zimmerman committed manslaughter. If Martin was the one who confronted Zimmerman, and Zimmerman truly an reasonably believed his life or serious injury was at risk, then he had the right to defend himself- I want to make clear that I do NOT dispute this argument- only the facts of what exactly happened here.

Have you ever been in a fight where someone was on top of you and dropping punches MMA-style?

No. And based on the state's ME's testimony, neither was George Zimmerman. John Good saw what he saw, but he did not see Martin seriously inflicting pain to GZ. The injuries were extremely minor, and not enough to warrant reasonable fear of death or serious injury. That is my opinion.

 

[The Commish]

I want to clarify some points I tried to make earlier:

1. I believe that George Zimmerman initiated the confrontation between himself and Trayvon Martin. Even if he did not, I believe that George Zimmerman was the person responsible for that confrontation.

2. I do not believe George Zimmerman was ever seriously injured. I do not believe he ever reasonably feared for his life, or feared serious injury.

These two points are the main reasons I believe Zimmerman committed manslaughter. If Martin was the one who confronted Zimmerman, and Zimmerman truly an reasonably believed his life or serious injury was at risk, then he had the right to defend himself- I want to make clear that I do NOT dispute this argument- only the facts of what exactly happened here.

Timslation:: I dont dispute Zimmerman's story, I just dispute it.

See the thing about fear of grave bodily injury or death is that it is in the eye of the beholder. I wouldnt have been afraid of Trayvon Martin. But I'm not a shrimp like Zimmerman. However, if Micheal Clarke Duncan confronted me in a situtation similar to the events of this case then I would be afraid of grave bodily injury or death.

Is it safe to say you wouldn't follow MCD around if he had shown that he was annoyed with you? You hit the crux of this problem IMO. The FL law requires us to get into the defendant's mind and try to figure out what he was really feeling. That's virtually impossible.

 

[timschochet]

Also want to point out regarding the accusation that some in the media regarding the jurors as racist:

To suggest that someone who is not black cannot truly understand what it is to be black, and therefore may be lacking proper empathy in this case- that is NOT a racist argument IMO. It is a very controversial argument, and one which I'm not sure I agree with (frankly, sometimes I agree with it, sometimes I don't- in the case of the Zimmerman trial I probably don't agree with it.) But anyone who makes this argument is not calling the jurors racist.

No, but can we agree that anyone who would argue that is, themselves, racist?

No we can't.

 

[TobiasFunke]

What Juror B37 said in the CNN interview was pretty outrageous, IMO. She has so much sympathy for GZ it is baffles me.

When asked if she felt sorry for TM she answered that she felt sorry for both of them. ok... Remember one person is an adult who is a free man and the other is a minor and dead. Didn't even hint that TM has it worse than GZ. She said TM attacked GZ because he was angry and fed up with GZ (where is the evidence for that?). She stated GZ's narrative (the defendant!) as completely true - expressing no doubt whatsoever. She said she thinks GZ would have treated any other person of any race the same way. She even said she would have GZ on her neighborhood watch. wow

I haven't been on the side of the Sharptons of the world, but if that attitude doesn't drive home the fact that black life has less meaning then I don't know what does. It's so latently racist it's incredible. No way in hell she gives all of those answers if it was a white middle class 17yo. No damn way.

WOW. That minor flashed gang symbols and bragged about street-fighting, was suspended from school for thievery, and was 17 yo and over 150#.

I still find it ridiculous that so many can't even comprehend of a scenario where a kid like this wouldn't have attacked the "cracka" who had the audacity to try to follow him in the cracka's own neighborhood. It's almost obscene not to acknowledge this as a legitimate possibility given that all the evidence supports that story and NONE disputes it. INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY....you don't have to believe GZs tale...you have to PROVE it false.

It's not racism, it's common %#&*$ sense...find some.

I think this post might actually be the world's first sextuple negative. I couldn't even get through the first sentence.

 

[jon_mx]

I guess if some of you think it's cool - even preferable under the right circumstances - for your neighborhood watch to kill people then I got nothing for you.

do you not think people have a right to defend themselves or is your right to self defense abrogated when you join the neighborhood watch?

Speaking for myself, I think "self defense" should be out the window when you set the event in motion, but I stated that early on and that it would be hard to get me away from that opinion. That doesn't matter much to Florida law though and I'd have given the non guilty verdict because the law requires me to. For me, it had nothing to do with him being on neighborhood watch.

Its not that it doesnt matter much in Florida law. It doesnt matter much in any state. Nothing that Zimmerman did, that is known leads to the conclusion that he was the aggressor. The only way a common self defense assertion gets tossed is if Zimmerman was the aggressor. The state had no evidence to prove such an assertion. conceivably any neighborhood watch member who follows a suspicious character could be considered an "aggressor" by that logic.

Zimmerman was monumentally stupid. He put himself in danger. But I see nothing to indicate aggressive behavior on his part. No injuries on Martin besides the gunshot wound and the injuries on his knuckles. Maybe Zimmerman was punching Martin's knuckles with his nose and the back of his head own head.

Following someone is not enough to legally justify punching someone. The idea that the following is what started might be a good personal moral argument, but has no basis in the law.

 

[larry_boy_44]

I want to clarify some points I tried to make earlier:

1. I believe that George Zimmerman initiated the confrontation between himself and Trayvon Martin. Even if he did not, I believe that George Zimmerman was the person responsible for that confrontation.

2. I do not believe George Zimmerman was ever seriously injured. I do not believe he ever reasonably feared for his life, or feared serious injury.

These two points are the main reasons I believe Zimmerman committed manslaughter. If Martin was the one who confronted Zimmerman, and Zimmerman truly an reasonably believed his life or serious injury was at risk, then he had the right to defend himself- I want to make clear that I do NOT dispute this argument- only the facts of what exactly happened here.

Have you ever been in a fight where someone was on top of you and dropping punches MMA-style?

No. And based on the state's ME's testimony, neither was George Zimmerman. John Good saw what he saw, but he did not see Martin seriously inflicting pain to GZ. The injuries were extremely minor, and not enough to warrant reasonable fear of death or serious injury. That is my opinion.

I didn't say Martin was doing a good drop dropping punches, I'm saying that its a scary place to be. Beyond that, there are eye witnesses and physical evidence that tell us that Martin was on top of Zimmerman, so I don't see how you can dispute that.

But either way, someone on top of you dropping punches like that IS the definition of "reasonable fear of serious injury and possibly death". Don't believe me? Put the back of your head on cement and have someone punch you in the face and see what happens...

 

[timschochet]

I want to clarify some points I tried to make earlier:

1. I believe that George Zimmerman initiated the confrontation between himself and Trayvon Martin. Even if he did not, I believe that George Zimmerman was the person responsible for that confrontation.

2. I do not believe George Zimmerman was ever seriously injured. I do not believe he ever reasonably feared for his life, or feared serious injury.

These two points are the main reasons I believe Zimmerman committed manslaughter. If Martin was the one who confronted Zimmerman, and Zimmerman truly an reasonably believed his life or serious injury was at risk, then he had the right to defend himself- I want to make clear that I do NOT dispute this argument- only the facts of what exactly happened here.

I just don't get your #1 here. There is literally no evidence that Z initiated the physical confrontation. Zero. So why do you keep on insisting that's what you believe happened?

Well first off, I do notice how careful you are to insert the word "physical", which I did not. There is no evidence as to who started the physical confrontation, outside of Zimmerman's self-serving testimony. However, so long as my point #2 is correct I would argue that Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter IF

1. Zimmerman physically assaulted Martin first, OR

2. Zimmerman initiated a confrontation which led to Martin physically assaulting Zimmerman, OR

3. Zimmerman chose to follow Martin which caused Martin to turn around and confront Zimmerman.

If any of the 3 happened, and if Zimmerman's injuries were not serious and he was not in reasonable fear of his life and/or serious injury, then he is guilty of manslaughter. Also, even if Zimmerman did reasonably fear serious injury or death, he is STILL guilty of manslaughter if he initiated the confrontation, physical or otherwise.

You're dead wrong on #2 and #3 above. It is the physical confrontation that matters in this case. Following someone != initiating a confrontation.

Also, there is literally zero evidence that "Zimmerman initiated a confrontation which led to Martin physically assaulting Zimmerman".

Is there any actual evidence that "Zimmerman chose to follow Martin which caused Martin to turn around and confront Zimmerman" past the point where he called 911?

Again, you're free to say you simply think he's a lying scumbag and discount everything he says, but that would put us at zero evidence in either direction, wouldn't it?

Regarding points #2 and 3, maybe I'm wrong. But I didn't originate those arguments. They came from a few attorneys I watched on TV explain manslaughter, and they made sense to me, so I have adopted them.

There is no evidence that Zimmerman chose to follow Martin which caused Martin to turn around and confront Zimmerman past the point where he called 911, except for the fact that 2 full minutes passed from the end of the call to the start of the fight, and Zimmerman should have been back in his car by then. As the prosecution correctly pointed out in closing, there is no explanation for Zimmerman's whearabouts during these 2 minutes.

 

[timschochet]

I want to clarify some points I tried to make earlier:

1. I believe that George Zimmerman initiated the confrontation between himself and Trayvon Martin. Even if he did not, I believe that George Zimmerman was the person responsible for that confrontation.

2. I do not believe George Zimmerman was ever seriously injured. I do not believe he ever reasonably feared for his life, or feared serious injury.

These two points are the main reasons I believe Zimmerman committed manslaughter. If Martin was the one who confronted Zimmerman, and Zimmerman truly an reasonably believed his life or serious injury was at risk, then he had the right to defend himself- I want to make clear that I do NOT dispute this argument- only the facts of what exactly happened here.

Have you ever been in a fight where someone was on top of you and dropping punches MMA-style?

No. And based on the state's ME's testimony, neither was George Zimmerman. John Good saw what he saw, but he did not see Martin seriously inflicting pain to GZ. The injuries were extremely minor, and not enough to warrant reasonable fear of death or serious injury. That is my opinion.

I didn't say Martin was doing a good drop dropping punches, I'm saying that its a scary place to be. Beyond that, there are eye witnesses and physical evidence that tell us that Martin was on top of Zimmerman, so I don't see how you can dispute that.

But either way, someone on top of you dropping punches like that IS the definition of "reasonable fear of serious injury and possibly death". Don't believe me? Put the back of your head on cement and have someone punch you in the face and see what happens...

I don't think he was punched more than once or twice, and possibly not even that. I don't think his head was on the cement- it might have slightly grazed the cement. None of what you wrote is at all consistent with Zimmerman's lack of injuries.

But again, I do not dispute your argument- IF Zimmerman was receiving the punishment you state, he had the right to defend himself (so long as he did not initiate the confrontation.) But I dispute your interpretation of what happened.

 

[RCon]

I want to clarify some points I tried to make earlier:

1. I believe that George Zimmerman initiated the confrontation between himself and Trayvon Martin. Even if he did not, I believe that George Zimmerman was the person responsible for that confrontation.

2. I do not believe George Zimmerman was ever seriously injured. I do not believe he ever reasonably feared for his life, or feared serious injury.

These two points are the main reasons I believe Zimmerman committed manslaughter. If Martin was the one who confronted Zimmerman, and Zimmerman truly an reasonably believed his life or serious injury was at risk, then he had the right to defend himself- I want to make clear that I do NOT dispute this argument- only the facts of what exactly happened here.

I just don't get your #1 here. There is literally no evidence that Z initiated the physical confrontation. Zero. So why do you keep on insisting that's what you believe happened?

Well first off, I do notice how careful you are to insert the word "physical", which I did not. There is no evidence as to who started the physical confrontation, outside of Zimmerman's self-serving testimony. However, so long as my point #2 is correct I would argue that Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter IF

1. Zimmerman physically assaulted Martin first, OR

2. Zimmerman initiated a confrontation which led to Martin physically assaulting Zimmerman, OR

3. Zimmerman chose to follow Martin which caused Martin to turn around and confront Zimmerman.

If any of the 3 happened, and if Zimmerman's injuries were not serious and he was not in reasonable fear of his life and/or serious injury, then he is guilty of manslaughter. Also, even if Zimmerman did reasonably fear serious injury or death, he is STILL guilty of manslaughter if he initiated the confrontation, physical or otherwise.

You're dead wrong on #2 and #3 above. It is the physical confrontation that matters in this case. Following someone != initiating a confrontation.

Also, there is literally zero evidence that "Zimmerman initiated a confrontation which led to Martin physically assaulting Zimmerman".

Is there any actual evidence that "Zimmerman chose to follow Martin which caused Martin to turn around and confront Zimmerman" past the point where he called 911?

Again, you're free to say you simply think he's a lying scumbag and discount everything he says, but that would put us at zero evidence in either direction, wouldn't it?

Regarding points #2 and 3, maybe I'm wrong. But I didn't originate those arguments. They came from a few attorneys I watched on TV explain manslaughter, and they made sense to me, so I have adopted them.

There is no evidence that Zimmerman chose to follow Martin which caused Martin to turn around and confront Zimmerman past the point where he called 911, except for the fact that 2 full minutes passed from the end of the call to the start of the fight, and Zimmerman should have been back in his car by then. As the prosecution correctly pointed out in closing, there is no explanation for Zimmerman's whearabouts during these 2 minutes.

That's not evidence of anything, as you well know. That's not evidence that Zimmerman started a confrontation, Martin started a confrontation, Zimmerman followed Martin, Martin followed Zimmerman, or anything else. So, again, there's literally zero evidence to back up the position you're staked out.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Honest question from someone who hasn't followed the trial at all and has only a passing knowledge of the facts:

How does someone who is packing heat end up on the ground with punches being rained down on him by an unarmed 150 pound kid? Was this some sort of Cato-style sneak attack where Zimmerman didn't have an opportunity to pull his weapon and tell the kid to back the #### off?

 

[Spanky267]

I want to clarify some points I tried to make earlier:

1. I believe that George Zimmerman initiated the confrontation between himself and Trayvon Martin. Even if he did not, I believe that George Zimmerman was the person responsible for that confrontation.

2. I do not believe George Zimmerman was ever seriously injured. I do not believe he ever reasonably feared for his life, or feared serious injury.

These two points are the main reasons I believe Zimmerman committed manslaughter. If Martin was the one who confronted Zimmerman, and Zimmerman truly an reasonably believed his life or serious injury was at risk, then he had the right to defend himself- I want to make clear that I do NOT dispute this argument- only the facts of what exactly happened here.

Timslation:: I dont dispute Zimmerman's story, I just dispute it.

See the thing about fear of grave bodily injury or death is that it is in the eye of the beholder. I wouldnt have been afraid of Trayvon Martin. But I'm not a shrimp like Zimmerman. However, if Micheal Clarke Duncan confronted me in a situtation similar to the events of this case then I would be afraid of grave bodily injury or death.

No I DO dispute Zimmerman's story- I dispute it greatly. I don't necessarily dispute his argument. In other words, if you were to describe Zimmerman's narrative to me and ask, "Suppose this happened- would this guy be guilty of a crime?" My answer would be no.

See the problem with your line of thinking is that you ascribe motive to Zimmerman that you have no way of knowing. You dont know what it would take to be in fear for his life. His threshold may be very different than yours or mine. You also "believe" that Zimmerman initiated that confrontation and even if he didnt it was still his fault. No facts in evidence suggest this. So again it's Timlogic over the evidence at hand. So because you assert your opinions over the things we do know about what happened that night YOU arrive at a belief that Zimmerman committed manslaughter.

So on one hand you accept the plausibility of his argument and on the other hand you dismiss it even though there is no evidence to make your "belief" plausible. So you assert the primacy of your beliefs over the evidence and facts we do have.

This is TIMLOGIC!

 

[The Commish]

I guess if some of you think it's cool - even preferable under the right circumstances - for your neighborhood watch to kill people then I got nothing for you.

do you not think people have a right to defend themselves or is your right to self defense abrogated when you join the neighborhood watch?

Speaking for myself, I think "self defense" should be out the window when you set the event in motion, but I stated that early on and that it would be hard to get me away from that opinion. That doesn't matter much to Florida law though and I'd have given the non guilty verdict because the law requires me to. For me, it had nothing to do with him being on neighborhood watch.

Its not that it doesnt matter much in Florida law. It doesnt matter much in any state. Nothing that Zimmerman did, that is known leads to the conclusion that he was the aggressor. The only way a common self defense assertion gets tossed is if Zimmerman was the aggressor. The state had no evidence to prove such an assertion. conceivably any neighborhood watch member who follows a suspicious character could be considered an "aggressor" by that logic.

Zimmerman was monumentally stupid. He put himself in danger. But I see nothing to indicate aggressive behavior on his part. No injuries on Martin besides the gunshot wound and the injuries on his knuckles. Maybe Zimmerman was punching Martin's knuckles with his nose and the back of his head own head.

That's not true at all. In some states self defense can't be the position taken if you are responsible for starting the whole thing. Florida is also different in that "aggressor" can change from one moment to the other. There are states where that isn't true either. If tried in another state like mine, the whole night's events would be looked at and considered to determine who the aggressor was, what started it, how it unfolded etc. In Florida, the events leading to the altercation don't matter and within the timeframe of the altercation "aggressor" can change.

So if this case was being prosecuted in my state the state would be focused primarily on what lead up to the altercation. We have a case getting ready to unfold where a guy shot someone trying to collect a gambling debt and there's been extensive scrutiny placed on the betting prior to the altercation and the events leading up to the altercation. There's a completely difference focus (as of right now) here than what we saw in Florida.

 

[jon_mx]

Honest question from someone who hasn't followed the trial at all and has only a passing knowledge of the facts:

How does someone who is packing heat end up on the ground with punches being rained down on him by an unarmed 150 pound kid? Was this some sort of Cato-style sneak attack where Zimmerman didn't have an opportunity to pull his weapon and tell the kid to back the #### off?

Martin was athletic an Zimmerman probably only had 20 lbs on him. Zimmerman was wimpy, and I assume Martin surprised him with pretty good first punch.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Honest question from someone who hasn't followed the trial at all and has only a passing knowledge of the facts:

How does someone who is packing heat end up on the ground with punches being rained down on him by an unarmed 150 pound kid? Was this some sort of Cato-style sneak attack where Zimmerman didn't have an opportunity to pull his weapon and tell the kid to back the #### off?

Martin was athletic an Zimmerman probably only had 20 lbs on him. Zimmerman was wimpy, and I assume Martin surprised him with pretty good first punch.

Like he emerged out of the darkness and shadows and just popped him like a ninja or something?

Or is the story that they started talking face to face right in front of each other and then Martin just reared back and clobbered him in the middle of the conversation and he fell like a sack of potatoes, and then was too stunned to reach for his weapon and point it and tell the kid to stand down?

The second one kind of makes sense I guess.

 

[Spanky267]

I guess if some of you think it's cool - even preferable under the right circumstances - for your neighborhood watch to kill people then I got nothing for you.

do you not think people have a right to defend themselves or is your right to self defense abrogated when you join the neighborhood watch?

Neither

So you think people have a right to defend themselves and the dont give up that right when they join their neighborhood watch. Ok. Did anyone in here say it was cool or preferable for their neighborhood watch to kill people? I think the consensus of the so called pro-Zimmerman folks in here is that he made some monumental mistakes that evening. But that if he perceived himself to be in a struggle for his life that he had the right to defend himself. I dont think anyone in here would support Zimmerman if he had shot Martin in the back.

 

[BroadwayG]

Also, and this was almost assuredly addressed somewhere in this 400 page thread...

If you are all alone in your neighborhood at night and you are caught in an altercation (for any reason) and getting your ### whooped. What would you do if you had a gun on you?

Surely that has been gone over. Maybe a vote taken or something...

I would take my beating until I at least had multiple skull fractures.

 

[larry_boy_44]

I want to clarify some points I tried to make earlier:

1. I believe that George Zimmerman initiated the confrontation between himself and Trayvon Martin. Even if he did not, I believe that George Zimmerman was the person responsible for that confrontation.

2. I do not believe George Zimmerman was ever seriously injured. I do not believe he ever reasonably feared for his life, or feared serious injury.

These two points are the main reasons I believe Zimmerman committed manslaughter. If Martin was the one who confronted Zimmerman, and Zimmerman truly an reasonably believed his life or serious injury was at risk, then he had the right to defend himself- I want to make clear that I do NOT dispute this argument- only the facts of what exactly happened here.

Have you ever been in a fight where someone was on top of you and dropping punches MMA-style?

No. And based on the state's ME's testimony, neither was George Zimmerman. John Good saw what he saw, but he did not see Martin seriously inflicting pain to GZ. The injuries were extremely minor, and not enough to warrant reasonable fear of death or serious injury. That is my opinion.

I didn't say Martin was doing a good drop dropping punches, I'm saying that its a scary place to be. Beyond that, there are eye witnesses and physical evidence that tell us that Martin was on top of Zimmerman, so I don't see how you can dispute that.

But either way, someone on top of you dropping punches like that IS the definition of "reasonable fear of serious injury and possibly death". Don't believe me? Put the back of your head on cement and have someone punch you in the face and see what happens...

I don't think he was punched more than once or twice, and possibly not even that. I don't think his head was on the cement- it might have slightly grazed the cement. None of what you wrote is at all consistent with Zimmerman's lack of injuries.

But again, I do not dispute your argument- IF Zimmerman was receiving the punishment you state, he had the right to defend himself (so long as he did not initiate the confrontation.) But I dispute your interpretation of what happened.

We know that Martin was on top when he was shot from the burns on the sweatshirt...

And we have an eyewitness saying Martin was on top using MMA moves on Zimmerman...

But your magic fairy land is more believable? I don't think you'd believe Martin did anything wrong if they had video of him provoking every step of this,,,

 

[Witz]

Honest question from someone who hasn't followed the trial at all and has only a passing knowledge of the facts:

How does someone who is packing heat end up on the ground with punches being rained down on him by an unarmed 150 pound kid? Was this some sort of Cato-style sneak attack where Zimmerman didn't have an opportunity to pull his weapon and tell the kid to back the #### off?

Martin was athletic an Zimmerman probably only had 20 lbs on him. Zimmerman was wimpy, and I assume Martin surprised him with pretty good first punch.

Zimmerman was 5'7, 185 pounds compared to Martin who was 5'11, 158 pounds.

 

[timschochet]

I want to clarify some points I tried to make earlier:

1. I believe that George Zimmerman initiated the confrontation between himself and Trayvon Martin. Even if he did not, I believe that George Zimmerman was the person responsible for that confrontation.

2. I do not believe George Zimmerman was ever seriously injured. I do not believe he ever reasonably feared for his life, or feared serious injury.

These two points are the main reasons I believe Zimmerman committed manslaughter. If Martin was the one who confronted Zimmerman, and Zimmerman truly an reasonably believed his life or serious injury was at risk, then he had the right to defend himself- I want to make clear that I do NOT dispute this argument- only the facts of what exactly happened here.

Timslation:: I dont dispute Zimmerman's story, I just dispute it.

See the thing about fear of grave bodily injury or death is that it is in the eye of the beholder. I wouldnt have been afraid of Trayvon Martin. But I'm not a shrimp like Zimmerman. However, if Micheal Clarke Duncan confronted me in a situtation similar to the events of this case then I would be afraid of grave bodily injury or death.

No I DO dispute Zimmerman's story- I dispute it greatly. I don't necessarily dispute his argument. In other words, if you were to describe Zimmerman's narrative to me and ask, "Suppose this happened- would this guy be guilty of a crime?" My answer would be no.

See the problem with your line of thinking is that you ascribe motive to Zimmerman that you have no way of knowing. You dont know what it would take to be in fear for his life. His threshold may be very different than yours or mine. You also "believe" that Zimmerman initiated that confrontation and even if he didnt it was still his fault. No facts in evidence suggest this. So again it's Timlogic over the evidence at hand. So because you assert your opinions over the things we do know about what happened that night YOU arrive at a belief that Zimmerman committed manslaughter.

So on one hand you accept the plausibility of his argument and on the other hand you dismiss it even though there is no evidence to make your "belief" plausible. So you assert the primacy of your beliefs over the evidence and facts we do have.

This is TIMLOGIC!

What is wrong with me telling what I think happened? How is it any different from all the people here who have parroted Zimmerman's tale as if it were Gospel?

I am not on the jury. Had I been on the jury, I would have voted to acquit. But the FFA is not a legal forum, and I am not bound by a restriction of reasonable doubt, not here. I can write what I think happened, even if I can't prove it. Over and over again I have provided reasons in this thread for believing as I do. They are not emotional, they are rational based on the known facts. Based on the known facts, I believe the two points I wrote above.

 

[The Commish]

Honest question from someone who hasn't followed the trial at all and has only a passing knowledge of the facts:

How does someone who is packing heat end up on the ground with punches being rained down on him by an unarmed 150 pound kid? Was this some sort of Cato-style sneak attack where Zimmerman didn't have an opportunity to pull his weapon and tell the kid to back the #### off?

Martin was athletic an Zimmerman probably only had 20 lbs on him. Zimmerman was wimpy, and I assume Martin surprised him with pretty good first punch.

Like he emerged out of the darkness and shadows and just popped him like a ninja or something?

Or is the story that they started talking face to face right in front of each other and then Martin just reared back and clobbered him in the middle of the conversation and he fell like a sack of potatoes, and then was too stunned to reach for his weapon and point it and tell the kid to stand down?

The second one kind of makes sense I guess.

If you go by Zimmerman's statement, he says he was walking back to his truck and Treyvon came out of nowhere (since he didn't see him while looking for him). Treyvon asked him if he had a problem, Zimmerman answered him and then reached for his phone or (reached for his phone while answering him...don't remember specifically) and Treyvon punched him. So according to Zimmerman there were words between them. He didn't simply attack him from behind.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

I want to clarify some points I tried to make earlier:

1. I believe that George Zimmerman initiated the confrontation between himself and Trayvon Martin. Even if he did not, I believe that George Zimmerman was the person responsible for that confrontation.

2. I do not believe George Zimmerman was ever seriously injured. I do not believe he ever reasonably feared for his life, or feared serious injury.

These two points are the main reasons I believe Zimmerman committed manslaughter. If Martin was the one who confronted Zimmerman, and Zimmerman truly an reasonably believed his life or serious injury was at risk, then he had the right to defend himself- I want to make clear that I do NOT dispute this argument- only the facts of what exactly happened here.

Have you ever been in a fight where someone was on top of you and dropping punches MMA-style?

No. And based on the state's ME's testimony, neither was George Zimmerman. John Good saw what he saw, but he did not see Martin seriously inflicting pain to GZ. The injuries were extremely minor, and not enough to warrant reasonable fear of death or serious injury. That is my opinion.

I didn't say Martin was doing a good drop dropping punches, I'm saying that its a scary place to be. Beyond that, there are eye witnesses and physical evidence that tell us that Martin was on top of Zimmerman, so I don't see how you can dispute that.

But either way, someone on top of you dropping punches like that IS the definition of "reasonable fear of serious injury and possibly death". Don't believe me? Put the back of your head on cement and have someone punch you in the face and see what happens...

I don't think he was punched more than once or twice, and possibly not even that. I don't think his head was on the cement- it might have slightly grazed the cement. None of what you wrote is at all consistent with Zimmerman's lack of injuries.

But again, I do not dispute your argument- IF Zimmerman was receiving the punishment you state, he had the right to defend himself (so long as he did not initiate the confrontation.) But I dispute your interpretation of what happened.

The big problem with Treyvon was he just doesnt punch very hard...if he could punch worth a damn he would have just knocked George ''softy'' Zimmerman out cold and that would have been it...end of story...too bad he hits like a chick

 

[Witz]

I want to clarify some points I tried to make earlier:

1. I believe that George Zimmerman initiated the confrontation between himself and Trayvon Martin. Even if he did not, I believe that George Zimmerman was the person responsible for that confrontation.

2. I do not believe George Zimmerman was ever seriously injured. I do not believe he ever reasonably feared for his life, or feared serious injury.

These two points are the main reasons I believe Zimmerman committed manslaughter. If Martin was the one who confronted Zimmerman, and Zimmerman truly an reasonably believed his life or serious injury was at risk, then he had the right to defend himself- I want to make clear that I do NOT dispute this argument- only the facts of what exactly happened here.

Have you ever been in a fight where someone was on top of you and dropping punches MMA-style?

No. And based on the state's ME's testimony, neither was George Zimmerman. John Good saw what he saw, but he did not see Martin seriously inflicting pain to GZ. The injuries were extremely minor, and not enough to warrant reasonable fear of death or serious injury. That is my opinion.

I didn't say Martin was doing a good drop dropping punches, I'm saying that its a scary place to be. Beyond that, there are eye witnesses and physical evidence that tell us that Martin was on top of Zimmerman, so I don't see how you can dispute that.

But either way, someone on top of you dropping punches like that IS the definition of "reasonable fear of serious injury and possibly death". Don't believe me? Put the back of your head on cement and have someone punch you in the face and see what happens...

I don't think he was punched more than once or twice, and possibly not even that. I don't think his head was on the cement- it might have slightly grazed the cement. None of what you wrote is at all consistent with Zimmerman's lack of injuries.

But again, I do not dispute your argument- IF Zimmerman was receiving the punishment you state, he had the right to defend himself (so long as he did not initiate the confrontation.) But I dispute your interpretation of what happened.

The big problem with Treyvon was he just doesnt punch very hard...if he could punch worth a damn he would have just knocked George ''softy'' Zimmerman out cold and that would have been it...end of story...too bad he hits like a chick

Martin lost the first round in his prior fight - no way he was going to lose the first round in this fight.

 

[timschochet]

I want to clarify some points I tried to make earlier:

1. I believe that George Zimmerman initiated the confrontation between himself and Trayvon Martin. Even if he did not, I believe that George Zimmerman was the person responsible for that confrontation.

2. I do not believe George Zimmerman was ever seriously injured. I do not believe he ever reasonably feared for his life, or feared serious injury.

These two points are the main reasons I believe Zimmerman committed manslaughter. If Martin was the one who confronted Zimmerman, and Zimmerman truly an reasonably believed his life or serious injury was at risk, then he had the right to defend himself- I want to make clear that I do NOT dispute this argument- only the facts of what exactly happened here.

Have you ever been in a fight where someone was on top of you and dropping punches MMA-style?

No. And based on the state's ME's testimony, neither was George Zimmerman. John Good saw what he saw, but he did not see Martin seriously inflicting pain to GZ. The injuries were extremely minor, and not enough to warrant reasonable fear of death or serious injury. That is my opinion.

I didn't say Martin was doing a good drop dropping punches, I'm saying that its a scary place to be. Beyond that, there are eye witnesses and physical evidence that tell us that Martin was on top of Zimmerman, so I don't see how you can dispute that.

But either way, someone on top of you dropping punches like that IS the definition of "reasonable fear of serious injury and possibly death". Don't believe me? Put the back of your head on cement and have someone punch you in the face and see what happens...

I don't think he was punched more than once or twice, and possibly not even that. I don't think his head was on the cement- it might have slightly grazed the cement. None of what you wrote is at all consistent with Zimmerman's lack of injuries.

But again, I do not dispute your argument- IF Zimmerman was receiving the punishment you state, he had the right to defend himself (so long as he did not initiate the confrontation.) But I dispute your interpretation of what happened.

The big problem with Treyvon was he just doesnt punch very hard...if he could punch worth a damn he would have just knocked George ''softy'' Zimmerman out cold and that would have been it...end of story...too bad he hits like a chick

Trayvon had another problem, he only had 4 pairs of hands. One pair of hands to punch Zimmerman with, one pair of hands to straddle Zimmeman to the ground, knocking his head against the concrete 25-30 times, one pair of hands to cover Zimmerman's mouth and nose, and one pair of hands to reach for Zimmerman's gun. It wasn't enough!

 

[RCon]

What is wrong with me telling what I think happened? How is it any different from all the people here who have parroted Zimmerman's tale as if it were Gospel?I am not on the jury. Had I been on the jury, I would have voted to acquit. But the FFA is not a legal forum, and I am not bound by a restriction of reasonable doubt, not here. I can write what I think happened, even if I can't prove it. Over and over again I have provided reasons in this thread for believing as I do. They are not emotional, they are rational based on the known facts. Based on the known facts, I believe the two points I wrote above.

Nothing is wrong with you writing what you think happened. But let's not pretend that your beliefs are based on any "known facts". At best, the known facts get us to "we have no idea what happened or who started the fight". If you want to include hearsay, thought processes, etc., then you can only reasonably get to the same "we don't know" or "Martin was more likely to have initiated the confrontation". Nothing known at this time could rationally get anyone to "Zimmerman started the confrontation".

 

[Witz]

Honest question from someone who hasn't followed the trial at all and has only a passing knowledge of the facts:

How does someone who is packing heat end up on the ground with punches being rained down on him by an unarmed 150 pound kid? Was this some sort of Cato-style sneak attack where Zimmerman didn't have an opportunity to pull his weapon and tell the kid to back the #### off?

Martin was athletic an Zimmerman probably only had 20 lbs on him. Zimmerman was wimpy, and I assume Martin surprised him with pretty good first punch.

Like he emerged out of the darkness and shadows and just popped him like a ninja or something?

Or is the story that they started talking face to face right in front of each other and then Martin just reared back and clobbered him in the middle of the conversation and he fell like a sack of potatoes, and then was too stunned to reach for his weapon and point it and tell the kid to stand down?

The second one kind of makes sense I guess.

If you go by Zimmerman's statement, he says he was walking back to his truck and Treyvon came out of nowhere (since he didn't see him while looking for him). Treyvon asked him if he had a problem, Zimmerman answered him and then reached for his phone or (reached for his phone while answering him...don't remember specifically) and Treyvon punched him. So according to Zimmerman there were words between them. He didn't simply attack him from behind.

According to Rachel's testimony, Martin said 'What are you following me for' followed by Zimmerman going 'What are you doing here' immediately followed by a struggle. It's not like they hung around talking for a few minutes.

So either Martin turned around to confront Zimmerman, words were exchanged and Zimmerman starting swinging at Martin or Martin confronted Zimmerman, words were exchanged and Martin starting swinging at Zimmerman. Depends on what you think is more likely.

 

[Stinger Ray]

I want to clarify some points I tried to make earlier:

1. I believe that George Zimmerman initiated the confrontation between himself and Trayvon Martin. Even if he did not, I believe that George Zimmerman was the person responsible for that confrontation.

2. I do not believe George Zimmerman was ever seriously injured. I do not believe he ever reasonably feared for his life, or feared serious injury.

These two points are the main reasons I believe Zimmerman committed manslaughter. If Martin was the one who confronted Zimmerman, and Zimmerman truly an reasonably believed his life or serious injury was at risk, then he had the right to defend himself- I want to make clear that I do NOT dispute this argument- only the facts of what exactly happened here.

Timslation:: I dont dispute Zimmerman's story, I just dispute it.

See the thing about fear of grave bodily injury or death is that it is in the eye of the beholder. I wouldnt have been afraid of Trayvon Martin. But I'm not a shrimp like Zimmerman. However, if Micheal Clarke Duncan confronted me in a situtation similar to the events of this case then I would be afraid of grave bodily injury or death.

No I DO dispute Zimmerman's story- I dispute it greatly. I don't necessarily dispute his argument. In other words, if you were to describe Zimmerman's narrative to me and ask, "Suppose this happened- would this guy be guilty of a crime?" My answer would be no.

See the problem with your line of thinking is that you ascribe motive to Zimmerman that you have no way of knowing. You dont know what it would take to be in fear for his life. His threshold may be very different than yours or mine. You also "believe" that Zimmerman initiated that confrontation and even if he didnt it was still his fault. No facts in evidence suggest this. So again it's Timlogic over the evidence at hand. So because you assert your opinions over the things we do know about what happened that night YOU arrive at a belief that Zimmerman committed manslaughter.

So on one hand you accept the plausibility of his argument and on the other hand you dismiss it even though there is no evidence to make your "belief" plausible. So you assert the primacy of your beliefs over the evidence and facts we do have.

This is TIMLOGIC!

What is wrong with me telling what I think happened? How is it any different from all the people here who have parroted Zimmerman's tale as if it were Gospel?

I am not on the jury. Had I been on the jury, I would have voted to acquit. But the FFA is not a legal forum, and I am not bound by a restriction of reasonable doubt, not here. I can write what I think happened, even if I can't prove it. Over and over again I have provided reasons in this thread for believing as I do. They are not emotional, they are rational based on the known facts. Based on the known facts, I believe the two points I wrote above.

 

[timschochet]

What is wrong with me telling what I think happened? How is it any different from all the people here who have parroted Zimmerman's tale as if it were Gospel?I am not on the jury. Had I been on the jury, I would have voted to acquit. But the FFA is not a legal forum, and I am not bound by a restriction of reasonable doubt, not here. I can write what I think happened, even if I can't prove it. Over and over again I have provided reasons in this thread for believing as I do. They are not emotional, they are rational based on the known facts. Based on the known facts, I believe the two points I wrote above.

Nothing is wrong with you writing what you think happened. But let's not pretend that your beliefs are based on any "known facts". At best, the known facts get us to "we have no idea what happened or who started the fight". If you want to include hearsay, thought processes, etc., then you can only reasonably get to the same "we don't know" or "Martin was more likely to have initiated the confrontation". Nothing known at this time could rationally get anyone to "Zimmerman started the confrontation".

That's just not true. I think it's reasonable to assume that Zimmerman is a liar. He lied about his reason for getting out of the car. He lied about what he did after the operator suggested he didn't need to follow Martin. He lied about Martin telling him he was going to die tonight. He lied about Martin slamming his head against the pavement 25-30 times. He lied about Martin covering his face and mouth. He lied about Martin attempting to seize the gun.

Now I can't prove any of that. But the known evidence suggests all of it is true. If it's reasonable to assume that he lied about all or most of these points, why wouldn't it be also reasonable to assume he lied about who started the confrontation?

 

[The Commish]

Honest question from someone who hasn't followed the trial at all and has only a passing knowledge of the facts:

How does someone who is packing heat end up on the ground with punches being rained down on him by an unarmed 150 pound kid? Was this some sort of Cato-style sneak attack where Zimmerman didn't have an opportunity to pull his weapon and tell the kid to back the #### off?

Martin was athletic an Zimmerman probably only had 20 lbs on him. Zimmerman was wimpy, and I assume Martin surprised him with pretty good first punch.

Like he emerged out of the darkness and shadows and just popped him like a ninja or something?

Or is the story that they started talking face to face right in front of each other and then Martin just reared back and clobbered him in the middle of the conversation and he fell like a sack of potatoes, and then was too stunned to reach for his weapon and point it and tell the kid to stand down?

The second one kind of makes sense I guess.

If you go by Zimmerman's statement, he says he was walking back to his truck and Treyvon came out of nowhere (since he didn't see him while looking for him). Treyvon asked him if he had a problem, Zimmerman answered him and then reached for his phone or (reached for his phone while answering him...don't remember specifically) and Treyvon punched him. So according to Zimmerman there were words between them. He didn't simply attack him from behind.

According to Rachel's testimony, Martin said 'What are you following me for' followed by Zimmerman going 'What are you doing here' immediately followed by a struggle. It's not like they hung around talking for a few minutes.

So either Martin turned around to confront Zimmerman, words were exchanged and Zimmerman starting swinging at Martin or Martin confronted Zimmerman, words were exchanged and Martin starting swinging at Zimmerman. Depends on what you think is more likely.

Or as ATC1 (I think) suggested, Martin reacted to Zimmerman reaching into his pocket by punching him. Lots of things could have happened. My only point is Zimmerman's testimony suggests it wasn't a "jump from behind" scenario...That's what Tobias was asking about.

 

[larry_boy_44]

I want to clarify some points I tried to make earlier:

1. I believe that George Zimmerman initiated the confrontation between himself and Trayvon Martin. Even if he did not, I believe that George Zimmerman was the person responsible for that confrontation.

2. I do not believe George Zimmerman was ever seriously injured. I do not believe he ever reasonably feared for his life, or feared serious injury.

These two points are the main reasons I believe Zimmerman committed manslaughter. If Martin was the one who confronted Zimmerman, and Zimmerman truly an reasonably believed his life or serious injury was at risk, then he had the right to defend himself- I want to make clear that I do NOT dispute this argument- only the facts of what exactly happened here.

Have you ever been in a fight where someone was on top of you and dropping punches MMA-style?

No. And based on the state's ME's testimony, neither was George Zimmerman. John Good saw what he saw, but he did not see Martin seriously inflicting pain to GZ. The injuries were extremely minor, and not enough to warrant reasonable fear of death or serious injury. That is my opinion.

I didn't say Martin was doing a good drop dropping punches, I'm saying that its a scary place to be. Beyond that, there are eye witnesses and physical evidence that tell us that Martin was on top of Zimmerman, so I don't see how you can dispute that.

But either way, someone on top of you dropping punches like that IS the definition of "reasonable fear of serious injury and possibly death". Don't believe me? Put the back of your head on cement and have someone punch you in the face and see what happens...

I don't think he was punched more than once or twice, and possibly not even that. I don't think his head was on the cement- it might have slightly grazed the cement. None of what you wrote is at all consistent with Zimmerman's lack of injuries.

But again, I do not dispute your argument- IF Zimmerman was receiving the punishment you state, he had the right to defend himself (so long as he did not initiate the confrontation.) But I dispute your interpretation of what happened.

The big problem with Treyvon was he just doesnt punch very hard...if he could punch worth a damn he would have just knocked George ''softy'' Zimmerman out cold and that would have been it...end of story...too bad he hits like a chick

Trayvon had another problem, he only had 4 pairs of hands. One pair of hands to punch Zimmerman with, one pair of hands to straddle Zimmeman to the ground, knocking his head against the concrete 25-30 times, one pair of hands to cover Zimmerman's mouth and nose, and one pair of hands to reach for Zimmerman's gun. It wasn't enough!

let's look at this again with a basic knowledge of fighting/MMA/anatomy and some logic:

1. "one pair of hands to punch Zimmerman with". OK, with you here.

2. "one pair of hands to straddle Zimmerman to the ground"... Um... I don't know what "straddle" means in TimLand, but here in the real world it has to do with legs, not hands... Also, the knocking his head into the ground 25-30 times would be done by hands #1 when punching him (everytime you are punched, your head moves backwards, if there is cement behind your head, you hit the cement... Watch an MMA fight, their heads hit the mat when they are getting ground-and-pounded)

3. "one pair to cover Zimmerman's mouth and nose"... How was Zimmerman calling for help if this was happening?

4. "one pair to reach for Zimmerman's gun". Who's to say that Treyvon didn't realize there was a gun and stopped punching to reach for it? Plus, Treyvon doesn't need to reach for the gun to be threatening Zimmerman's life, the position they were in (Treyvon on top punching downwards) is sufficiently lethal if continued...

 

[larry_boy_44]

What is wrong with me telling what I think happened? How is it any different from all the people here who have parroted Zimmerman's tale as if it were Gospel?I am not on the jury. Had I been on the jury, I would have voted to acquit. But the FFA is not a legal forum, and I am not bound by a restriction of reasonable doubt, not here. I can write what I think happened, even if I can't prove it. Over and over again I have provided reasons in this thread for believing as I do. They are not emotional, they are rational based on the known facts. Based on the known facts, I believe the two points I wrote above.

Nothing is wrong with you writing what you think happened. But let's not pretend that your beliefs are based on any "known facts". At best, the known facts get us to "we have no idea what happened or who started the fight". If you want to include hearsay, thought processes, etc., then you can only reasonably get to the same "we don't know" or "Martin was more likely to have initiated the confrontation". Nothing known at this time could rationally get anyone to "Zimmerman started the confrontation".

That's just not true. I think it's reasonable to assume that Zimmerman is a liar. He lied about his reason for getting out of the car. He lied about what he did after the operator suggested he didn't need to follow Martin. He lied about Martin telling him he was going to die tonight. He lied about Martin slamming his head against the pavement 25-30 times. He lied about Martin covering his face and mouth. He lied about Martin attempting to seize the gun.

Now I can't prove any of that. But the known evidence suggests all of it is true. If it's reasonable to assume that he lied about all or most of these points, why wouldn't it be also reasonable to assume he lied about who started the confrontation?

Bolded the reason everyone thinks you are in fantasy land. You keep saying things as fact that absolutely are not fact (and, if anything, violates the little bit of evidence we have)...

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

too soon?

 

[timschochet]

I want to clarify some points I tried to make earlier:

1. I believe that George Zimmerman initiated the confrontation between himself and Trayvon Martin. Even if he did not, I believe that George Zimmerman was the person responsible for that confrontation.

2. I do not believe George Zimmerman was ever seriously injured. I do not believe he ever reasonably feared for his life, or feared serious injury.

These two points are the main reasons I believe Zimmerman committed manslaughter. If Martin was the one who confronted Zimmerman, and Zimmerman truly an reasonably believed his life or serious injury was at risk, then he had the right to defend himself- I want to make clear that I do NOT dispute this argument- only the facts of what exactly happened here.

Have you ever been in a fight where someone was on top of you and dropping punches MMA-style?

No. And based on the state's ME's testimony, neither was George Zimmerman. John Good saw what he saw, but he did not see Martin seriously inflicting pain to GZ. The injuries were extremely minor, and not enough to warrant reasonable fear of death or serious injury. That is my opinion.

I didn't say Martin was doing a good drop dropping punches, I'm saying that its a scary place to be. Beyond that, there are eye witnesses and physical evidence that tell us that Martin was on top of Zimmerman, so I don't see how you can dispute that.

But either way, someone on top of you dropping punches like that IS the definition of "reasonable fear of serious injury and possibly death". Don't believe me? Put the back of your head on cement and have someone punch you in the face and see what happens...

I don't think he was punched more than once or twice, and possibly not even that. I don't think his head was on the cement- it might have slightly grazed the cement. None of what you wrote is at all consistent with Zimmerman's lack of injuries.

But again, I do not dispute your argument- IF Zimmerman was receiving the punishment you state, he had the right to defend himself (so long as he did not initiate the confrontation.) But I dispute your interpretation of what happened.

The big problem with Treyvon was he just doesnt punch very hard...if he could punch worth a damn he would have just knocked George ''softy'' Zimmerman out cold and that would have been it...end of story...too bad he hits like a chick

Trayvon had another problem, he only had 4 pairs of hands. One pair of hands to punch Zimmerman with, one pair of hands to straddle Zimmeman to the ground, knocking his head against the concrete 25-30 times, one pair of hands to cover Zimmerman's mouth and nose, and one pair of hands to reach for Zimmerman's gun. It wasn't enough!

let's look at this again with a basic knowledge of fighting/MMA/anatomy and some logic:

1. "one pair of hands to punch Zimmerman with". OK, with you here.

2. "one pair of hands to straddle Zimmerman to the ground"... Um... I don't know what "straddle" means in TimLand, but here in the real world it has to do with legs, not hands... Also, the knocking his head into the ground 25-30 times would be done by hands #1 when punching him (everytime you are punched, your head moves backwards, if there is cement behind your head, you hit the cement... Watch an MMA fight, their heads hit the mat when they are getting ground-and-pounded)

3. "one pair to cover Zimmerman's mouth and nose"... How was Zimmerman calling for help if this was happening?

4. "one pair to reach for Zimmerman's gun". Who's to say that Treyvon didn't realize there was a gun and stopped punching to reach for it? Plus, Treyvon doesn't need to reach for the gun to be threatening Zimmerman's life, the position they were in (Treyvon on top punching downwards) is sufficiently lethal if continued...

#3 is the first thing you've written that makes any real sense. It's an excellent question, one that I've asked several times in this thread, and never received a satisfactory answer.

 

[Stinger Ray]

What is wrong with me telling what I think happened? How is it any different from all the people here who have parroted Zimmerman's tale as if it were Gospel?I am not on the jury. Had I been on the jury, I would have voted to acquit. But the FFA is not a legal forum, and I am not bound by a restriction of reasonable doubt, not here. I can write what I think happened, even if I can't prove it. Over and over again I have provided reasons in this thread for believing as I do. They are not emotional, they are rational based on the known facts. Based on the known facts, I believe the two points I wrote above.

Nothing is wrong with you writing what you think happened. But let's not pretend that your beliefs are based on any "known facts". At best, the known facts get us to "we have no idea what happened or who started the fight". If you want to include hearsay, thought processes, etc., then you can only reasonably get to the same "we don't know" or "Martin was more likely to have initiated the confrontation". Nothing known at this time could rationally get anyone to "Zimmerman started the confrontation".

That's just not true. I think it's reasonable to assume that Zimmerman is a liar. He lied about his reason for getting out of the car. He lied about what he did after the operator suggested he didn't need to follow Martin. He lied about Martin telling him he was going to die tonight. He lied about Martin slamming his head against the pavement 25-30 times. He lied about Martin covering his face and mouth. He lied about Martin attempting to seize the gun.

Now I can't prove any of that. But the known evidence suggests all of it is true. If it's reasonable to assume that he lied about all or most of these points, why wouldn't it be also reasonable to assume he lied about who started the confrontation?

Bolded the reason everyone thinks you are in fantasy land. You keep saying things as fact that absolutely are not fact (and, if anything, violates the little bit of evidence we have)...

 

[Billy Bats]

It's like a ring-around-the-rosey death match.