Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (3 Viewers)

[The Commish]

So even in your scenarios, he's basically ignored the suggestion to leave it to the authorities and is out and about trying to find Martin? I can't say that Martin confronting Zimmerman is out of the question. It's certainly crossed my mind, but I keep coming back to "if he'd have let the authorities do their job, he wouldn't have been there to be confronted in the first place". Tonight, I can't help but think he brought this on himself. It will certainly be interesting to see how this is spun by both sides.

In the scenario in my last post, he wasn't ignoring the suggestion.. The suggestion was not to follow..

and you see a significant difference between following him and actively searching for him to differentiate between the two?

I never said he was actively searching for him after receiving the suggestion from the 911 operator. I said, he could have either been getting an address, as he said he was, or seeing if Trayvon was running through the back gate. Walking to the next clearing where you can potentially see someone 100 yards away run through the back gate isn't "following".. So, yes, there is a huge difference.. Especially since in the context being used here, following=pursuing with the intent to engage..

There's a billion different scenarios. I'm asking of the scenario you think happened that allows you to already acquit him. What do you think happened? Or are you just in here saying he's not guilty because a million other things could have happened?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Day 2 DEFENSE proceedings...

A Black guy

A Hispanic guy

and a Judge walk into a bar....

 

[The Commish]

So from the point of view of someone who doesn't have a dog in the fight today was about a very tasteless joke early on, but after witnesses started, it actually got interesting. I learned that Zimmerman was calm. He certainly sounded calm on the phone (not really sure what that means yet). He also had already made several assumptions about a kid he's never seen before. He decided, against the advice of the police, to do his own thing. Dispatch could see, based on the information they were given, through Zimmerman's filter, why he might follow Martin (not sure what this means yet). The fact remains their advice was to stay put even after getting this information.

This is all irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what was going on when Zimmerman pulled the trigger. Was Zimmerman screaming for his life or was Martin. m

Yes and no. You keep repeating this, but I am not convinced that the jury is going to zone out everything else the way you are. Both sides are trying to set up certain conditions that will make things believable later on. For instance, if you are inclined to believe that Zimmerman basically followed instructions from the 911 operator, you will probably be more inclined to believe that Martin attacked him. On the other hand, if you are inclined to believe that Zimmerman ignored the operator and did his own thing, you will be more likely to be suspicious of any testimony given by Zimmerman regarding what actually happened once the confrontation started.

What i find interesting during the 911 call is that dispatch says to george are you following him and he says ya,its more than a minute later that he wouldnt tell dispatch his address because he doesnt know where this guy is(meaning trey could hear him if he says it) .That tells me zimm had to have been walking around between the buildings where the T is looking for trey. Now if trey looked back at zimm and saw him getting out of his truck he must have just dove behind something around the corner and just hid there. Seeing zimm walking around for a whole minute would be scary and or concerning to ANYONE in that situation. If zimm stopped when he was told to and was returning to his truck there would be no way trey would hear him say his address....IMO

This exact thought crossed my mind. If he were in his truck, logically his windows would be up (since it was raining). How is this kid going to hear him?

No one said he was in his truck.. He could have already been standing at the intersection when that took place.. "between 2 buildings" as the testimony from the 911 operator agreed to..

So what's the generally believed timeline of events by the Zimmerman defenders? I'm not going back, digging through 300+ pages of 5 digit drivel to find the consensus.

He calls 911, has the conversation as established today. What does he do during that conversation and where does he end up at the end of that conversation?

We don't know exactly, but it could have gone down like this:

Zimmerman gets out of his truck and walks/jogs/runs (who knows) to the edge of the building, trayvon has already ducted behind something, zimmerman says "he's gone", Zimmerman walks/jogs/runs (who knows) to the other side of the next building to either see if he sees trayvon running to the back entrance, or get an address, sometime in between gets off the phone.. Starts walking back through the area between the buildings, Trayvon who has been watching and now doesn't view Zimmerman as a physical threat (Zimmerman is shorter, and "soft") gets the courage to confront and pops out of hiding "hey, why you following me?".. Then confrontation gets physical from one side or the other.. and the rest we know..

So even in your scenarios, he's basically ignored the suggestion to leave it to the authorities and is out and about trying to find Martin? I can't say that Martin confronting Zimmerman is out of the question. It's certainly crossed my mind, but I keep coming back to "if he'd have let the authorities do their job, he wouldn't have been there to be confronted in the first place". Tonight, I can't help but think he brought this on himself. It will certainly be interesting to see how this is spun by both sides.

You claim to have no horse in this race, but you are constantly putting out the pro-Martin spin. You can play a lot of what if scenerios. They both did actions which lead to this tragedy. IMHO, Martin confronting Zimmerman is the most logical conclusion that can be drawn.

These discussions aren't either/or. Because I am poking at the theories presented by the pro Zimmerman guys doesn't mean I'm pro Martin. That's the simple think that allows one to determine guilt or innocence before the trial even starts. I haven't really seen any "pro Martin" spin. Folks here seem to be either pro or anti Zimmerman. I'm neither. If he did it, let him fry for all I care. If he didn't, then he walks. It doesn't matter a bit to me. What I am trying to do in this thread is understand how everyone already knows the guilt/innocence of this guy. So far, the more zealous crew seems to be the pro Zimmerman crowd. I know you'll dismiss this because it requires understanding something other than pro Zimmerman or pro Martin, but that's on you...not me.

 

[The Commish]

From the little I've read about yesterday I don't get the prosecution's argument that Zimmerman was a hate-fueled killing machine or somesuch. He initiated the event and in my opinion is responsible for it (he's going to have a much tougher go of things in the civil case), but I don't think he set out to kill someone. That's just a stupid argument IMO and seems like overreach.

I don't think this is going to be the prosecution's approach or they would have gone full out press for first degree murder. I think, at best, they will try and portray this guy as a wannabe cop who took it upon himself to act based on a preconceived opinion of a kid he'd never met/seen before. Things went wrong quickly and the kid is now dead because of it. That's about all they can do.

 

[jamny]

From the little I've read about yesterday I don't get the prosecution's argument that Zimmerman was a hate-fueled killing machine or somesuch. He initiated the event and in my opinion is responsible for it (he's going to have a much tougher go of things in the civil case), but I don't think he set out to kill someone. That's just a stupid argument IMO and seems like overreach.

Yeah, I don't get this either. You can say Zimmerman was negligent and the SYG law doesn't apply, but to say he set out to kill that night seems silly.

 

[jon_mx]

You didn't get the point beck then and you still don't. It's true that the defense in their cross examination would attempt to make the same distinction you did. But it fell flat with most commentators and I doubt it will impress the jury either. It's always been a very minor point- far more important is what did Zimmean do or not do once the comment was made.

Your point completely misrepresented the facts. You stated: "The fact that Zimmerman disobeys police gives me insight into his personality."

That is the point. Your spin time after time relies on misrepresenting facts to fit your forgone conclusions. You beleive Zimmerman is a racist murder and you keep twisting facts and refuse to admit it when you are caught.

 

[Spanky267]

http://news.yahoo.com/zimmerman-portrayed-vigilante-fla-shooting-204339598.html

Late Monday, the Seminole County NAACP held a town hall meeting at a church near a memorial site for Martin.

Martin family attorney Benjamin Crump, who as a potential witness in the case can't be present in the courtroom until he testifies, told the crowd that the outcome of the case would have far-reaching implications.

"It became a civil rights matter the night the police did not arrest the killer of an unarmed child," Crump said. "It's going to be a litmus test to show how far we have come."

I wonder if the families that CNN interviewed who had family members die and no one was arrested or prosecuted under the Stand Your Ground law feel that way.

Why would Crump be a potential witness in the trial. He doesnt have anything to lend to the proceedings as he wasnt present the night of the shooting and became the Martin's attorney only after the tragedy?

Apparently he was the first one to interview the girlfriend, before the police did.

Okay, but if the police interviewed the girlfriend then wont the prosecution use that interview or one conducted by the district attorney's onw investigators before they call Crump to discuss his interview? Only way I could see Crump being called is by the defense. Since he represents the Martin's, I dont see that happening.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

You didn't get the point beck then and you still don't. It's true that the defense in their cross examination would attempt to make the same distinction you did. But it fell flat with most commentators and I doubt it will impress the jury either. It's always been a very minor point- far more important is what did Zimmean do or not do once the comment was made.

Your point completely misrepresented the facts. You stated: "The fact that Zimmerman disobeys police gives me insight into his personality."

That is the point. Your spin time after time relies on misrepresenting facts to fit your forgone conclusions. You beleive Zimmerman is a racist murder and you keep twisting facts and refuse to admit it when you are caught.

but Tim says he always admits when he's wrong?!?

 

[jon_mx]

These discussions aren't either/or. Because I am poking at the theories presented by the pro Zimmerman guys doesn't mean I'm pro Martin. That's the simple think that allows one to determine guilt or innocence before the trial even starts. I haven't really seen any "pro Martin" spin. Folks here seem to be either pro or anti Zimmerman. I'm neither. If he did it, let him fry for all I care. If he didn't, then he walks. It doesn't matter a bit to me. What I am trying to do in this thread is understand how everyone already knows the guilt/innocence of this guy. So far, the more zealous crew seems to be the pro Zimmerman crowd. I know you'll dismiss this because it requires understanding something other than pro Zimmerman or pro Martin, but that's on you...not me.

Which is total BS. It is the anti-Zimmerman crown which wish to brand him a racist murderer despite admitting the evidence in the case in insufficient for a conviction. My point is if that is the case, why on earth is Zimmerman being placed on trial? There should be no trial. You should not put people in jail and on trial just to please public outcry. If there was sufficient evidence to support the prosecution claim that Zimmerman wanted to kill Martin, then yes he should be put on trial and hopefully convicted. But there is nothing that has been put out there which supports such claim. But just to make Tim and a few others feel good, is not justification. This is an assault on our blind system of justice where everyone is supposed to be treated equally.

 

[The Commish]

You didn't get the point beck then and you still don't. It's true that the defense in their cross examination would attempt to make the same distinction you did. But it fell flat with most commentators and I doubt it will impress the jury either. It's always been a very minor point- far more important is what did Zimmean do or not do once the comment was made.

Your point completely misrepresented the facts. You stated: "The fact that Zimmerman disobeys police gives me insight into his personality."

That is the point. Your spin time after time relies on misrepresenting facts to fit your forgone conclusions. You beleive Zimmerman is a racist murder and you keep twisting facts and refuse to admit it when you are caught.

So you'd have been fine with him saying "The fact that Zimmerman ignored the police suggestion gives me insight into his personality" ?? In the context of this discussion, is it really THAT much of a difference? All you guys seem to be arguing all these little "gotcha" moments, that for me at least, have little bearing to the larger picture. I don't get it.

 

[Godsbrother]

From the little I've read about yesterday I don't get the prosecution's argument that Zimmerman was a hate-fueled killing machine or somesuch. He initiated the event and in my opinion is responsible for it (he's going to have a much tougher go of things in the civil case), but I don't think he set out to kill someone. That's just a stupid argument IMO and seems like overreach.

I don't think this is going to be the prosecution's approach or they would have gone full out press for first degree murder. I think, at best, they will try and portray this guy as a wannabe cop who took it upon himself to act based on a preconceived opinion of a kid he'd never met/seen before. Things went wrong quickly and the kid is now dead because of it. That's about all they can do.

Based on what I have heard this sounds like the most likely scenario of what really happened.

 

[The Commish]

These discussions aren't either/or. Because I am poking at the theories presented by the pro Zimmerman guys doesn't mean I'm pro Martin. That's the simple think that allows one to determine guilt or innocence before the trial even starts. I haven't really seen any "pro Martin" spin. Folks here seem to be either pro or anti Zimmerman. I'm neither. If he did it, let him fry for all I care. If he didn't, then he walks. It doesn't matter a bit to me. What I am trying to do in this thread is understand how everyone already knows the guilt/innocence of this guy. So far, the more zealous crew seems to be the pro Zimmerman crowd. I know you'll dismiss this because it requires understanding something other than pro Zimmerman or pro Martin, but that's on you...not me.

Which is total BS. It is the anti-Zimmerman crown which wish to brand him a racist murderer despite admitting the evidence in the case in insufficient for a conviction. My point is if that is the case, why on earth is Zimmerman being placed on trial? There should be no trial. You should not put people in jail and on trial just to please public outcry. If there was sufficient evidence to support the prosecution claim that Zimmerman wanted to kill Martin, then yes he should be put on trial and hopefully convicted. But there is nothing that has been put out there which supports such claim. But just to make Tim and a few others feel good, is not justification. This is an assault on our blind system of justice where everyone is supposed to be treated equally.

What I take from your post is that you already know everything there is to know about the whole thing to make a complete judgment. To me, you're in the same boat with those ready to fry him. The only difference between you is, one side is rowing in one direction, the other side the opposite direction. You claim to be this huge "justice has to work" guy yet you're wanting to completely avoid the process. The evidence has been analyzed by the prosecution and they believe there's enough to go to trial. I do give you credit for all the "if" statements you've made thus far. You have left yourself plenty of outs here, so you've got that going for you.

 

[jon_mx]

You didn't get the point beck then and you still don't. It's true that the defense in their cross examination would attempt to make the same distinction you did. But it fell flat with most commentators and I doubt it will impress the jury either. It's always been a very minor point- far more important is what did Zimmean do or not do once the comment was made.

Your point completely misrepresented the facts. You stated: "The fact that Zimmerman disobeys police gives me insight into his personality."

That is the point. Your spin time after time relies on misrepresenting facts to fit your forgone conclusions. You beleive Zimmerman is a racist murder and you keep twisting facts and refuse to admit it when you are caught.

So you'd have been fine with him saying "The fact that Zimmerman ignored the police suggestion gives me insight into his personality" ?? In the context of this discussion, is it really THAT much of a difference? All you guys seem to be arguing all these little "gotcha" moments, that for me at least, have little bearing to the larger picture. I don't get it.

The case against Zimmerman is completely circumstantial and it is the ridiculous spin which makes him sound evil...They want to call him a "stalker", "racial profiler", "disobeying police", "wannabe cop", "fighter". The only way to get a jury to buy into the claim that Zimmerman is a killer is to try to frame him with these extreme characterizations, which I believe are twisting of facts. So this is not some "gotcha" game, it is the whole case they have against Zimmerman.

 

[Godsbrother]

These discussions aren't either/or. Because I am poking at the theories presented by the pro Zimmerman guys doesn't mean I'm pro Martin. That's the simple think that allows one to determine guilt or innocence before the trial even starts. I haven't really seen any "pro Martin" spin. Folks here seem to be either pro or anti Zimmerman. I'm neither. If he did it, let him fry for all I care. If he didn't, then he walks. It doesn't matter a bit to me. What I am trying to do in this thread is understand how everyone already knows the guilt/innocence of this guy. So far, the more zealous crew seems to be the pro Zimmerman crowd. I know you'll dismiss this because it requires understanding something other than pro Zimmerman or pro Martin, but that's on you...not me.

Which is total BS. It is the anti-Zimmerman crown which wish to brand him a racist murderer despite admitting the evidence in the case in insufficient for a conviction. My point is if that is the case, why on earth is Zimmerman being placed on trial? There should be no trial. You should not put people in jail and on trial just to please public outcry. If there was sufficient evidence to support the prosecution claim that Zimmerman wanted to kill Martin, then yes he should be put on trial and hopefully convicted. But there is nothing that has been put out there which supports such claim. But just to make Tim and a few others feel good, is not justification. This is an assault on our blind system of justice where everyone is supposed to be treated equally.

He is on trial because he killed someone. Just because he didn't set out to kill doesn't mean he is blameless. The trial will determine whether or not it was homicide, manslaughter, accidental, etc.

 

[avoiding injuries]

These discussions aren't either/or. Because I am poking at the theories presented by the pro Zimmerman guys doesn't mean I'm pro Martin. That's the simple think that allows one to determine guilt or innocence before the trial even starts. I haven't really seen any "pro Martin" spin. Folks here seem to be either pro or anti Zimmerman. I'm neither. If he did it, let him fry for all I care. If he didn't, then he walks. It doesn't matter a bit to me. What I am trying to do in this thread is understand how everyone already knows the guilt/innocence of this guy. So far, the more zealous crew seems to be the pro Zimmerman crowd. I know you'll dismiss this because it requires understanding something other than pro Zimmerman or pro Martin, but that's on you...not me.

Which is total BS. It is the anti-Zimmerman crown which wish to brand him a racist murderer despite admitting the evidence in the case in insufficient for a conviction. My point is if that is the case, why on earth is Zimmerman being placed on trial? There should be no trial. You should not put people in jail and on trial just to please public outcry. If there was sufficient evidence to support the prosecution claim that Zimmerman wanted to kill Martin, then yes he should be put on trial and hopefully convicted. But there is nothing that has been put out there which supports such claim. But just to make Tim and a few others feel good, is not justification. This is an assault on our blind system of justice where everyone is supposed to be treated equally.

Agreed. And there are people who think he's guilty based on what we know and people who think he was within his rights based on what we know. You can label them pro-whatever. If you think Zimmerman is guilty, which is what I'm gathering from your posts, you are considered Pro-Martin, no matter if you preface your opinion by stating you have no dog in the fight.

And there is plenty of spin on both sides. To say you don't see it on one, but do on the other, takes away credibility. Especially when you have to account for Tim's posts. (No offense Tim)

 

[jon_mx]

These discussions aren't either/or. Because I am poking at the theories presented by the pro Zimmerman guys doesn't mean I'm pro Martin. That's the simple think that allows one to determine guilt or innocence before the trial even starts. I haven't really seen any "pro Martin" spin. Folks here seem to be either pro or anti Zimmerman. I'm neither. If he did it, let him fry for all I care. If he didn't, then he walks. It doesn't matter a bit to me. What I am trying to do in this thread is understand how everyone already knows the guilt/innocence of this guy. So far, the more zealous crew seems to be the pro Zimmerman crowd. I know you'll dismiss this because it requires understanding something other than pro Zimmerman or pro Martin, but that's on you...not me.

Which is total BS. It is the anti-Zimmerman crown which wish to brand him a racist murderer despite admitting the evidence in the case in insufficient for a conviction. My point is if that is the case, why on earth is Zimmerman being placed on trial? There should be no trial. You should not put people in jail and on trial just to please public outcry. If there was sufficient evidence to support the prosecution claim that Zimmerman wanted to kill Martin, then yes he should be put on trial and hopefully convicted. But there is nothing that has been put out there which supports such claim. But just to make Tim and a few others feel good, is not justification. This is an assault on our blind system of justice where everyone is supposed to be treated equally.

What I take from your post is that you already know everything there is to know about the whole thing to make a complete judgment. To me, you're in the same boat with those ready to fry him. The only difference between you is, one side is rowing in one direction, the other side the opposite direction. You claim to be this huge "justice has to work" guy yet you're wanting to completely avoid the process. The evidence has been analyzed by the prosecution and they believe there's enough to go to trial. I do give you credit for all the "if" statements you've made thus far. You have left yourself plenty of outs here, so you've got that going for you.

The evidence was originally analyzed and no charges were brought. It was only after a national outcry, protests, and enormous public pressure that charges were brought. Yes, I believe all the essential evidence has been made public and very little additional facts will be learned. We will get some expert opinions and some insight into the forensics, but nothing earth shattering to support the claim of murder. I can't stop you from lumping me together with arguements I have not made, but that is your issue, not mine. I stick with what people say they mean, and not try to read minds and convict by association.

 

[jon_mx]

These discussions aren't either/or. Because I am poking at the theories presented by the pro Zimmerman guys doesn't mean I'm pro Martin. That's the simple think that allows one to determine guilt or innocence before the trial even starts. I haven't really seen any "pro Martin" spin. Folks here seem to be either pro or anti Zimmerman. I'm neither. If he did it, let him fry for all I care. If he didn't, then he walks. It doesn't matter a bit to me. What I am trying to do in this thread is understand how everyone already knows the guilt/innocence of this guy. So far, the more zealous crew seems to be the pro Zimmerman crowd. I know you'll dismiss this because it requires understanding something other than pro Zimmerman or pro Martin, but that's on you...not me.

Which is total BS. It is the anti-Zimmerman crown which wish to brand him a racist murderer despite admitting the evidence in the case in insufficient for a conviction. My point is if that is the case, why on earth is Zimmerman being placed on trial? There should be no trial. You should not put people in jail and on trial just to please public outcry. If there was sufficient evidence to support the prosecution claim that Zimmerman wanted to kill Martin, then yes he should be put on trial and hopefully convicted. But there is nothing that has been put out there which supports such claim. But just to make Tim and a few others feel good, is not justification. This is an assault on our blind system of justice where everyone is supposed to be treated equally.

He is on trial because he killed someone. Just because he didn't set out to kill doesn't mean he is blameless. The trial will determine whether or not it was homicide, manslaughter, accidental, etc.

So you are OK with putting people on trial for fishing expeditions? You bring someone to trial because you have enough evidence to convict him of murder, and that means all elements of the crime. We don't put people in jail and hold trials just to find out stuff.

 

[The Commish]

You didn't get the point beck then and you still don't. It's true that the defense in their cross examination would attempt to make the same distinction you did. But it fell flat with most commentators and I doubt it will impress the jury either. It's always been a very minor point- far more important is what did Zimmean do or not do once the comment was made.

Your point completely misrepresented the facts. You stated: "The fact that Zimmerman disobeys police gives me insight into his personality."

That is the point. Your spin time after time relies on misrepresenting facts to fit your forgone conclusions. You beleive Zimmerman is a racist murder and you keep twisting facts and refuse to admit it when you are caught.

So you'd have been fine with him saying "The fact that Zimmerman ignored the police suggestion gives me insight into his personality" ?? In the context of this discussion, is it really THAT much of a difference? All you guys seem to be arguing all these little "gotcha" moments, that for me at least, have little bearing to the larger picture. I don't get it.

The case against Zimmerman is completely circumstantial and it is the ridiculous spin which makes him sound evil...They want to call him a "stalker", "racial profiler", "disobeying police", "wannabe cop", "fighter". The only way to get a jury to buy into the claim that Zimmerman is a killer is to try to frame him with these extreme characterizations, which I believe are twisting of facts. So this is not some "gotcha" game, it is the whole case they have against Zimmerman.

You didn't answer my question.

 

[The Commish]

These discussions aren't either/or. Because I am poking at the theories presented by the pro Zimmerman guys doesn't mean I'm pro Martin. That's the simple think that allows one to determine guilt or innocence before the trial even starts. I haven't really seen any "pro Martin" spin. Folks here seem to be either pro or anti Zimmerman. I'm neither. If he did it, let him fry for all I care. If he didn't, then he walks. It doesn't matter a bit to me. What I am trying to do in this thread is understand how everyone already knows the guilt/innocence of this guy. So far, the more zealous crew seems to be the pro Zimmerman crowd. I know you'll dismiss this because it requires understanding something other than pro Zimmerman or pro Martin, but that's on you...not me.

Which is total BS. It is the anti-Zimmerman crown which wish to brand him a racist murderer despite admitting the evidence in the case in insufficient for a conviction. My point is if that is the case, why on earth is Zimmerman being placed on trial? There should be no trial. You should not put people in jail and on trial just to please public outcry. If there was sufficient evidence to support the prosecution claim that Zimmerman wanted to kill Martin, then yes he should be put on trial and hopefully convicted. But there is nothing that has been put out there which supports such claim. But just to make Tim and a few others feel good, is not justification. This is an assault on our blind system of justice where everyone is supposed to be treated equally.

What I take from your post is that you already know everything there is to know about the whole thing to make a complete judgment. To me, you're in the same boat with those ready to fry him. The only difference between you is, one side is rowing in one direction, the other side the opposite direction. You claim to be this huge "justice has to work" guy yet you're wanting to completely avoid the process. The evidence has been analyzed by the prosecution and they believe there's enough to go to trial. I do give you credit for all the "if" statements you've made thus far. You have left yourself plenty of outs here, so you've got that going for you.

The evidence was originally analyzed and no charges were brought. It was only after a national outcry, protests, and enormous public pressure that charges were brought. Yes, I believe all the essential evidence has been made public and very little additional facts will be learned. We will get some expert opinions and some insight into the forensics, but nothing earth shattering to support the claim of murder. I can't stop you from lumping me together with arguements I have not made, but that is your issue, not mine. I stick with what people say they mean, and not try to read minds and convict by association.

What do you mean by this?

 

[Gawain]

Lawyer jokes aside, all I get from this is that cops suck. If you have something stolen or your house is broken into, congrats on the police not thinking it's an emergency.

 

[Godsbrother]

These discussions aren't either/or. Because I am poking at the theories presented by the pro Zimmerman guys doesn't mean I'm pro Martin. That's the simple think that allows one to determine guilt or innocence before the trial even starts. I haven't really seen any "pro Martin" spin. Folks here seem to be either pro or anti Zimmerman. I'm neither. If he did it, let him fry for all I care. If he didn't, then he walks. It doesn't matter a bit to me. What I am trying to do in this thread is understand how everyone already knows the guilt/innocence of this guy. So far, the more zealous crew seems to be the pro Zimmerman crowd. I know you'll dismiss this because it requires understanding something other than pro Zimmerman or pro Martin, but that's on you...not me.

Which is total BS. It is the anti-Zimmerman crown which wish to brand him a racist murderer despite admitting the evidence in the case in insufficient for a conviction. My point is if that is the case, why on earth is Zimmerman being placed on trial? There should be no trial. You should not put people in jail and on trial just to please public outcry. If there was sufficient evidence to support the prosecution claim that Zimmerman wanted to kill Martin, then yes he should be put on trial and hopefully convicted. But there is nothing that has been put out there which supports such claim. But just to make Tim and a few others feel good, is not justification. This is an assault on our blind system of justice where everyone is supposed to be treated equally.

He is on trial because he killed someone. Just because he didn't set out to kill doesn't mean he is blameless. The trial will determine whether or not it was homicide, manslaughter, accidental, etc.

So you are OK with putting people on trial for fishing expeditions? You bring someone to trial because you have enough evidence to convict him of murder, and that means all elements of the crime. We don't put people in jail and hold trials just to find out stuff.

There is no denying that he killed Martin. The prosecution feels they had enough evidence to charge Zimmerman and bring him to trial. So yes I am okay with that.

 

[jon_mx]

You didn't get the point beck then and you still don't. It's true that the defense in their cross examination would attempt to make the same distinction you did. But it fell flat with most commentators and I doubt it will impress the jury either. It's always been a very minor point- far more important is what did Zimmean do or not do once the comment was made.

Your point completely misrepresented the facts. You stated: "The fact that Zimmerman disobeys police gives me insight into his personality."

That is the point. Your spin time after time relies on misrepresenting facts to fit your forgone conclusions. You beleive Zimmerman is a racist murder and you keep twisting facts and refuse to admit it when you are caught.

So you'd have been fine with him saying "The fact that Zimmerman ignored the police suggestion gives me insight into his personality" ?? In the context of this discussion, is it really THAT much of a difference? All you guys seem to be arguing all these little "gotcha" moments, that for me at least, have little bearing to the larger picture. I don't get it.

The case against Zimmerman is completely circumstantial and it is the ridiculous spin which makes him sound evil...They want to call him a "stalker", "racial profiler", "disobeying police", "wannabe cop", "fighter". The only way to get a jury to buy into the claim that Zimmerman is a killer is to try to frame him with these extreme characterizations, which I believe are twisting of facts. So this is not some "gotcha" game, it is the whole case they have against Zimmerman.

You didn't answer my question.

I did answer your question. Yes it does make a difference in the case. The verdict in this case could hinge on how the jury views Zimmerman's character, and whether he is someone who completely disreguards authority is a key point the prosecution wishes to make.

 

[StrikeS2k]

I am constantly amazed at how much Tim's world view and opinions are based on what other people say. It's pretty sad actually for someone who pretends to be as inteligent as Tim does.

First off I don't pretend to be intelligent, or stupid, or anything in between. I think I'm fairly smart, I suppose, but not nearly as smart as several of the people here, which is why I frequent this thread.

Second, very little of my world view is based on what other people say. My world view was formed when I was a teenager, modified as a young adult, and set into stone by the time I was 30, and hasn't changed much since. My opinion, however, is something else entirely- that changes all the time. Every time I receive new information, it changes my opinion, or at least I want it to. It depresses me that there are so many people out there, including you, who seem to reject any new information that might threaten one of your convictions.

Third, while you are constantly amazed about me, I am constantly amazed by you- particularly your obsession with my posts. You've stated time and again your utter disdain for anything I have to say. Why not just put me on ignore if I truly irritate you so much?

If I put you on ignore I'd miss out on half the posts in some of the threads that I read. And if you don't rely on other people for your opinions, how come half of your posts consist of you posting some op-ed or quoting someone you heard on radio/tv? No one else does that nearly to the extent that you do. And you're always posting stuff from people who "agree with you" or probably more accurately people who've convinced you of their beliefs.

 

[avoiding injuries]

I watched HLN yesterday for a bit and have heard experienced lawyer opinions on how they thought the day went. I'd be more interested to hear the opinions of some random middle aged women with not much judicial experience.

 

[The Commish]

You didn't get the point beck then and you still don't. It's true that the defense in their cross examination would attempt to make the same distinction you did. But it fell flat with most commentators and I doubt it will impress the jury either. It's always been a very minor point- far more important is what did Zimmean do or not do once the comment was made.

Your point completely misrepresented the facts. You stated: "The fact that Zimmerman disobeys police gives me insight into his personality."

That is the point. Your spin time after time relies on misrepresenting facts to fit your forgone conclusions. You beleive Zimmerman is a racist murder and you keep twisting facts and refuse to admit it when you are caught.

So you'd have been fine with him saying "The fact that Zimmerman ignored the police suggestion gives me insight into his personality" ?? In the context of this discussion, is it really THAT much of a difference? All you guys seem to be arguing all these little "gotcha" moments, that for me at least, have little bearing to the larger picture. I don't get it.

The case against Zimmerman is completely circumstantial and it is the ridiculous spin which makes him sound evil...They want to call him a "stalker", "racial profiler", "disobeying police", "wannabe cop", "fighter". The only way to get a jury to buy into the claim that Zimmerman is a killer is to try to frame him with these extreme characterizations, which I believe are twisting of facts. So this is not some "gotcha" game, it is the whole case they have against Zimmerman.

You didn't answer my question.

I did answer your question. Yes it does make a difference in the case. The verdict in this case could hinge on how the jury views Zimmerman's character, and whether he is someone who completely disreguards authority is a key point the prosecution wishes to make.

You stated a page or two ago that the only thing that matters in this case was who was yelling "help" on the call. Now you're conceding that this also matters? What exactly is your position on this whole thing? You seem to be hopping all over the place and arguing just to argue. To this specific point, I don't see a substantial difference in ignoring an order vs ignoring advice. Both cases show a lack of respect to law enforcement, but I don't see that one is a ton more egregious than the other.

 

[jon_mx]

I am constantly amazed at how much Tim's world view and opinions are based on what other people say. It's pretty sad actually for someone who pretends to be as inteligent as Tim does.

First off I don't pretend to be intelligent, or stupid, or anything in between. I think I'm fairly smart, I suppose, but not nearly as smart as several of the people here, which is why I frequent this thread.

Second, very little of my world view is based on what other people say. My world view was formed when I was a teenager, modified as a young adult, and set into stone by the time I was 30, and hasn't changed much since. My opinion, however, is something else entirely- that changes all the time. Every time I receive new information, it changes my opinion, or at least I want it to. It depresses me that there are so many people out there, including you, who seem to reject any new information that might threaten one of your convictions.

Third, while you are constantly amazed about me, I am constantly amazed by you- particularly your obsession with my posts. You've stated time and again your utter disdain for anything I have to say. Why not just put me on ignore if I truly irritate you so much?

If I put you on ignore I'd miss out on half the posts in some of the threads that I read. And if you don't rely on other people for your opinions, how come half of your posts consist of you posting some op-ed or quoting someone you heard on radio/tv? No one else does that nearly to the extent that you do. And you're always posting stuff from people who "agree with you" or probably more accurately people who've convinced you of their beliefs.

In the last couple of days, Tim has resorted to "almost all of the commentators say" shtick at least a half-dozen times.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

West doing well here.

Prosecution got Neighborhood Watch association representation from Sanford Police to say they tell members when you see suspicious behavior do not follow.

On cross, West asks the same witness, "Do you tell members if they see suspicious that they can't follow from a safe distance?"

Witness: "No."

West: "But you tell them not to engage?"

Witness: "Exactly."

West also got the same witness to state it is appropriate to call 911/NEN if someone is for example: walking in the rain, not exercising, but without a purpose, walking in areas where people do not normally walk like between houses, or looking at cars, windows, or houses. She confirmed and added or if they try to hide their identity.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Okay, but if the police interviewed the girlfriend then wont the prosecution use that interview or one conducted by the district attorney's onw investigators before they call Crump to discuss his interview? Only way I could see Crump being called is by the defense. Since he represents the Martin's, I dont see that happening.

Zimmerman's brother and parents are also on the witness list.. They weren't there either..?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

You didn't get the point beck then and you still don't. It's true that the defense in their cross examination would attempt to make the same distinction you did. But it fell flat with most commentators and I doubt it will impress the jury either. It's always been a very minor point- far more important is what did Zimmean do or not do once the comment was made.

Your point completely misrepresented the facts. You stated: "The fact that Zimmerman disobeys police gives me insight into his personality."

That is the point. Your spin time after time relies on misrepresenting facts to fit your forgone conclusions. You beleive Zimmerman is a racist murder and you keep twisting facts and refuse to admit it when you are caught.

So you'd have been fine with him saying "The fact that Zimmerman ignored the police suggestion gives me insight into his personality" ?? In the context of this discussion, is it really THAT much of a difference? All you guys seem to be arguing all these little "gotcha" moments, that for me at least, have little bearing to the larger picture. I don't get it.

There is no proof that Zimmerman did continue to follow.. The timeline suggests rather that trayvon waited for Zimmerman, or came back to Zimmerman.. If Trayvon was fleeing, and Zimmerman was in pursuit, then the altercation would have taken place closer to Trayvons house, and maybe not at all, since Trayvon could have made it safely home before Zimmerman caught up to him..

 

[Spanky267]

http://news.yahoo.com/zimmerman-portrayed-vigilante-fla-shooting-204339598.html

Late Monday, the Seminole County NAACP held a town hall meeting at a church near a memorial site for Martin.

Martin family attorney Benjamin Crump, who as a potential witness in the case can't be present in the courtroom until he testifies, told the crowd that the outcome of the case would have far-reaching implications.

"It became a civil rights matter the night the police did not arrest the killer of an unarmed child," Crump said. "It's going to be a litmus test to show how far we have come."

I wonder if the families that CNN interviewed who had family members die and no one was arrested or prosecuted under the Stand Your Ground law feel that way.

Why would Crump be a potential witness in the trial. He doesnt have anything to lend to the proceedings as he wasnt present the night of the shooting and became the Martin's attorney only after the tragedy?

Apparently he was the first one to interview the girlfriend, before the police did.

Okay, but if the police interviewed the girlfriend then wont the prosecution use that interview or one conducted by the district attorney's onw investigators before they call Crump to discuss his interview? Only way I could see Crump being called is by the defense. Since he represents the Martin's, I dont see that happening.

Zimmerman's brother and parents are also on the witness list.. They weren't there either..?

Then maybe they shouldnt be called either. In the case of Zimmerman's parents and brother they might be relevant in determining state of mind. He lived with his parents right? In the case of Crump the only thing he can lend to the case is testimony on an interview that he conducted while representing the Martin family. An interview that was likely also conducted by the States Attorney. In the case of the Zimmermans and Crump they both could go the entire trial and not be called and it probably wont have any impact on the outcome of the trial.

 

[Yenrub]

These discussions aren't either/or. Because I am poking at the theories presented by the pro Zimmerman guys doesn't mean I'm pro Martin. That's the simple think that allows one to determine guilt or innocence before the trial even starts. I haven't really seen any "pro Martin" spin. Folks here seem to be either pro or anti Zimmerman. I'm neither. If he did it, let him fry for all I care. If he didn't, then he walks. It doesn't matter a bit to me. What I am trying to do in this thread is understand how everyone already knows the guilt/innocence of this guy. So far, the more zealous crew seems to be the pro Zimmerman crowd. I know you'll dismiss this because it requires understanding something other than pro Zimmerman or pro Martin, but that's on you...not me.

Which is total BS. It is the anti-Zimmerman crown which wish to brand him a racist murderer despite admitting the evidence in the case in insufficient for a conviction. My point is if that is the case, why on earth is Zimmerman being placed on trial? There should be no trial. You should not put people in jail and on trial just to please public outcry. If there was sufficient evidence to support the prosecution claim that Zimmerman wanted to kill Martin, then yes he should be put on trial and hopefully convicted. But there is nothing that has been put out there which supports such claim. But just to make Tim and a few others feel good, is not justification. This is an assault on our blind system of justice where everyone is supposed to be treated equally.

He is on trial because he killed someone. Just because he didn't set out to kill doesn't mean he is blameless. The trial will determine whether or not it was homicide, manslaughter, accidental, etc.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Then maybe they shouldnt be called either. In the case of Zimmerman's parents and brother they might be relevant in determining state of mind. He lived with his parents right? In the case of Crump the only thing he can lend to the case is testimony on an interview that he conducted while representing the Martin family. An interview that was likely also conducted by the States Attorney. In the case of the Zimmermans and Crump they both could go the entire trial and not be called and it probably wont have any impact on the outcome of the trial.

Zimmerman lived with his wife, not with his parents.. Crump has been heavily involved with the case since day one, including but not limited to hiding information about Martin like Facebook, Twitter, school records,phone records, etc.. He conducted his own investigation and was the first to get his hands on evidence in many cases.. What was the purpose of him deposing trayvons GF before the police? He certainly has information that can be used in trial..

 

[culdeus]

If there has ever been a worse thread with 10k+ Posts on this board I can't really recall it.

 

[Spanky267]

http://news.yahoo.com/zimmerman-portrayed-vigilante-fla-shooting-204339598.html

Late Monday, the Seminole County NAACP held a town hall meeting at a church near a memorial site for Martin.

Martin family attorney Benjamin Crump, who as a potential witness in the case can't be present in the courtroom until he testifies, told the crowd that the outcome of the case would have far-reaching implications.

"It became a civil rights matter the night the police did not arrest the killer of an unarmed child," Crump said. "It's going to be a litmus test to show how far we have come."

I wonder if the families that CNN interviewed who had family members die and no one was arrested or prosecuted under the Stand Your Ground law feel that way.

Why would Crump be a potential witness in the trial. He doesnt have anything to lend to the proceedings as he wasnt present the night of the shooting and became the Martin's attorney only after the tragedy?

Apparently he was the first one to interview the girlfriend, before the police did.

Okay, but if the police interviewed the girlfriend then wont the prosecution use that interview or one conducted by the district attorney's onw investigators before they call Crump to discuss his interview? Only way I could see Crump being called is by the defense. Since he represents the Martin's, I dont see that happening.

Zimmerman's brother and parents are also on the witness list.. They weren't there either..?

Then maybe they shouldnt be called either. In the case of Zimmerman's parents and brother they might be relevant in determining state of mind. He lived with his parents right? In the case of Crump the only thing he can lend to the case is testimony on an interview that he conducted while representing the Martin family. An interview that was likely also conducted by the States Attorney. In the case of the Zimmermans and Crump they both could go the entire trial and not be called and it probably wont have any impact on the outcome of the trial.

Zimmerman lived with his wife, not with his parents.. Crump has been heavily involved with the case since day one, including but not limited to hiding information about Martin like Facebook, Twitter, school records,phone records, etc.. He conducted his own investigation and was the first to get his hands on evidence in many cases.. What was the purpose of him deposing trayvons GF before the police? He certainly has information that can be used in trial..

I thought that Zimmerman and his wife lived with his parents?

 

[The Commish]

You didn't get the point beck then and you still don't. It's true that the defense in their cross examination would attempt to make the same distinction you did. But it fell flat with most commentators and I doubt it will impress the jury either. It's always been a very minor point- far more important is what did Zimmean do or not do once the comment was made.

Your point completely misrepresented the facts. You stated: "The fact that Zimmerman disobeys police gives me insight into his personality."

That is the point. Your spin time after time relies on misrepresenting facts to fit your forgone conclusions. You beleive Zimmerman is a racist murder and you keep twisting facts and refuse to admit it when you are caught.

So you'd have been fine with him saying "The fact that Zimmerman ignored the police suggestion gives me insight into his personality" ?? In the context of this discussion, is it really THAT much of a difference? All you guys seem to be arguing all these little "gotcha" moments, that for me at least, have little bearing to the larger picture. I don't get it.

There is no proof that Zimmerman did continue to follow.. The timeline suggests rather that trayvon waited for Zimmerman, or came back to Zimmerman.. If Trayvon was fleeing, and Zimmerman was in pursuit, then the altercation would have taken place closer to Trayvons house, and maybe not at all, since Trayvon could have made it safely home before Zimmerman caught up to him..

This doesn't answer the question either. However, I noticed you leave out another possibility in Martin could have just been hiding right? He doesn't have to be searching for Zimmerman or fleeing to his house....there are other alternatives. Interested in why you left that one out?

 

[The Commish]

These discussions aren't either/or. Because I am poking at the theories presented by the pro Zimmerman guys doesn't mean I'm pro Martin. That's the simple think that allows one to determine guilt or innocence before the trial even starts. I haven't really seen any "pro Martin" spin. Folks here seem to be either pro or anti Zimmerman. I'm neither. If he did it, let him fry for all I care. If he didn't, then he walks. It doesn't matter a bit to me. What I am trying to do in this thread is understand how everyone already knows the guilt/innocence of this guy. So far, the more zealous crew seems to be the pro Zimmerman crowd. I know you'll dismiss this because it requires understanding something other than pro Zimmerman or pro Martin, but that's on you...not me.

Which is total BS. It is the anti-Zimmerman crown which wish to brand him a racist murderer despite admitting the evidence in the case in insufficient for a conviction. My point is if that is the case, why on earth is Zimmerman being placed on trial? There should be no trial. You should not put people in jail and on trial just to please public outcry. If there was sufficient evidence to support the prosecution claim that Zimmerman wanted to kill Martin, then yes he should be put on trial and hopefully convicted. But there is nothing that has been put out there which supports such claim. But just to make Tim and a few others feel good, is not justification. This is an assault on our blind system of justice where everyone is supposed to be treated equally.

He is on trial because he killed someone. Just because he didn't set out to kill doesn't mean he is blameless. The trial will determine whether or not it was homicide, manslaughter, accidental, etc.

So you are OK with putting people on trial for fishing expeditions? You bring someone to trial because you have enough evidence to convict him of murder, and that means all elements of the crime. We don't put people in jail and hold trials just to find out stuff.

Exactly, there has to be enough evidence to convict..

I don't understand this either....there is case after case in this country where people are proven innocent over the course of the trial. If the standard is as you two suggest, everyone would be found guilty because, afterall, we don't go to trial unless there is enough evidence to convict. Indeed, we do hold people in jail to get information out of them and we do go to trial to hear all the evidence and the testimony so that we may have a better idea of what actually happened. You guys are off base on this IMO.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I thought that Zimmerman and his wife lived with his parents?

nope

 

[Carolina Hustler]

This doesn't answer the question either. However, I noticed you leave out another possibility in Martin could have just been hiding right? He doesn't have to be searching for Zimmerman or fleeing to his house....there are other alternatives. Interested in why you left that one out?

You didn't ask me a question.. You made a statement assuming that Zimmerman was following trayvon after the suggestion by the 911 operator, when there is no proof of that..

I said exactly that yesterday when I responded to this same question.. Waiting, and Hiding seem to be in the same realm for me because ultimately he could have just stayed in hiding rather than confront Zimmerman with "why you following me for" and Trayvons girlfriends said.,.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I don't understand this either....there is case after case in this country where people are proven innocent over the course of the trial. If the standard is as you two suggest, everyone would be found guilty because, afterall, we don't go to trial unless there is enough evidence to convict. Indeed, we do hold people in jail to get information out of them and we do go to trial to hear all the evidence and the testimony so that we may have a better idea of what actually happened. You guys are off base on this IMO.

There has to be probable cause or reasonable suspicion to detain someone.. You can't hold someone in jail "just to get information" They have to have broken a law.. You're wrong about that..

Legally, you're not supposed to be charged with a crime without evidence, and you have to be charged of a crime in order to be arrested.. You can't held in jail without being arrested. They can't arrest you in order to get the evidence.. The evidence has to come first.

 

[Yenrub]

These discussions aren't either/or. Because I am poking at the theories presented by the pro Zimmerman guys doesn't mean I'm pro Martin. That's the simple think that allows one to determine guilt or innocence before the trial even starts. I haven't really seen any "pro Martin" spin. Folks here seem to be either pro or anti Zimmerman. I'm neither. If he did it, let him fry for all I care. If he didn't, then he walks. It doesn't matter a bit to me. What I am trying to do in this thread is understand how everyone already knows the guilt/innocence of this guy. So far, the more zealous crew seems to be the pro Zimmerman crowd. I know you'll dismiss this because it requires understanding something other than pro Zimmerman or pro Martin, but that's on you...not me.

Which is total BS. It is the anti-Zimmerman crown which wish to brand him a racist murderer despite admitting the evidence in the case in insufficient for a conviction. My point is if that is the case, why on earth is Zimmerman being placed on trial? There should be no trial. You should not put people in jail and on trial just to please public outcry. If there was sufficient evidence to support the prosecution claim that Zimmerman wanted to kill Martin, then yes he should be put on trial and hopefully convicted. But there is nothing that has been put out there which supports such claim. But just to make Tim and a few others feel good, is not justification. This is an assault on our blind system of justice where everyone is supposed to be treated equally.

He is on trial because he killed someone. Just because he didn't set out to kill doesn't mean he is blameless. The trial will determine whether or not it was homicide, manslaughter, accidental, etc.

So you are OK with putting people on trial for fishing expeditions? You bring someone to trial because you have enough evidence to convict him of murder, and that means all elements of the crime. We don't put people in jail and hold trials just to find out stuff.

Exactly, there has to be enough evidence to convict..

I don't understand this either....there is case after case in this country where people are proven innocent over the course of the trial. If the standard is as you two suggest, everyone would be found guilty because, afterall, we don't go to trial unless there is enough evidence to convict. Indeed, we do hold people in jail to get information out of them and we do go to trial to hear all the evidence and the testimony so that we may have a better idea of what actually happened. You guys are off base on this IMO.

There has to be probable cause or reasonable suspicion to detain someone.. You can't hold someone in jail "just to get informatiomn" They have to have broken a law.. You're wrong about that..

Legally, you're not supposed to be charged with a crime without evidence, and you have to be charged of a crime in order to be arrested.. You can't held in jail without being arrested. They can't arrest you in order to get the evidence.. The evidence has to come first.

I don’t know if Zimmerman is guilty or not but a dead unarmed body shot and killed by Zimmerman seems like enough evidence to warrant an arrest and a trial

 

[timschochet]

If there has ever been a worse thread with 10k+ Posts on this board I can't really recall it.

Agreed. I'm really ashamed of my own role in it.

From now on I'm restricting myself to observations of what I glean from the trial. No more predictions, no more arguing racism or whether or not Zimmerman is guilty. My views are pretty well known on those subjects.

 

[Godsbrother]

These discussions aren't either/or. Because I am poking at the theories presented by the pro Zimmerman guys doesn't mean I'm pro Martin. That's the simple think that allows one to determine guilt or innocence before the trial even starts. I haven't really seen any "pro Martin" spin. Folks here seem to be either pro or anti Zimmerman. I'm neither. If he did it, let him fry for all I care. If he didn't, then he walks. It doesn't matter a bit to me. What I am trying to do in this thread is understand how everyone already knows the guilt/innocence of this guy. So far, the more zealous crew seems to be the pro Zimmerman crowd. I know you'll dismiss this because it requires understanding something other than pro Zimmerman or pro Martin, but that's on you...not me.

Which is total BS. It is the anti-Zimmerman crown which wish to brand him a racist murderer despite admitting the evidence in the case in insufficient for a conviction. My point is if that is the case, why on earth is Zimmerman being placed on trial? There should be no trial. You should not put people in jail and on trial just to please public outcry. If there was sufficient evidence to support the prosecution claim that Zimmerman wanted to kill Martin, then yes he should be put on trial and hopefully convicted. But there is nothing that has been put out there which supports such claim. But just to make Tim and a few others feel good, is not justification. This is an assault on our blind system of justice where everyone is supposed to be treated equally.

He is on trial because he killed someone. Just because he didn't set out to kill doesn't mean he is blameless. The trial will determine whether or not it was homicide, manslaughter, accidental, etc.

So you are OK with putting people on trial for fishing expeditions? You bring someone to trial because you have enough evidence to convict him of murder, and that means all elements of the crime. We don't put people in jail and hold trials just to find out stuff.

Exactly, there has to be enough evidence to convict..

I don't understand this either....there is case after case in this country where people are proven innocent over the course of the trial. If the standard is as you two suggest, everyone would be found guilty because, afterall, we don't go to trial unless there is enough evidence to convict. Indeed, we do hold people in jail to get information out of them and we do go to trial to hear all the evidence and the testimony so that we may have a better idea of what actually happened. You guys are off base on this IMO.

There has to be probable cause or reasonable suspicion to detain someone.. You can't hold someone in jail "just to get informatiomn" They have to have broken a law.. You're wrong about that..

Legally, you're not supposed to be charged with a crime without evidence, and you have to be charged of a crime in order to be arrested.. You can't held in jail without being arrested. They can't arrest you in order to get the evidence.. The evidence has to come first.

I don’t know if Zimmerman is guilty or not but a dead unarmed body shot and killed by Zimmerman seems like enough evidence to warrant an arrest and a trial

 

[timschochet]

I take it that HLN is a little behind, but that's what I'm watching.

The defense is doing an excellent job using the prosecution's witness (the lady that organized Neighborhood Watch) to paint a picture of a mild-mannered George Zimmerman.

 

[squistion]

If there has ever been a worse thread with 10k+ Posts on this board I can't really recall it.

Agreed. I'm really ashamed of my own role in it.

From now on I'm restricting myself to observations of what I glean from the trial. No more predictions, no more arguing racism or whether or not Zimmerman is guilty. My views are pretty well known on those subjects.

As are the views of CH, Jon_mx and JoJo, but I doubt that they will follow your lead.

 

[Billy Bats]

If there has ever been a worse thread with 10k+ Posts on this board I can't really recall it.

Not sure what's worse, the actual content or the ungodly amount of quoted posts making it completely unreadable.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

If there has ever been a worse thread with 10k+ Posts on this board I can't really recall it.

Agreed. I'm really ashamed of my own role in it.

From now on I'm restricting myself to observations of what I glean from the trial. No more predictions, no more arguing racism or whether or not Zimmerman is guilty. My views are pretty well known on those subjects.

As are the views of CH, Jon_mx and JoJo, but I doubt that they will follow your lead.

Why don't you tell me what my views are other than Zimmermans story is plausible, and most of the Anti-Zimmerman folks, including yourself ignore the lack of evidence to convict, and the evidence that doesn't fit your fry Zimmerman agenda.. I've laid out a scenario that includes the facts of the case.. The arguments I oppose are the ones that are contradicted by the facts of the case.. I've never said he was innocent.. But I'm certainly not going to concede that he is guilty just because a few of you anti-zimmerman folks are either racially/emotionally biased/motivated.

 

[avoiding injuries]

This witness from the police department who helps set up neighborhood watch programs was awfully complimentary towards Zimmerman. She was a prosecution witness as well that the defense used to its advantage.

Anyone agree/disagree?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I don’t know if Zimmerman is guilty or not but a dead unarmed body shot and killed by Zimmerman seems like enough evidence to warrant an arrest and a trial

He had to be charged with something in order to be arrested..

Many of you don't seem to know your civil rights or how the law works (or is supposed to work)

 

[avoiding injuries]

If there has ever been a worse thread with 10k+ Posts on this board I can't really recall it.

Not sure what's worse, the actual content or the ungodly amount of quoted posts making it completely unreadable.

You ain't kidding. On the iPhone it is brutal. Wasn't there a quote limit at one point?

 

[timschochet]

This witness from the police department who helps set up neighborhood watch programs was awfully complimentary towards Zimmerman. She was a prosecution witness as well that the defense used to its advantage.

Anyone agree/disagree?

Agreed. I think it was a tactical error to put her up there. The prosecution wanted to bolster the idea that Zimmerman did not follow instructions (or suggestions, whatever). But the jury already knows that. Here we have a well-spoken, intelligent woman praising Zimmerman. And she is black.