Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (3 Viewers)

[Bigboy10182000]

De La Rionda also used water bottles to help demonstrate the position of Zimmerman and Martin and even got Good to concede that he did not actually see punches thrown and that he "only saw downward movement" of arms.

Repetitive?

 

[jamny]

It should be noted that it's not clear that GZ has been lying.

That is why I'm not sure that the prosecutors shouldn't have instead of calling Zimmerman a liar they should have went with something like-

Zimmerman's honesty isn't on trial here, but his perspective and most of all his judgment. Martin is not dead because Zimmerman may or may not be a liar but because Zimmerman's perspective is so skewed, his judgment call so faulty that he believed he was serving the community by pursuing and ultimately shooting the skittle menace.

Nah. It's just not him. You couldn't prove it.

If anything the prosecution should have focused on how Zimmerman overreacted to the situation. (eta: the beatdown) I think they tried but failed.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

De La Rionda also used water bottles to help demonstrate the position of Zimmerman and Martin and even got Good to concede that he did not actually see punches thrown and that he "only saw downward movement" of arms.

Repetitive?

point is if good can admit he didnt see what he thought he saw then how can we take his account as gospel . It makes my theory as relevant as anything else

 

[17seconds]

If Zimmerman is found guilty, does Frank Taaffe riot? Dude is really unstable.

What did he do now?

Did you see the interview that he did with Nancy Grace the other night? Man, that interview got out of hand in a hurry. She cut off his mic when he said that TM was on drugs.

Got news for ya. She does that every night. He's a paid shill for Nancy Grace to have a Jerry Springer type show.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

De La Rionda also used water bottles to help demonstrate the position of Zimmerman and Martin and even got Good to concede that he did not actually see punches thrown and that he "only saw downward movement" of arms.

Repetitive?

point is if good can admit he didnt see what he thought he saw then how can we take his account as gospel . It makes my theory as relevant as anything else

It seems like over analyzing to me and even after what he said I believe a majority of people will take that we punches being thrown.

 

[jamny]

De La Rionda also used water bottles to help demonstrate the position of Zimmerman and Martin and even got Good to concede that he did not actually see punches thrown and that he "only saw downward movement" of arms.

Repetitive?

point is if good can admit he didnt see what he thought he saw then how can we take his account as gospel . It makes my theory as relevant as anything else

No, John saw punches being thrown down but admitted to not seeing them make contact because he was watching from behind TM's back. He was only being honest about not seeing the actual contact but witnessed plenty of downward arm movements from both of Trayvons arms. Just because he didn't see contact with skin doesn't mean it didn't happen.

 

[NIU Kicker]

So I finally got caught up on the facts if the case. Simply put John good = not guilty of murder.

You can argue some other charges, but murder is off the table.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

De La Rionda also used water bottles to help demonstrate the position of Zimmerman and Martin and even got Good to concede that he did not actually see punches thrown and that he "only saw downward movement" of arms.

Repetitive?

point is if good can admit he didnt see what he thought he saw then how can we take his account as gospel . It makes my theory as relevant as anything else

It seems like over analyzing to me and even after what he said I believe a majority of people will take that we punches being thrown.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

De La Rionda also used water bottles to help demonstrate the position of Zimmerman and Martin and even got Good to concede that he did not actually see punches thrown and that he "only saw downward movement" of arms.

Repetitive?

point is if good can admit he didnt see what he thought he saw then how can we take his account as gospel . It makes my theory as relevant as anything else

It seems like over analyzing to me and even after what he said I believe a majority of people will take that we punches being thrown.

i never said punches werent thrown. He had a free hand to do damage,but that would also explain why there wast that much damage after all. I dont expect you to agree with me...im throwing stuff against the wall just like everyone else. Ive had my share of ''incidents '' over the course of my life and im drawing on my experiences to reach my conclusions .

 

[jamny]

De La Rionda also used water bottles to help demonstrate the position of Zimmerman and Martin and even got Good to concede that he did not actually see punches thrown and that he "only saw downward movement" of arms.

Repetitive?

point is if good can admit he didnt see what he thought he saw then how can we take his account as gospel . It makes my theory as relevant as anything else

It seems like over analyzing to me and even after what he said I believe a majority of people will take that we punches being thrown.

i never said punches werent thrown. He had a free hand to do damage,but that would also explain why there wast that much damage after all. I dont expect you to agree with me...im throwing stuff against the wall just like everyone else. Ive had my share of ''incidents '' over the course of my life and im drawing on my experiences to reach my conclusions .

You're throwing #### against the wall just like everyone else is to make a case for what you want to believe. I think GZ should do jailtime but there is no way I could convict him of any of the charges if I was on the jury.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

It should be noted that it's not clear that GZ has been lying.

That is why I'm not sure that the prosecutors shouldn't have instead of calling Zimmerman a liar they should have went with something like-

Zimmerman's honesty isn't on trial here, but his perspective and most of all his judgment. Martin is not dead because Zimmerman may or may not be a liar but because Zimmerman's perspective is so skewed, his judgment call so faulty that he believed he was serving the community by pursuing and ultimately shooting the skittle menace.

Nah. It's just not him. You couldn't prove it.

If anything the prosecution should have focused on how Zimmerman overreacted to the situation. (eta: the beatdown) I think they tried but failed.

Right his perspective is so skewed that he thought he was being hurt in the minor scuffle. His judgment so fatally flawed that he pulled his gun when he could have just allowed Martin to run off. (We are going for the homerun of Murder 2.)

 

[BustedKnuckles]

De La Rionda also used water bottles to help demonstrate the position of Zimmerman and Martin and even got Good to concede that he did not actually see punches thrown and that he "only saw downward movement" of arms.

Repetitive?

point is if good can admit he didnt see what he thought he saw then how can we take his account as gospel . It makes my theory as relevant as anything else

It seems like over analyzing to me and even after what he said I believe a majority of people will take that we punches being thrown.

i never said punches werent thrown. He had a free hand to do damage,but that would also explain why there wast that much damage after all. I dont expect you to agree with me...im throwing stuff against the wall just like everyone else. Ive had my share of ''incidents '' over the course of my life and im drawing on my experiences to reach my conclusions .

You're throwing #### against the wall just like everyone else is to make a case for what you want to believe. I think GZ should do jailtime but there is no way I could convict him of any of the charges if I was on the jury.

im having a discussion on a social forum about what I believe happened after watching ,listening and reading about this case for a year now. I have no reason to believe anything zimmy says ...some of it may be true and some are lies for sure...problem is whats the truth and what isnt. Hard to tell .

 

[jamny]

De La Rionda also used water bottles to help demonstrate the position of Zimmerman and Martin and even got Good to concede that he did not actually see punches thrown and that he "only saw downward movement" of arms.

Repetitive?

point is if good can admit he didnt see what he thought he saw then how can we take his account as gospel . It makes my theory as relevant as anything else

It seems like over analyzing to me and even after what he said I believe a majority of people will take that we punches being thrown.

i never said punches werent thrown. He had a free hand to do damage,but that would also explain why there wast that much damage after all. I dont expect you to agree with me...im throwing stuff against the wall just like everyone else. Ive had my share of ''incidents '' over the course of my life and im drawing on my experiences to reach my conclusions .

You're throwing #### against the wall just like everyone else is to make a case for what you want to believe. I think GZ should do jailtime but there is no way I could convict him of any of the charges if I was on the jury.

im having a discussion on a social forum about what I believe happened after watching ,listening and reading about this case for a year now. I have no reason to believe anything zimmy says ...some of it may be true and some are lies for sure...problem is whats the truth and what isnt. Hard to tell .

I think nearly everything presented supports his story. There isn't much that was presented to dispute it. I still may not agree with the law as it is but to me there is no other answer besides not guilty.

 

[financewonk]

De La Rionda also used water bottles to help demonstrate the position of Zimmerman and Martin and even got Good to concede that he did not actually see punches thrown and that he "only saw downward movement" of arms.

Repetitive?

point is if good can admit he didnt see what he thought he saw then how can we take his account as gospel . It makes my theory as relevant as anything else

It seems like over analyzing to me and even after what he said I believe a majority of people will take that we punches being thrown.

i never said punches werent thrown. He had a free hand to do damage,but that would also explain why there wast that much damage after all. I dont expect you to agree with me...im throwing stuff against the wall just like everyone else. Ive had my share of ''incidents '' over the course of my life and im drawing on my experiences to reach my conclusions .

You're throwing #### against the wall just like everyone else is to make a case for what you want to believe. I think GZ should do jailtime but there is no way I could convict him of any of the charges if I was on the jury.

I agree. Even If I believed GZ's story verbatim, I'm not okay with what GZ did/ Florida law permits. In fact, I think it's probable that he did, in fact, commit manslaughter under Florida law. However, my degree of belief in his guilt is not high enough for me to vote guilty.

I think Mark O'Mara nailed it in his "connect the dots" argument. Spoke directly to my concerns...

 

[17seconds]

Seems a lot of people think GZ ####ed up that night but the way our system works he goes free

 

[jamny]

Seems a lot of people think GZ ####ed up that night but the way our system works he goes free

I think so.

You have to know the stakes go up when you enter a situation with a gun. Negligent homicide, I don't know what you'd call it. You just can't shoot someone because you're getting your ### kicked. Where's the line? Someone punches you in the face and you can shoot him?

 

[Christo]

Seems a lot of people think GZ ####ed up that night but the way our system works he goes free

I think so.

You have to know the stakes go up when you enter a situation with a gun. Negligent homicide, I don't know what you'd call it. You just can't shoot someone because you're getting your ### kicked. Where's the line? Someone punches you in the face and you can shoot him?

Why not? WTF are you to punch me in the face?

 

[jamny]

Seems a lot of people think GZ ####ed up that night but the way our system works he goes free

I think so.

You have to know the stakes go up when you enter a situation with a gun. Negligent homicide, I don't know what you'd call it. You just can't shoot someone because you're getting your ### kicked. Where's the line? Someone punches you in the face and you can shoot him?

Why not? WTF are you to punch me in the face?

Look, I'm sure I'm wrong, I KNOW I'm wrong according to the law. It just doesn't seem right in this case.

 

[timschochet]

Can we get the post leaders of this thread?

Carolina Hustler 2160 Christo 1697 timschochet 1693 BustedKnuckles 1372 jon_mx 1267 Jojo the circus boy 1033 The Commish 496 Chaos Commish 490 BigSteelThrill 457

I knew there was a reason I felt that Christo and timschochet were similar.

Who are you?

Those who are using an alias rarely admit it.

I'm not an alias. From what I've seen of this thread, Christo and Tim seem to occupy opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to the quality of their posts in this thread. I find Christo's posts to be intelligent and worthwhile while Tim's are, well Tim's. That is all.

No it isn't all. LOL, guy, your posts have been incredibly insipid, so it takes particular gall for you to call me out. The main reason you choose to insult me has nothing to do with the quality of my contribution here, but because you don't like my POV. That's fine, but don't try to hide behind personal insults. You've offered absolutely nothing to this thread- no information, no ideas, no thought, other than your belief that Zimmerman is innocent mainly because considering him guilty doesn't match up with your conservative viewpoint. Perhaps someday you'll demonstrate even a spark of original thinking; then and only will I take any of your criticisms seriously.

 

[timschochet]

Seems a lot of people think GZ ####ed up that night but the way our system works he goes free

I think so.

You have to know the stakes go up when you enter a situation with a gun. Negligent homicide, I don't know what you'd call it. You just can't shoot someone because you're getting your ### kicked. Where's the line? Someone punches you in the face and you can shoot him?

Why not? WTF are you to punch me in the face?

WTF are you to shoot me dead if I punch you in the face?

 

[Christo]

Seems a lot of people think GZ ####ed up that night but the way our system works he goes free

I think so.

You have to know the stakes go up when you enter a situation with a gun. Negligent homicide, I don't know what you'd call it. You just can't shoot someone because you're getting your ### kicked. Where's the line? Someone punches you in the face and you can shoot him?

Why not? WTF are you to punch me in the face?

WTF are you to shoot me dead if I punch you in the face?

That would make me the winner.

 

[financewonk]

Seems a lot of people think GZ ####ed up that night but the way our system works he goes free

I think so.

You have to know the stakes go up when you enter a situation with a gun. Negligent homicide, I don't know what you'd call it. You just can't shoot someone because you're getting your ### kicked. Where's the line? Someone punches you in the face and you can shoot him?

It's not just what I highlighted in bold, but getting into a confrontation with another person while carrying a loaded firearm increases the number of potential outcomes that result in death, or serious bodily harm.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Seems a lot of people think GZ ####ed up that night but the way our system works he goes free

I think so.

You have to know the stakes go up when you enter a situation with a gun. Negligent homicide, I don't know what you'd call it. You just can't shoot someone because you're getting your ### kicked. Where's the line? Someone punches you in the face and you can shoot him?

These responses are funny to me and have been consistently in this thread. I am amazed at how many people think getting in fights with strangers is just no big deal. I am even more amazed at how many people think that fear is organized like a file cabinet in people's heads.

 

[timschochet]

Seems a lot of people think GZ ####ed up that night but the way our system works he goes free

I think so.

You have to know the stakes go up when you enter a situation with a gun. Negligent homicide, I don't know what you'd call it. You just can't shoot someone because you're getting your ### kicked. Where's the line? Someone punches you in the face and you can shoot him?

Why not? WTF are you to punch me in the face?

WTF are you to shoot me dead if I punch you in the face?

That would make me the winner.

Temporarily. But then your ### would be in prison.

 

[bleachercreacher]

Seems a lot of people think GZ ####ed up that night but the way our system works he goes free

I think so.

You have to know the stakes go up when you enter a situation with a gun. Negligent homicide, I don't know what you'd call it. You just can't shoot someone because you're getting your ### kicked. Where's the line? Someone punches you in the face and you can shoot him?

Sure you can. You can shoot someone anytime you feel you are at risk for grave bodily harm or death, as long as you didn't instigate the conflict. If I'm getting punched in the face and my head is getting beat into the concrete, I'm going to shoot someone. There's too many stories like Bryan Stow's to not think you are at risk of grave bodily harm. Blow's to the head are a very serious issue. It just takes one punch in the wrong spot.

Now, I believe Zimmerman screwed up by getting out of his truck, but that's not enough to call this negligent homicide. There's no evidence proving that he started the fight.

 

[financewonk]

Seems a lot of people think GZ ####ed up that night but the way our system works he goes free

I think so.

You have to know the stakes go up when you enter a situation with a gun. Negligent homicide, I don't know what you'd call it. You just can't shoot someone because you're getting your ### kicked. Where's the line? Someone punches you in the face and you can shoot him?

Sure you can. You can shoot someone anytime you feel you are at risk for grave bodily harm or death, as long as you didn't instigate the conflict. If I'm getting punched in the face and my head is getting beat into the concrete, I'm going to shoot someone. There's too many stories like Bryan Stow's to not think you are at risk of grave bodily harm. Blow's to the head are a very serious issue. It just takes one punch in the wrong spot.

Now, I believe Zimmerman screwed up by getting out of his truck, but that's not enough to call this negligent homicide. There's no evidence proving that he started the fight.

In the TM/GZ incident, do you believe that either TM or GZ would have been killed (or suffered serious bodily harm) had GZ not been armed?

See, that's my issue with what you're describing. I noted above that a confrontation w/ loaded firearm has more potential outcomes that result in death (or serious bodily harm) than a confrontation w/o firearm. I think that this is correct, as all of the potential outcomes w/o firearm remain (e.g. assailant disarms you and neither of you have the gun), and you now have the added number of potential outcomes where one of you has the gun in his/her possession. So, can you convince me that the probability of a catastrophic event (i.e. at least one of you end up dead, or seriously injured) is less in the confrontation w/ firearm than it is in the confrontation w/o firearm? I think that this is true when you're considering confrontations that involve, say, police officers, but I'm not convinced that this is true when we're talking about an ordinary gun owner.

 

[bleachercreacher]

Seems a lot of people think GZ ####ed up that night but the way our system works he goes free

I think so.

You have to know the stakes go up when you enter a situation with a gun. Negligent homicide, I don't know what you'd call it. You just can't shoot someone because you're getting your ### kicked. Where's the line? Someone punches you in the face and you can shoot him?

Sure you can. You can shoot someone anytime you feel you are at risk for grave bodily harm or death, as long as you didn't instigate the conflict. If I'm getting punched in the face and my head is getting beat into the concrete, I'm going to shoot someone. There's too many stories like Bryan Stow's to not think you are at risk of grave bodily harm. Blow's to the head are a very serious issue. It just takes one punch in the wrong spot.

Now, I believe Zimmerman screwed up by getting out of his truck, but that's not enough to call this negligent homicide. There's no evidence proving that he started the fight.

In the TM/GZ incident, do you believe that either TM or GZ would have been killed (or suffered serious bodily harm) had GZ not been armed?

See, that's my issue with what you're describing. I noted above that a confrontation w/ loaded firearm has more potential outcomes that result in death (or serious bodily harm) than a confrontation w/o firearm. I think that this is correct, as all of the potential outcomes w/o firearm remain (e.g. assailant disarms you and neither of you have the gun), and you now have the added number of potential outcomes where one of you has the gun in his/her possession. So, can you convince me that the probability of a catastrophic event (i.e. at least one of you end up dead, or seriously injured) is less in the confrontation w/ firearm than it is in the confrontation w/o firearm? I think that this is true when you're considering confrontations that involve, say, police officers, but I'm not convinced that this is true when we're talking about an ordinary gun owner.

I agree 100 percent that a situation with a loaded firearm has more potential outcomes that result in serious bodily harm or death. However, it honestly doesn't matter in this situation. George Zimmerman owned and was carrying his firearm legally, and by my interpretation of the evidence in the trial acted lawfully so it's a moot point. Now, 6 weeks ago, when I thought Zimmerman chased Martin down and started the fight, my view on this was 100% different. I was ready GZ to have the book thrown at him.

Also, it doesn't matter you or I believe either Travon Martin or George Zimmerman would have been killed or suffered serious bodily harm. What matters is that Zimmerman thought that he was at risk to suffer grave bodily harm or death. Honestly, at this point the jury's opinion is the most important. To answer your question though, if I put myself in GZ's shoes and my head is getting beat into the concrete, than yes I do think I could suffer grave bodily harm. This is too debatable though, because there's not a set number times a person can have his head beat into the concrete before you have grave bodily harm. As I said before, look at Bryan Stow, one shot to the head and he's done. However, I've seen people get kicked in the head multiple times in a bar fight, and get up and continue drinking. The brain is a strangle thing.

You make good points for a gun control debate, but that's a different debate. We are trying to decide if GZ acted lawfully or not. Unfortunately, there's not enough evidence for or against him to decide if he did IMO.

 

[Rayderr]

Exactly Tim., it is what it is. We will all know how this turns out soon enough. Guessing should haves and would haves does not a lick of good.However, here's one for you: If the races are reversed and Zimmerman is black and Martin Hispanic and all the events go forward as they have right now, does Al Sharpton and his followers claim this is just a case of a black man being railroaded by the justice system and being overcharged??

I am interested In hearing what you say about that scenario (seriously, not being a jerk here).

Of course. Al Sharpton is a publicity thug and the worst kind of race baiter.But I would add that if Zimmerman was black, most of the conservatives who have been so vocal in this thread would be silent.

Hell, there wouldn't even be a thread if Zimmerman was black and Martin a Hispanic (assuming you accept that racial designation for him). Maybe I have missed it, but I don't recall seeing any conservative rage here in the past that involved minority on minority crime.

Other than this one?

This one would not exist, because it probably wouldn't even be a Florida story, let alone a national one.

The only reason why this story became a big deal in the first place was because people thought ZImmerman was white.

 

[cstu]

Exactly Tim., it is what it is. We will all know how this turns out soon enough. Guessing should haves and would haves does not a lick of good.However, here's one for you: If the races are reversed and Zimmerman is black and Martin Hispanic and all the events go forward as they have right now, does Al Sharpton and his followers claim this is just a case of a black man being railroaded by the justice system and being overcharged??

I am interested In hearing what you say about that scenario (seriously, not being a jerk here).

Of course. Al Sharpton is a publicity thug and the worst kind of race baiter.But I would add that if Zimmerman was black, most of the conservatives who have been so vocal in this thread would be silent.

Hell, there wouldn't even be a thread if Zimmerman was black and Martin a Hispanic (assuming you accept that racial designation for him). Maybe I have missed it, but I don't recall seeing any conservative rage here in the past that involved minority on minority crime.

Other than this one?

This one would not exist, because it probably wouldn't even be a Florida story, let alone a national one.

The only reason why this story became a big deal in the first place was because people thought ZImmerman was white.

Forget the reasons why this became a national story - had Trayvon been the neighborhood watch guy I would be saying he's innocent as well.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Seems a lot of people think GZ ####ed up that night but the way our system works he goes free

I think so.

You have to know the stakes go up when you enter a situation with a gun. Negligent homicide, I don't know what you'd call it. You just can't shoot someone because you're getting your ### kicked. Where's the line? Someone punches you in the face and you can shoot him?

Why not? WTF are you to punch me in the face?

Im the guy who just landed a crushing straight left right to your jaw and sent you unconscious to the ER to have that flapping jaw of yours wired shut...thats WTF i am hahaha

 

[Rohn Jambo]

The only reason why this story became a big deal in the first place was because people thought ZImmerman was white.

And he was not arrested at the beginning.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

The only reason why this story became a big deal in the first place was because people thought ZImmerman was white.

And he was not arrested at the beginning.

Exactly. If Zimmerman had been arrested and tried from the start this story would never have happened.

 

[jon_mx]

The only reason why this story became a big deal in the first place was because people thought ZImmerman was white.

And he was not arrested at the beginning.

Exactly. If Zimmerman had been arrested and tried from the start this story would never have happened.

Because there was no case against him. It is a very flimsy circumstantial case that no prosecutor would take under normal circumstances. This is only a case because of the politics.

 

[ATC1]

Seems a lot of people think GZ ####ed up that night but the way our system works he goes free

I think so.

You have to know the stakes go up when you enter a situation with a gun. Negligent homicide, I don't know what you'd call it. You just can't shoot someone because you're getting your ### kicked. Where's the line? Someone punches you in the face and you can shoot him?

Why not? WTF are you to punch me in the face?

WTF are you to shoot me dead if I punch you in the face?

That would make me the winner.

Temporarily. But then because of media knee jerk reaction to the race and age of the victim your ### would be in prison.

Fixed.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Seems a lot of people think GZ ####ed up that night but the way our system works he goes free

I think so.

You have to know the stakes go up when you enter a situation with a gun. Negligent homicide, I don't know what you'd call it. You just can't shoot someone because you're getting your ### kicked. Where's the line? Someone punches you in the face and you can shoot him?

Why not? WTF are you to punch me in the face?

Look, I'm sure I'm wrong, I KNOW I'm wrong according to the law. It just doesn't seem right in this case.

Maybe, just maybe if people feared getting shot, they wouldn't go around acting all tough with their cellphone headsets on while talking with their girlfriends punching complete strangers in the face for snitching on them?

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Seems a lot of people think GZ ####ed up that night but the way our system works he goes free

I think so.

You have to know the stakes go up when you enter a situation with a gun. Negligent homicide, I don't know what you'd call it. You just can't shoot someone because you're getting your ### kicked. Where's the line? Someone punches you in the face and you can shoot him?

Sure you can. You can shoot someone anytime you feel you are at risk for grave bodily harm or death, as long as you didn't instigate the conflict. If I'm getting punched in the face and my head is getting beat into the concrete, I'm going to shoot someone. There's too many stories like Bryan Stow's to not think you are at risk of grave bodily harm. Blow's to the head are a very serious issue. It just takes one punch in the wrong spot.

Now, I believe Zimmerman screwed up by getting out of his truck, but that's not enough to call this negligent homicide. There's no evidence proving that he started the fight.

In the TM/GZ incident, do you believe that either TM or GZ would have been killed (or suffered serious bodily harm) had GZ not been armed?

See, that's my issue with what you're describing. I noted above that a confrontation w/ loaded firearm has more potential outcomes that result in death (or serious bodily harm) than a confrontation w/o firearm. I think that this is correct, as all of the potential outcomes w/o firearm remain (e.g. assailant disarms you and neither of you have the gun), and you now have the added number of potential outcomes where one of you has the gun in his/her possession. So, can you convince me that the probability of a catastrophic event (i.e. at least one of you end up dead, or seriously injured) is less in the confrontation w/ firearm than it is in the confrontation w/o firearm? I think that this is true when you're considering confrontations that involve, say, police officers, but I'm not convinced that this is true when we're talking about an ordinary gun owner.

Question not just for you, but for anyone that is belittling Z's injuries:

What are you putting the probability of being put into a coma or dying when having the back of your head being slammed against concrete? Consider it Russian roulette, how many chances do you want?

 

[ArbyMelt]

If Zimmerman is found guilty, does Frank Taaffe riot? Dude is really unstable.

What did he do now?

Did you see the interview that he did with Nancy Grace the other night? Man, that interview got out of hand in a hurry. She cut off his mic when he said that TM was on drugs.

Got news for ya. She does that every night. He's a paid shill for Nancy Grace to have a Jerry Springer type show.

Not sure how anyone watches that crap .... HLN is basically the Jerry Springer show all night. They must get the ratings.

The other cable networks have real analysts who are actually real lawyers.

 

[ArbyMelt]

State Attorney Angela Corey fired the IT director whistleblower who testified that the State hid the phone text messages from the defense.

 

[Doug B]

State Attorney Angela Corey fired the IT director whistleblower who testified that the State hid the phone text messages from the defense.

Zimmerman's legal team looks to have a breeze of an appeal should Zimmerman get convicted in the current trial.

 

[ATC1]

State Attorney Angela Corey fired the IT director whistleblower who testified that the State hid the phone text messages from the defense.

IF the defense had that sooner, could they subpoena the recipients and it be allowed in court? Seems like grounds for appeal?

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

State Attorney Angela Corey fired the IT director whistleblower who testified that the State hid the phone text messages from the defense.

IF the defense had that sooner, could they subpoena the recipients and it be allowed in court? Seems like grounds for appeal?

They had them at the beginning of June, as I recall. I don't think they have much of a Brady violation argument because they had time to subpoena the recipients. And because the text messages were likely hearsay (there may have been some exceptions).

This doesn't make the State's conduct any less egregious, but not every crappy thing the prosecution does is grounds for appeal.

 

[Ghost Rider]

If Zimmerman is found guilty, does Frank Taaffe riot? Dude is really unstable.

What did he do now?

Did you see the interview that he did with Nancy Grace the other night? Man, that interview got out of hand in a hurry. She cut off his mic when he said that TM was on drugs.

Why would anyone with any sense ever watch Nancy Grace?

 

[Worm]

Anyone know the court twitter account? They said on TV the court would tweet out when the jury comes back but they didn't give the account.

 

[LarryAllen'sJockstrap]

I doubt the jury is going to take into account and analyze every piece of evidence/testimony... as we've done in this thread.

Personally, I think there is considerable evidence to suggest GZ was being straddled and hit. I don't think the prosecution proved that it wouldn't be reasonable that GZ feared for his life. That is IMO what will be the biggest factor in the verdict.

With murder off the table, I guess manslaughter or some lesser charge could be considered if the jury feels the incident would not have occurred had it not been primarily for GZ's actions. Can he get a manslaughter charge if the jury believes it went down where TM initiated the actual fight? I.e., still responsible by following and tracking him.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Bottom line is if the Jury believes Zimmerman acted in Self Defense as defined in their jury instructions he is not guilty of all charges.

If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find George Zimmerman not guilty.

 

[The Commish]

I'm still interested in an explanation of how he could be raining down punches MMA style, trying to suffocate him and grabbing for his gun all at the same time. No one's wanted to tackle that one yet.

No one ever stipulated that all that happened simultaneously, I don't believe?

Again...this wasn't a prolonged fight. That's a lot to happen in a very short period of time. That's my ultimate point. I just don't think it's possible. Doesn't matter. We have no evidence of Martin going for his gun other than Zimmerman. We have what appears to be a muffled voice on the one call, but that could have been things other than attempted suffocation.

Not really sure why you keep going back to this. It all could have happened in the span of 20-30 seconds. Stop and think about that timeframe and what it could have been like.

One MIGHT be able to go through the motions of each, but you aren't legitimately concerned about being suffocated if someone tries for 10 seconds. I'm not concerned about dying if someone is trying to punch me for another 10 seconds.

I completely agree and I think we've been on the same page for a while now. But that still doesn't mean all those moves weren't possible during that time frame and that's why I was wondering why you keep mentioning it. Personally, I think Zimmerman shot him because he was getting his ### kicked and it was a way to make it stop. I don't think he meant to kill Trayvon but that's what happened. To me there should be some kind of negligent homicide or something but as the law is stated, he should walk.

You're right...I should have been clearer in my question and asked how folks thought he'd be able to go through all those things and there be any real level of "success" given the short amount of time. Yes, I do agree, he could have gone through the motions. Now someone has to convince me that going through the motions put any sort of real threat in Zimmerman's mind. All this theory does IMO is reduce the gravity of each action and I'm not sure why that's a good thing to suggest.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

You just can't shoot someone because you're getting your ### kicked. Where's the line? Someone punches you in the face and you can shoot him?

Not to single you out jamny but this statement has been a recurring theme in this thread.

In other words, are you saying that, in some instances, an American citizen should be REQUIRED BY LAW to physically fight against their will even when making it clear they want to flee and stop?

Do you understand that it is pretty much a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT not to EVER for any reason be forced to engage in a physical fight against your will? If your arguments EVER violate this basic human right, then I say it will ALWAYS be wrong.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Seems a lot of people think GZ ####ed up that night but the way our system works he goes free

I think so.You have to know the stakes go up when you enter a situation with a gun. Negligent homicide, I don't know what you'd call it. You just can't shoot someone because you're getting your ### kicked. Where's the line? Someone punches you in the face and you can shoot him?

Why not? WTF are you to punch me in the face?

Come on. So all fights should just end with somebody getting shot? Teach our kids if they get bullied or beat up, get a gun and shoot to kill? Are we such ####### now, we can't fight like men? Or is it just 1870 and everybody is packing and allowed to shoot each other in bars and the streets?

 

[The Commish]

Question not just for you, but for anyone that is belittling Z's injuries:

What are you putting the probability of being put into a coma or dying when having the back of your head being slammed against concrete? Consider it Russian roulette, how many chances do you want?

Actually slammed into the concrete or more like what probably happened with Zimmerman? An actual slam of the head is a one shot deal like a swing of a baseball bat. Don't think that's ever really been a question has it? Oh, and to be clear, I am not "belittling" Zimmerman's injuries, just saying they aren't as severe as you're claiming they are.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

You just can't shoot someone because you're getting your ### kicked. Where's the line? Someone punches you in the face and you can shoot him?

Not to single you out jamny but this statement has been a recurring theme in this thread.In other words, are you saying that, in some instances, an American citizen should be REQUIRED BY LAW to physically fight against their will even when making it clear they want to flee and stop?

Do you understand that it is pretty much a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT not to EVER for any reason be forced to engage in a physical fight against your will? If your arguments EVER violate this basic human right, then I say it will ALWAYS be wrong.

If you're getting beat up at random unprovoked or are getting robbed or victimized by some other crime or felony, no, you don't have to fight. You should try to get away and call the cops or have them called. You do not have the right to be a vigilante and take the law into your own hands by passing a death sentence if your life isn't in danger. That's determined subjective and objectively. If, however, your actions are the cause of the fight through instigation or action whether verbal or physical, you have a higher duty to not escalate things if your aggression backfires in your face. Trayvon could and should have felt threatened by somebody following him and then being in a position where you're confronting each other. I think GZ grabbed at him after trayvon started to turn away from him when being questioned or something (that's the bump on the headset that's heard) and then trayvon punches him unexpectedly in the face. GZ is a #####, panicked and embarrassed and once he can reach his gun when trayvon is starting to try to get off of him, he shoots him. You can't shoot somebody because you simply lost or were losing a fight, especially if your actions were a root cause. Special circumstances must exist for use of deadly force or escalating a situation, otherwise we'd live in a vigilante society.