You are the Juror. George Zimmerman trial

[billvon 2,400]

> As he was walking back on the sidewalk, martin approached him and started the
>fight. So far there's no evidence to show otherwise.

Right. And if it turns out he was lying about that - if, as the previous poster suggested, he "approached him to get him out of the neighborhood" - then his defense gets a lot weaker.

[billvon 2,400]

>So you think that GZ should have just left him alone and not followed through with his
>responsibilities as neighborhood watch, right?

He claimed that's what he did. He gave up and returned to the car, and then Martin approached HIM. If it turns out he is lying about that, that will be bad for his case.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

...you spot a person who is walking in between houses, looking in windows, in the dark, in the rain.

Quote

If you don't want people following you and wondering what you're up to, don't go walking inbetween houses in a crime-ridden neighborhood in the dark rain. Common sense.

Who are you referring to? Not TM? Because there is nothing in evidence that suggests that this is true. Several posts ago, in this thread, I linked to the transcript of Zimmerman's 911 call, and posted the relevant bits.

"walking between houses, looking in windows" is a lie, retrospectively made up by Zimmerman's supporters to justify his actions. In the 911 call Zimmerman says Martin is "walking and looking around". Not between houses. Not into windows. Not "casing the joint for a B&E" as several have written. In the interview in the police station, Zimmerman never once stated that Martin was walking between buildings or looking into windows. Had he been doing so, I agree that would have been highly suspicious. Walking on the sidewalk in an unfamiliar neighborhood, where all the houses are quite similar, in the dark and the rain, and looking around seems to me to be completely consistent with being a bit lost and checking house numbers.

Your entire argument is based on a lie.

A simple "can I help you" would have led to a very different outcome than "these assholes, they always get away" did.

It may come as a surprise to some, but walking home from the store, after dark, is not yet (or at least should not be) a capital crime in America.

It seems too much to ask that this case be considered on the facts, though I hope the jury can do that. I'll accept whatever verdict they come to. What I cannot accept is the practice, eagerly and energetically engaged in by many who have already decided a verdict in favor of "heroic Zimmerman the avenging angel" of making up evidence and promulgating lies to justify a self-serving conclusion.

Self-serving in what way? I don't think it's a coincidence that the folks who most rabidly support Zimmerman also are big fans of concealed carry. I think they see how they could be in Zimmerman's shoes, and would much prefer a legal environment where they would be excused should they ever fuck up. It's better to be judged by 12 than carried by six, for sure, but it's even better if you don't have to bother with either eventuality.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[billvon 2,400]

>He was sent by mom in Miami to stay with dad after getting suspended for possession
>of an "empty marijuana bag" and something about stolen jewelry.

Who then encountered Zimmerman, a man who had previously attacked both cops and women violently and something about racial attacks against others at work.

He sure sounds bad when you put it that way.

[linebckr83 3]

Quote

Your entire argument is based on a lie

No, it is based on evidence admitted into court and discussed in trial. Are you saying George Zimmerman's story is a lie? If so, what gives you the authority to decide that? Shouldn't that be up to the jury based on evidence? I'm sorry to inform you that the evidence is very supportive of his story. Which has also remained consistent from the beginning as well.

I am unbiased on the outcome of this case. I just want to see the judicial system work. Have you been watching this trial? If not, it is streaming live. I have watched the whole thing and the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the defense. Do you not agree? Or have you not been watching it and still running on pre-trial information?

So you are saying "walking and looking around" absolutely cannot include "walking between houses and looking in windows"? Other than your biased opinion, how do you justify that? They have been routinely discussing the neighborhood during the trial. The sidewalk goes between buildings. It is a known fact that he was walking in between the buildings.

TM could have walked back to his dad's house via the road. The fight happened on the sidewalk in between buildings. Why take the long way home in between the buildings in the rain when you can simply walk on the road? Sure it's not illegal to take the sidewalk, but something came across as suspicious to Zimmerman so he decided to check it out. Smart move? Probably not. But illegal and starting the confrontation? I don't think so.

When would have GZ had a chance to ask TM "can I help you?" From my understanding of the evidence in trial and testimony, Zimmerman was in his car until martin turned and headed in between the buildings. At that point martin was out of sight until the fight. While walking back to his car, the kid appears and says "you got a problem?" in which zimmerman replies "no i dont got a problem." Is that not an ok response? Does that response provoke getting punched in the face? According to witnesses, the conversation was very brief and the fight began immediately afterwards. I have a strong feeling that asking TM if he needs help would have made zero difference.

According to Rachel Jeantel's testimony, Martin mentions being near his dad's house. That would suggest that he did walk home and then returned to confront Zimmerman.

I know your personal bias doesn't want to hear it, but so far the evidence so far almost completely reinforces zimmerman's story from day one. Hey, maybe he was actually telling the truth!?

The prosecution is about to rest it's case, and they really do not have a case at all. There is simply no evidence supporting the claim that Zimmerman was a vigilante wannabe cop wanting to kill a suspicious black boy. I really don't think the defense needs to present their case honestly, most of the prosecution witnesses did that for them.

"Are you coming to the party?
Oh I'm coming, but I won't be there!"
Flying Hellfish #828
Dudist #52

[normiss 622]

True, but those aren't the reasons GZ was in the neighborhood.
He lived there and was a member of the Neighborhood Watch.

[billvon 2,400]

>True, but those aren't the reasons GZ was in the neighborhood.

And marijuana and "something about jewelry" are not why Martin was in the neighborhood. He was buying Skittles.

[normiss 622]

Odd.
It was explained he was staying with his father who lived with his girlfriend. He was staying there because he was expelled from school. For marijuana and stolen jewelry possession.
The skittles were for her son, who was playing video games waiting for TM to return.

Still curious why he was carrying a slim jim though.

[rehmwa 2]

normiss

Still curious why he was carrying a slim jim though.

It's a tasty and spicy, meat-like based treat.....



I'm sure the "vegetarian/vegan with white guilt", demographic is very torn on this case......

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[linebckr83 3]

billvon

>He was sent by mom in Miami to stay with dad after getting suspended for possession
>of an "empty marijuana bag" and something about stolen jewelry.

Who then encountered Zimmerman, a man who had previously attacked both cops and women violently and something about racial attacks against others at work.

He sure sounds bad when you put it that way.

Funny thing about that is, they are allowed to bring up Zimmerman's criminal past which you mentioned. But none of TM's criminal history can be mentioned. Something about relevance to state of mind and not character.

Of course the defense did inform the jury of these events. The battery on a LEO was after a bar scuffle in which Zimmerman was trying to help his underage friend, and charges were dropped. As for violently beating women, the restraining orders were mutual, meaning she got one for him and he got one for her. Both were mutually dropped as well.

I would say there's just a little exaggeration there.

"Are you coming to the party?
Oh I'm coming, but I won't be there!"
Flying Hellfish #828
Dudist #52

[linebckr83 3]

normiss

Still curious why he was carrying a slim jim though.

I remember when they brought this up, but did they ever actually tie it to TM?

"Are you coming to the party?
Oh I'm coming, but I won't be there!"
Flying Hellfish #828
Dudist #52

[billvon 2,400]

>It was explained he was staying with his father who lived with his girlfriend. He was
>staying there because he was expelled from school. For marijuana and stolen jewelry
>possession.

And it was explained that Zimmerman was a wannabe cop who couldn't make it on the force; something about hating blacks and wanting to get them.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

Have you been watching this trial? If not, it is streaming live. I have watched the whole thing ...

Sorry, I have an actual job. Admittedly I divert too much time/attention to DZ.com as it is, but I really don't have time to watch the trial. Lucky you I guess.

Quote

Are you saying George Zimmerman's story is a lie?

It's up to the jury to judge that. What I am saying is that twisting "walking and looking around" into "skulking between houses and looking into windows" is such a distortion of Zimmerman's statement on the 911 tape as to be a lie.

Quote

So you are saying "walking and looking around" absolutely cannot include "walking between houses and looking in windows"?

I'm saying that those are so different that it is inconceivable that Zimmerman would have failed to mention "looking into windows" to either the 911 operator or the police when he was interviewed later.

You could say "driving to the store" could include "racing down the sidewalk mowing down pedestrians" but I doubt anyone who witnessed the latter would call 911 to report someone "driving to the store".

Quote

TM could have walked back to his dad's house via the road.

And are there not buildings on either side of the road? So TM would still have been walking between buildings.

This is yet another example of the use of the nuances of language to taint a statement that is technically true to introduce a bias. To most people, there is a difference between walking on a sidewalk and cutting between buildings, and the difference is magnified if you add in "and looking in windows". Saying TM was walking between buildings, while neglecting to mention that that is where the sidewalk is, creates a misleading impression. I'm quite sure the distortion is intentional.

Quote

Why take the long way home in between the buildings in the rain when you can simply walk on the road?

In the rain and the dark, personally I find it to be safer to walk on the sidewalk, plus I'm less likely to be splashed by careless drivers. You of course may prefer to walk on the road in circumstances where it is more difficult for drivers to see you.

Quote

That would suggest that he did walk home and then returned to confront Zimmerman.

So he went home, forgot to drop off the skittles he went to pick up for his brother/cousin/nephew (I don't recall the exact relationship), then carrying a cup of iced tea he went back out into the rain to confront Zimmerman. OK.

Quote

I am unbiased on the outcome of this case.

Whatever.

Quote

I have a strong feeling that asking TM if he needs help would have made zero difference.

Words cannot convey the importance I attach to your strong feeling.

Cheers,
Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[billvon 2,400]

>I would say there's just a little exaggeration there.

That was my point of my post. Normiss's exaggeration, while literally truthful, puts Martin in a bad light; my exaggeration, while also literally truthful, puts Zimmerman in a bad light.

If one bothers you but not the other - ask yourself why.

[skypuppy 1]

billvon

>Again, as I said, following someone is not illegal.

Nor is defending yourself against an armed stalker.

>And while you may be correct that Z could have de-escalated the situation, it is also
>quite possible that TM could have de-excalated the situation by not confronting Z . . .

Both are true. Thus the person that initiated the situation was the only one who could have reliably prevented it.

I believe by definition a 'stalker' has to be persistently following and interfering in a person's normal activities. Following a person one time, in a place where that person normally wouldn't be (he was visiting) does not constitute stalking.

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[skypuppy 1]

billvon

>or are you going to approach and get him out of your neighborhood?

If you are saying that Zimmerman approached him with the intent of "ejecting" him, and it escalated - he's going to jail for a long time.

I don't think linebacker is a witness at the trial, and I really think you know better than that. What you said here is just dumb.

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[linebckr83 3]

I have an actual job too. Which for the next couple weeks includes more computer work and less flying. So while I may not watch the entire thing, I have it up in the background and listen to it. There are many ways you could research and learn what's going on in that courtroom. The point is, try looking at the evidence before arguing that your dated opinion is automatically the truth. You might be surprised that it is very suggesting.

My remark about Rachel Jeantel was mostly sarcastic. He might have gone to his dad's house then returned, but if you watch her testimony, it's basically impossible to believe anything she says. She's a joke.

That's why I used the words "strong feeling". No one knows what would have happened had one of these two guys done something different. But that's not the point of this case. It's to find out if he is absolutely guilty of 2nd degree murder, and by the looks of it so far, there's no chance in hell. Now manslaughter might have been a different story.

"Are you coming to the party?
Oh I'm coming, but I won't be there!"
Flying Hellfish #828
Dudist #52

[skypuppy 1]

Darius11

Quote

My understanding is there had been crime recently in the neighborhood and the police had been called. I doubt GZ was the only one on Neighborhood Watch who had followed someone they did not recognize walking through the neighborhood at night. In fact, the night in question, he was not on duty and was headed to the store with his handgun on him. He had a permit to carry the gun

I am all for most people having guns on them, no matter the law. My right to life is not up for discussion.

However when you have a gun (was it conceal carry?) you’re supposed to let things go as much as possible. When I am armed I am the biggest pussy you will ever meet. Because I know what I have and I know if I escalate the issue what might happen. So we the people who are armed should at all times avoid escalating the situation. Following a young man when you know you are armed is a huge no no.
Let’s say he was going to steal some shit that’s not an action punishable by death. I think it was a bad move by Z man by my opinion.

Z didn't go out that night planning to find someone he thought might be in commission of a crime. He wasn't on duty. Should he ignore it just because he happened to have his gun on him when he saw someone he thought suspicious? Or should he figure 'I can at least keep an eye on the guy to tell the cops where he went...'

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[billvon 2,400]

>Or should he figure 'I can at least keep an eye on the guy to tell the cops where he went...'

Nothing wrong with keeping an eye on him. Shooting him dead is a bit of a problem though.

[skypuppy 1]

GeorgiaDon

Quote

...you spot a person who is walking in between houses, looking in windows, in the dark, in the rain.

Quote

If you don't want people following you and wondering what you're up to, don't go walking inbetween houses in a crime-ridden neighborhood in the dark rain. Common sense.

A simple "can I help you" would have led to a very different outcome than "these assholes, they always get away" did.


Don

If Z said that to TM, that probably would have be rude, but he never said that to TM, so your statement is irrelevant.

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[Darius11 12]

Quote

Z didn't go out that night planning to find someone he thought might be in commission of a crime. He wasn't on duty. Should he ignore it just because he happened to have his gun on him when he saw someone he thought suspicious? Or should he figure 'I can at least keep an eye on the guy to tell the cops where he went...'

Yea if he saw someone messing with doors looking through windows Something. Just walking while black is not enough reason in my book.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[skypuppy 1]

billvon

>Or should he figure 'I can at least keep an eye on the guy to tell the cops where he went...'

Nothing wrong with keeping an eye on him. Shooting him dead is a bit of a problem though.

True. Guess TM shouldn't have doubled back and attacked Z without provocation. He wouldn't have gotten shot then...

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[gregpso 1]

wayneflorida

Charge: Second degree murder. No lesser charge optional.

Based on what you have heard on the news, either true or false, and personal beliefs.

No discussion.
No copout bullshit. VOTE (please only once)


And for your civic duty I will buy you a beer when we meet up.

I have just returned from the USA. I will bare my bum in Bourke St if that bloke is found guilty. Will not happen.

I tend to be a bit different. enjoyed my time in the sport or is it an industry these days ??

[billvon 2,400]

>Guess TM shouldn't have doubled back and attacked Z without provocation.

Ah, so you were there. What else did you see? And why haven't you contacted the police with your information?

[GeorgiaDon 340]

billvon

>Or should he figure 'I can at least keep an eye on the guy to tell the cops where he went...'

Nothing wrong with keeping an eye on him. Shooting him dead is a bit of a problem though.

Easier to keep an eye on him when he's dead, though.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)