[Monkei]

Originally Posted by Maryland Girl

No, you don't have to be a mind reader or a member of the jury to have an opinion. To be a member of the jury you have to consider the evidence presented, including the unfortunate testimony of Rachel Jeantel. No jury can 'forget..what this witness said or how she said it.' It is now part of the record. Yes, Mr. Zimmerman has gained a lot of weight. His attorney has addressed this issue by saying it is fear related stress.

His butt was not thinner. Actually, he was shorter and heavier than Mr. Martin. His gun did not have to be left behind. He had a permit to carry it.
He also had a right to be out of his car. He had a right to do everything he did that night IF he did not strike Mr. Martin. He says he was sucker punched and the jury will have to decide based on the evidence if that happened. If so, he had a right to defend himself if he thought his life was threatened.

Than he has a right to go to court be convicted and serve time. People looking for trouble should leave guns at home. You don't show fear for your safety by getting out of a car and approaching a person whom you think by your own testimony by the call to police is up to no good. To me that is asking for trouble and itching for a reason to use your gun.

[Buffalo Jim]

I promise --- my final -- " off topic " Post . i agree with " buggy one " We can not just " throw money " at the issue of Urban Schools .
Someday if I dare --- I will attempt to start a new " Thread " on the issue of education bang for the buck .
Twenty years ago the Chairman of the company I worked for decided to " take on the education system ". We [ my employer ] asked the City of Buffalo to allow us to take over , subsidize and operate the worse performing K through 6 school in the City .
I was very involved in this effort . There was much resistance by the Buffalo Teachers Union . So we created a special " Board " for this school and a seat went to the long time President of the Union .
We hired a " panel " of PHDs from the School of Education at Columbia University to monitor our activities on a long term and continuing contract .
It is a long and interesting story , as we went along we learned a great deal and constantly adopted and adjusted based on what we learned . We recruited and hired an African American female PHD from Chicago who had earned a stellar reputation for her work as a long time Principal in an Urban elementary school .
The " Bottom Line " of this now 20 Year effort is very positive but it was not an easy undertaking . Today the school is officially a Charter School . It`s operating Cost Per Student is in line with that of the best suburban elementary schools in the region . And most importantly the performance of these inner city students is at a par with the best performing suburban schools .
If anyone might be interested in some of the adjustments we made and more details I will someday try to set up a Thread . This effort got the attention of even the UN and we were given an International Award which was accepted by then Sen. Clinton . CNN produced a Documentary however it was set to air originally on what became the Sunday immediately following 9/11 so it got bumped . [As of course it should have ].

[Maryland Girl]

Originally Posted by Monkei

Than he has a right to go to court be convicted and serve time. People looking for trouble should leave guns at home. You don't show fear for your safety by getting out of a car and approaching a person whom you think by your own testimony by the call to police is up to no good. To me that is asking for trouble and itching for a reason to use your gun.

'He has a right to go to court be convicted and serve time?' It is his right to a jury trial and to defend himself from his accusers. He was looking for trouble? He was on his way to Target and as the head of Neighborhood Watch he was reporting a suspicious person. Why should he have to 'show fear' for his safety? He was talking to the non-emergency police when he said the person 'looked to be up to no good.' That is not asking for trouble. Jumping someone is asking for trouble. If that is what happened to Mr. Zimmerman, then he had a right to defend himself if he feels his life is threatened. Facts are stubborn things. They can get in the way of uninformed opinions.

[Monkei]

Originally Posted by Maryland Girl

'He has a right to go to court be convicted and serve time?' It is his right to a jury trial and to defend himself from his accusers. He was looking for trouble? He was on his way to Target and as the head of Neighborhood Watch he was reporting a suspicious person. Why should he have to 'show fear' for his safety? He was talking to the non-emergency police when he said the person 'looked to be up to no good.' That is not asking for trouble. Jumping someone is asking for trouble. If that is what happened to Mr. Zimmerman, then he had a right to defend himself if he feels his life is threatened. Facts are stubborn things. They can get in the way of uninformed opinions.

I think you are really confused about the facts. Lets take the other side of the story. Mr Martin was minding his own business walking home when all of a sudden a person unknown to him begins to follow him. Not knowing the intentions Martin begins to fear for his safety and jumps Zimmerman. Unfortunately he finds out all to late that the guy following him has a gun and is not afraid to use it. Bang.

[Patty55]

Originally Posted by Monkei

I think you are really confused about the facts. Lets take the other side of the story. Mr Martin was minding his own business walking home when all of a sudden a person unknown to him begins to follow him. Not knowing the intentions Martin begins to fear for his safety and jumps Zimmerman. Unfortunately he finds out all to late that the guy following him has a gun and is not afraid to use it. Bang.

How would you know "the other side of the story"?

[Monkei]

Originally Posted by Patty55

How would you know "the other side of the story"?

I am not sure of the other side but it doesn't take a lot of time to sit down and try to think it out in Martins shoes. What part of the other side is causing you not to assume it could have happened that way?

[Patty55]

Originally Posted by monkei

i am not sure of the other side just as you would not be sure of the other side.

huh?

[Maryland Girl]

Originally Posted by Monkei

I think you are really confused about the facts. Lets take the other side of the story. Mr Martin was minding his own business walking home when all of a sudden a person unknown to him begins to follow him. Not knowing the intentions Martin begins to fear for his safety and jumps Zimmerman. Unfortunately he finds out all to late that the guy following him has a gun and is not afraid to use it. Bang.

No confusion here. 'Lets take the other side of the story?' Fine, except everything you say is speculation at this point. There is no evidence to support your conclusion that Mr. Martin 'begins to fear for his safety and jumps Zimmerman.' How would we know if Mr. Martin was fearful of the 'creepy a__ cracker' following him? Any evidence to support this from given testimony? Mr. Martin 'finds out to late that the guy following him has a gun is not afraid to use it?' It is Mr. Zimmerman with the lacerations and broken nose. Again, if Mr. Zimmerman felt his life was in danger, he had a right to use his weapon. You may not agree with FL's self-defense law, but not agreeing with it does not trump facts offered as evidence in a trial. The jury will decide.

[Monkei]

Originally Posted by Maryland Girl

No confusion here. 'Lets take the other side of the story?' Fine, except everything you say is speculation at this point. There is no evidence to support your conclusion that Mr. Martin 'begins to fear for his safety and jumps Zimmerman.' How would we know if Mr. Martin was fearful of the 'creepy a__ cracker' following him? Any evidence to support this from given testimony? Mr. Martin 'finds out to late that the guy following him has a gun is not afraid to use it?' It is Mr. Zimmerman with the lacerations and broken nose. Again, if Mr. Zimmerman felt his life was in danger, he had a right to use his weapon. You may not agree with FL's self-defense law, but not agreeing with it does not trump facts offered as evidence in a trial. The jury will decide.

It's dark and someone of the other race is following you. Gee I wonder what you would think if a black guy was following you. From the evidence that has been presented you are assuming that GZ knew about the cracker comment? That testimony is in the record?

I don't think it is a stretch to believe Martin thought he might be in danger, in fact his comment to witness 8 could indeed make that exact point. He was obviously worried about the cracker following him. Turns out, unfortunately, that he was right.

[NJblue]

Originally Posted by Monkei

I think you are really confused about the facts. Lets take the other side of the story. Mr Martin was minding his own business walking home when all of a sudden a person unknown to him begins to follow him. Not knowing the intentions Martin begins to fear for his safety and jumps Zimmerman. Unfortunately he finds out all to late that the guy following him has a gun and is not afraid to use it. Bang.

This had better not be the other side of the story. If it is, then Zimmerman is clearly in the right and Trayvon would have been clearly in the wrong. There is no justifiable excuse to "jump" anyone. It is illegal and Zimmerman would have been within his right of self-defense to shoot Trayvon immediately when he was jumped.

[janmcn]

George Zimmerman could be found guilty and sentenced to life in prison, in which case he should hope for solitary confinement for his own protection, or he will spend the rest of his life looking over his shoulder. In this age of social networking and camera phones, there are few places he could move and remain anonymous. Either way, he will have plenty of time to decide if he did the right thing that February night.


In this violent age in which we live, even the jurors will have to be protected. In Pinellas County, when the Casey Anthony jurors returned home, instead of doing the TV and newspaper interviews some of them anticipated, they had to go into hiding. One woman had to quit her job and move out of state. There were signs in restaurants saying "jurors, stay out".

[Maryland Girl]

Originally Posted by Monkei

It's dark and someone of the other race is following you. Gee I wonder what you would think if a black guy was following you. From the evidence that has been presented you are assuming that GZ knew about the cracker comment? That testimony is in the record?

I don't think it is a stretch to believe Martin thought he might be in danger, in fact his comment to witness 8 could indeed make that exact point. He was obviously worried about the cracker following him. Turns out, unfortunately, that he was right.

It doesn't matter what I would think. It would only matter what I did. Yes, the testimony regarding Mr. Martin's 'cracker' comment was testified to by Rachel Jeantel, so it is in the record and considered evidence. It doesn't matter what Mr. Martin thought. It only matters what Mr. Martin did. If he sucker punched Mr. Zimmerman then Mr. Zimmerman, believing his life was threatened, had a right to use deadly force.

'He was obviously worried about the cracker following him.' Where is the evidence to support this? We know he was aware of Mr. Zimmerman but whether he was 'worried' about him is speculation. By the way, do you think people should be referred to as cracker? If so, then your opinions are more understandable. The jury will decide based on evidence given at trial.

[jebartle]

This REALLY started when the dispatcher asked Zimmerman "Can you see where he is going"...NOT the dispatchers fault that Zimmerman took that as an invitation to FOLLOW....Just a thought

[NJblue]

Originally Posted by jebartle

This REALLY started when the dispatcher asked Zimmerman "Can you see where he is going"...NOT the dispatchers fault that Zimmerman took that as an invitation to FOLLOW....Just a thought

True. Zimmerman acted foolishly. However, a foolish act doesn't give the other person carte blanche in terms of his response.

[Monkei]

Originally Posted by Maryland Girl

It doesn't matter what I would think. It would only matter what I did. Yes, the testimony regarding Mr. Martin's 'cracker' comment was testified to by Rachel Jeantel, so it is in the record and considered evidence. It doesn't matter what Mr. Martin thought. It only matters what Mr. Martin did. If he sucker punched Mr. Zimmerman then Mr. Zimmerman, believing his life was threatened, had a right to use deadly force.

'He was obviously worried about the cracker following him.' Where is the evidence to support this? We know he was aware of Mr. Zimmerman but whether he was 'worried' about him is speculation. By the way, do you think people should be referred to as cracker? If so, then your opinions are more understandable. The jury will decide based on evidence given at trial.

It is in the record now, but when Zimmerman was following him he had no idea of it. Like I said if it was a black dude following you in the dark you would be concerned. Why isn't you cannot agree that Martin could feel the same way.