[Patty55]

Originally Posted by Mallory

This exercise is just a trial (sic) run for the civil action that will come next. Can you say Morgan & Morgan?

The family already settled out of court, plus let's not forget the "charities".

[Mallory]

Originally Posted by Patty55

The family already settled out of court, plus let's not forget the "charities".

Patty - You are correct that the family has settled with the homeowners association but my understanding is that they will go after George Zimmerman with whom they have not settled.

[Mathguy]

George Zimmerman was clearly a threat to Travon Martin, as Zimmerman took on a role of law enforcement without having the legal qualifications to do so. Whatever happened in any scuffle between, it is certain the cause was Zimmerman's playing police officer.

[mickey100]

Originally Posted by Mathguy

George Zimmerman was clearly a threat to Travon Martin, as Zimmerman took on a role of law enforcement without having the legal qualifications to do so. Whatever happened in any scuffle between, it is certain the cause was Zimmerman's playing police officer.

The testimony so far does seem to support your statements. And we still don't have a handle on the scuffle - who had who on the ground, etc. Zimmerman claims one thing, witnesses don't agree on what they saw. We don't yet know who was calling for help. From his statements, Zimmerman displayed ill will toward Martin when he referred to "expletive punks". According to the detective in the case, it appeared he continued to follow Martin after being told to stop, and was overly eager to catch a "bad guy". He was a police wannabe. He was versed in the Stand your Ground law, and knew what to say to police to justify his actions. IMHO, being in a scuffle with someone, where you sustain injuries that don't require medical followup and require only a bandaid, does not give you the right to shoot someone with a gun. They found no evidence that Martin tried to take the gun away from Zimmerman. Bottom line - we haven't seen all the testimony yet - I dont' see this as an open and shut case one way or the other.

[Madelaine Amee]

Originally Posted by Mathguy

George Zimmerman was clearly a threat to Travon Martin, as Zimmerman took on a role of law enforcement without having the legal qualifications to do so. Whatever happened in any scuffle between, it is certain the cause was Zimmerman's playing police officer.

If he was going to roam around in the dark looking for the bogey man sooner or later this was going to happen.

Also, am I the only one who thinks Zimmerman looks creepy? If he was following me I would be very very nervous. On the other hand, if Martin had been following me I would have been equally nervous.

I have to say this, at the risk of being attacked, if you are the mother of a young man who is not lily white (which is a major strike against him in this country) would you let your young man out of your home dressed like a thug in a "B" movie? I raised two white sons and they had to pass inspection before they went to school - "No you cannot wear jeans with holes in them to school."

Has anyone on this site read the various accounts of how Chris Rock, Martin Luther King Jr., Colin Powell etc. etc. etc. were raised? Chris Rock has one of the funniest pieces about his Mother sending him to school every day dressed in a white shirt and dark pants. First impressions do count and your life may depend upon it.

[gomoho]

I wonder if the jury is hearing this evidence with the same glaring differences folks on here see. How will they ever come to a decision if so???
Posts are already on facebook about the riots to come if Zimmerman is acquitted so prepare for the worst and hope for the best.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

Originally Posted by Mathguy

George Zimmerman was clearly a threat to Travon Martin, as Zimmerman took on a role of law enforcement without having the legal qualifications to do so. Whatever happened in any scuffle between, it is certain the cause was Zimmerman's playing police officer.

In what way did Zimmerman "take on a role of law enforcement"? He saw someone that he thought looked suspicious. He called the police and followed him. when the police told him to break off his pursuit, he did. Sound to me like he was taking on the role of a community watch person.

I don't see where Zimmerman was "playing police officer". It seems to me that he was doing exactly what community watch is supposed to do. The scuffle started when Martin, who was supposedly in fear of his life, followed his pursuer back to his vehicle and then proceeded to attack him.

[mickey100]

Originally Posted by Dr Winston O Boogie jr

In what way did Zimmerman "take on a role of law enforcement"? He saw someone that he thought looked suspicious. He called the police and followed him. when the police told him to break off his pursuit, he did. Sound to me like he was taking on the role of a community watch person.

I don't see where Zimmerman was "playing police officer". It seems to me that he was doing exactly what community watch is supposed to do. The scuffle started when Martin, who was supposedly in fear of his life, followed his pursuer back to his vehicle and then proceeded to attack him.

You are making a lot of assumptions that have not been backed up by facts. The lead detective said it appeared Zimm did NOT stop following Martin when told. The evidence has not shown Martin followed Zimm back to his vehicle - that is just Zimm's version of events. We don't know who attacked who. Zimmerman clearly said "these a...holes always get away". That seems pretty clear he was profiling Martin as a criminal. He followed Martin with a semiautomatic pistol tucked in his belt in a ready-to-fire position. When confronted by police after the murder, Zimm spoke "in written police jargon" and talks about "justifiable use of force" and says he "`unholstered my firearm,' not `I pulled my gun.'" Sure sounds like a police wannabe to me.

[NJblue]

Originally Posted by mickey100

You are making a lot of assumptions that have not been backed up by facts. The lead detective said it appeared Zimm did NOT stop following Martin when told. The evidence has not shown Martin followed Zimm back to his vehicle - that is just Zimm's version of events. We don't know who attacked who. Zimmerman clearly said "these a...holes always get away". That seems pretty clear he was profiling Martin as a criminal. He followed Martin with a semiautomatic pistol tucked in his belt in a ready-to-fire position. When confronted by police after the murder, Zimm spoke "in written police jargon" and talks about "justifiable use of force" and says he "`unholstered my firearm,' not `I pulled my gun.'" Sure sounds like a police wannabe to me.

There is no proof that Zimmerman was still following Martin, but even if there were, that is not against the law and given the type of questions being asked by dispatch, it would be understandable if he tried to keep an eye on where Martin was going. This is especially understandable if your community has been hit by a series of crimes and you have taken a leadership role in trying put a stop to it.

There is no crime in using an expletive, nor is there a crime in thinking that someone who is walking between houses on a dark, rainy night is up to no good.

There is no crime in having a loaded pistol in a firing position, nor does it in any way indicate the state of mind of Zimmerman, since it was clearly in that mode while he was on his way to Target.

There is no crime in using "police jargon" when describing a police event. One tends to talk in the jargon one knows and one which the audience is pressumed to use. A doctor, when talking to another doctor will likely use medical terminology. A lawyer will use lawyer talk, etc. Zimmerman had some course in criminal justice and at one time perhaps wanted to be a cop. Since when is having aspirations to help society the basis for guilt?

These are all straws that the prosecution is throwing out that those who want to presume Zimmerman guilty can grasp while ignoring the real facts of the case. I find it a shame that our legal system is so bad that a person may spend the rest of his life in prison because of this kind of thinking.

[NJblue]

Originally Posted by mickey100

The testimony so far does seem to support your statements. And we still don't have a handle on the scuffle - who had who on the ground, etc. Zimmerman claims one thing, witnesses don't agree on what they saw. We don't yet know who was calling for help. From his statements, Zimmerman displayed ill will toward Martin when he referred to "expletive punks". According to the detective in the case, it appeared he continued to follow Martin after being told to stop, and was overly eager to catch a "bad guy". He was a police wannabe. He was versed in the Stand your Ground law, and knew what to say to police to justify his actions. IMHO, being in a scuffle with someone, where you sustain injuries that don't require medical followup and require only a bandaid, does not give you the right to shoot someone with a gun. They found no evidence that Martin tried to take the gun away from Zimmerman. Bottom line - we haven't seen all the testimony yet - I dont' see this as an open and shut case one way or the other.

So, if you were on the jury and the testimony was done, I pressume you would vote not guilty, correct?

[dillywho]

Maybe I didn't read all the posts close enough, but I do not remember anyone saying anything about GZ's statement that he was reaching for his cell phone in his pocket and that's when TM hit him. How did TM know it was his cell phone and that had "forgotten" which pocket it was in? How did he know who this guy was that had been following him around in his vehicle and on foot...GZ never bothered to identify himself, even when he says TM asked him if he had a problem. GZ only said, "No, I don't have a problem". Given the company this kid apparently kept in Miami, that could well have been perceived as a threat to him. Does he not then have the right for self defense? GZ never told him the police were on their way. In fact, GZ had only called the NEN, not 911.

I have watched all the police interviews posted on line and during the trial. His story has just too many holes in it. Even the officer doing the interview told him that getting out and following someone is not fear. At one point, he told the investigator that he "forgot" he even had his gun with him. This was after saying that he always carried it except on his regular job. The one thing that might well convict him is his own mouth for talking before obtaining counsel. He has told so many lies that have been played for the jury that seems to me would cost him any credibility. People that have nothing to hide don't tell blatant lies. Not minor discrepancies...outright lies.

Many have criticized TM for not going straight back to his dad's. At 17, did you always go straight home? Phone records have already shown that he was on the phone up until the time of the fight. Kids talk for eons on their phones and there was a young kid back at the house. Could be that he didn't want him to be listening to his conversation. Could be that he was enjoying just being away from him for a little bit. Could be a lot of things. It was only 7 p.m., hardly the middle of the night. TM was just marking time until he could get back to Miami and his friends and way of life, regardless of what that way was. Why on earth would he risk getting into trouble in the big berg of Sanford? Surely, he was a little smarter than that.

I don't think this rises to the level of Murder 2, but I definitely think he should be found guilty of a lesser charge or charges. GZ apparently does not take well to instructions. He did not follow protocol of NW by observing and reporting. He did not need to look for an address...there was one right in front of him. Why did he tell the NEN operator to just have the police call him when they got there instead of being where he had already told them he would be and he would let them know where he was at that time? That says he had every intention of looking for this kid, not just "walking in the same direction". I think that just because he had received some kudos from some of his neighbors, he wanted to really be viewed as their hero and savior. What made this night any different than the other calls he had made about suspicious activity? He just called and reported per protocol.

If he gets off, I can only wonder how long it will be before he's in trouble again. He already thinks he's above the law and has all the answers. I wonder, too, how this would be playing out had TM lived?

Too many questions, not enough answers, and only one side of a story to hear.

BTW, I have watched every minute of the trial. Sometimes had to tape, but otherwise watched. Had to be home anyway.

[mickey100]

Originally Posted by dillywho

Maybe I didn't read all the posts close enough, but I do not remember anyone saying anything about GZ's statement that he was reaching for his cell phone in his pocket and that's when TM hit him. How did TM know it was his cell phone and that had "forgotten" which pocket it was in? How did he know who this guy was that had been following him around in his vehicle and on foot...GZ never bothered to identify himself, even when he says TM asked him if he had a problem. GZ only said, "No, I don't have a problem". Given the company this kid apparently kept in Miami, that could well have been perceived as a threat to him. Does he not then have the right for self defense? GZ never told him the police were on their way. In fact, GZ had only called the NEN, not 911.

I have watched all the police interviews posted on line and during the trial. His story has just too many holes in it. Even the officer doing the interview told him that getting out and following someone is not fear. At one point, he told the investigator that he "forgot" he even had his gun with him. This was after saying that he always carried it except on his regular job. The one thing that might well convict him is his own mouth for talking before obtaining counsel. He has told so many lies that have been played for the jury that seems to me would cost him any credibility. People that have nothing to hide don't tell blatant lies. Not minor discrepancies...outright lies.

Many have criticized TM for not going straight back to his dad's. At 17, did you always go straight home? Phone records have already shown that he was on the phone up until the time of the fight. Kids talk for eons on their phones and there was a young kid back at the house. Could be that he didn't want him to be listening to his conversation. Could be that he was enjoying just being away from him for a little bit. Could be a lot of things. It was only 7 p.m., hardly the middle of the night. TM was just marking time until he could get back to Miami and his friends and way of life, regardless of what that way was. Why on earth would he risk getting into trouble in the big berg of Sanford? Surely, he was a little smarter than that.

I don't think this rises to the level of Murder 2, but I definitely think he should be found guilty of a lesser charge or charges. GZ apparently does not take well to instructions. He did not follow protocol of NW by observing and reporting. He did not need to look for an address...there was one right in front of him. Why did he tell the NEN operator to just have the police call him when they got there instead of being where he had already told them he would be and he would let them know where he was at that time? That says he had every intention of looking for this kid, not just "walking in the same direction". I think that just because he had received some kudos from some of his neighbors, he wanted to really be viewed as their hero and savior. What made this night any different than the other calls he had made about suspicious activity? He just called and reported per protocol.

If he gets off, I can only wonder how long it will be before he's in trouble again. He already thinks he's above the law and has all the answers. I wonder, too, how this would be playing out had TM lived?

Too many questions, not enough answers, and only one side of a story to hear.

Excellent post. As you said, too many questions, not enough answers, and only one side of the story to hear.

[dillywho]

Originally Posted by mickey100

The testimony so far does seem to support your statements. And we still don't have a handle on the scuffle - who had who on the ground, etc. Zimmerman claims one thing, witnesses don't agree on what they saw. We don't yet know who was calling for help. From his statements, Zimmerman displayed ill will toward Martin when he referred to "expletive punks". According to the detective in the case, it appeared he continued to follow Martin after being told to stop, and was overly eager to catch a "bad guy". He was a police wannabe. He was versed in the Stand your Ground law, and knew what to say to police to justify his actions. IMHO, being in a scuffle with someone, where you sustain injuries that don't require medical followup and require only a bandaid, does not give you the right to shoot someone with a gun. They found no evidence that Martin tried to take the gun away from Zimmerman. Bottom line - we haven't seen all the testimony yet - I dont' see this as an open and shut case one way or the other.

Did you notice in the Hannity replay, he said he had never heard of SYG? He said that he hadn't and then Hannity asked him about self defense. Nope. Both lies. I would have to look at it again, but I think this is where he says that it was just "God's will".

[Patty55]

Originally Posted by mickey100

You are making a lot of assumptions that have not been backed up by facts. The lead detective said it appeared Zimm did NOT stop following Martin when told. The evidence has not shown Martin followed Zimm back to his vehicle - that is just Zimm's version of events. We don't know who attacked who. Zimmerman clearly said "these a...holes always get away". That seems pretty clear he was profiling Martin as a criminal. He followed Martin with a semiautomatic pistol tucked in his belt in a ready-to-fire position. When confronted by police after the murder, Zimm spoke "in written police jargon" and talks about "justifiable use of force" and says he "`unholstered my firearm,' not `I pulled my gun.'" Sure sounds like a police wannabe to me.

Maybe GZ profiled TM as a criminal because, HELLOOO, he was. He assaulted an unarmed bus driver, he had been suspended from school for truancy and drugs. He was found with burglary tools and jewelry (that he was holding for a friend).

[graciegirl]

What I see are opinions again lined up along political lines.

That is one thing I find disappointing as we age. We are ALL so biased and we do not seem to evaluate most things with an open mind like when we were younger.