George Zimmerman makes initial court appearance in Trayvon Martin shooting, will plead not guilty

  • Thread starter Thread starter SwizzleStick
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
St_Francis said:
Which affidavit? All I have seen is that Zimmerman thought Martin was acting suspiciously.

If Zimmerman thought that Martin was acting like a person interested in breaking into a house in the neighborhood, then he might not have seen him as a lethal threat, esp since it seems to have been pretty easy to run and hide in that area, since people were “always getting away.”
Click to expand...
Here you go, just for you. I searched my own posts.
Code: 
yesterday, Post 160

I have to admit that I'm almost stunned to see certain words
in a legal document regarding the Zimmerman-Martin case.

[cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/Zi...in;contentBody](http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/Zi...in;contentBody)

It states that Zimmerman profiled Martin.
It states that Zimmerman confronted Martin.
It states that Zimmerman while talking about Martin stated "these a------s, they 
always get away" and also "these f------ punks.

It states that Zimmerman disregarded the police dispatcher
and continued to follow Martin who was trying to return to his home.

Although many posters have mentioned such details, 
it is almost shocking to see the details lined up in an affidavit.

Even more than the spelled-out vulgarities 
is the use of the term "profiled" adding that "Martin
was unarmed and not commiting a crime." In print too 
is the fact that "Zimmerman disregarded the police dispatcher."

Quite a staggering affidavit, IMO. 


~~~~~~~~~~

You're welcome.
 
mtbender said:
More opinion with any facts to validate.

The fact that he was not charged is a very important piece of information. There are degrees of violence and none that Zimmerman exhibited where illegal – yet people have no problem making that leap to murder.

**
The gov’t has made that leap.
Read the affidavit.**

Martin was in possession of drug paraphernalia, under that logic is it safe to say he was going to be a drug dealer? Strawman
Click to expand...
 
Calgar said:
You aren’t going to intimidate me into not presenting evidence against your supositions. If you think I’m out of line, report me and have me gone.

As to the point at hand:

I think it’s very interesting to other members of the board. They posted quite a bit around this issue of people (not just you) saying that carrying a gun (as George Zimmerman did) is some kind of evidence of intent.

Whether anyone likes it, or not, GZ was legally carrying a pistol and he used it. Now wether his USE of the pistol was legal will be for the court to decide. But the fact that he had a pistol is not evidence against him. 👍
Click to expand...
Me? Intimidate you?
I have no firearms.

Yet the Forum Rules are explicit.
Did you take a poll of the other
posters before your referenced ME
as a problem, NO.

That’s a no-no, mister.

👍👍👍
 
mtbender said:
I agree, and I by no means was trying to suggest that. I was just showing the parallel in logic.
Click to expand...
Right, and it’s going to be a while before there is a trial so the “media” needs some cud to chew on.
 
jen_fla said:
continued:

you are right, we don’t know what happened. i don’t know why you are telling me that, when i’ve posted that same sentiment over and over already. i can tell you though that if i saw someone looking into someone’s windows at night, i would assume they are a criminal: either a thief casing the place out or that they are a perverted peeping tom. and depending on the property usually one has to trespass in order to do so which would make them a criminal. thing is george said he was looking at homes so we don’t know all the details of what that entailed. he could have been running up under the eaves to get out of the rain which technically would have been trespassing and could have looked very suspicious.

as far as “when young black males (possibly :D) wearing hoodies walk next to me, what do i think”… well i have to say it wouldn’t matter what the color of their skin was. i’ve encountered enough sociopaths to know that dangerous jerks come in all colors. hoodie isn’t a factor as i wear them myself. it’s their body language. are they standing too close? do they look angry? are they wearing obvious gang colors? are they giving signals?

edit i usually wouldn’t take just one factor into consideration, but would take in all the facts as a whole.

fwiw, i have a soft spot for those adorable (yet misguided) mormons that ride around on bikes. i think they are too cute with their ties, yet let me tell you, if a group of them walked next to me and their behavior seemed off, i’d be out of there in a second, all the while ready to nail them in the latter day region if they tried anything.
Click to expand...
I’m late to this response, but I was working…:p:shrug:

All I’m saying is I agree with you…we don’t know diddly, we can only think we know what happened.

Like I said, I’m willing to keep an open mind and change it if needed and the evidence comes along.

One thing, though:

You are absolutely right. We don’t know if GZ did racially profile TM. But we don’t know he didn’t, either.

Just because he does not look like (fill in what you want here) does not mean he isn’t. Some people are natural born actors without actually acting. I’m sure you and I can convince people of our sincerity in certain matters by facial means without actually being sincere. Same with psychopaths.
They could look at you in the face dead-pan and tell you a straight lie and you would totally believe it.

NOT saying GZ is like that. personally, I have my opinions, but I was just commenting on the assumption BOTH (again, BOTH) “sides” are making about BOTH persons ivolved here. Just like GZ may or may not have attacked and stalked TM, TM may or may not have attacked and stalked GZ.

It is just the CERTAINTY some people have around here that “so and so happened” that get me here.

I.E.----“when TM attacked GZ…” See? Same with cetain things about GZ.

Sorry, but i just get the feeling that some here have already made up their minds here against TM, rightly or worngly. If I’m wrong, I apologize.

Let’s wait till the trial, folks.

Like i have said, I ahve opinions too, but AT LEAST I’m willing to not be so CERTAIN abot them. I’m willing to come in here and say I was wrong if proven wrong after the trial.

Fair, right?

BTW, I KNOW you are being fair. I was just answering your question about “hoodies.” And being hypothetical in asking you about your experience with them.

I also wear them, btw…I’m bald, and look like a bald Unabomber-type. Go figure. 🤷
That’s all. Bless you and everybody else here.👍
 
40.png
catharina:
I don’t believe I saw anywhere in the affidavit that they said Zimmerman had a violent past… It’s based solely on the details of that night. I did re-read it to make sure though…

IRT the Martin comments – it was not meant to be a strawman, just meant to show your argument was not solid because it also could be used to point to other absurd accusations that have no factual basis.
 
seekerz said:
Is Zimmerman alive? Is he an adult? If the answers are yes, and yes, I highly doubt he’d qualify for the usual treatment I see given daily, to the photos of kids who have been killed.
Click to expand...
i admit it’s normal to show more pictures of someone who has died than of someone living. you got me there, but since we don’t know exactly what happened and another person’s life could be placed in prison, it simply isn’t responsible for news programming to show such bias while reporting the case… bias in either direction i might add.

the news is there to report what info they had and that was that a 17 yr old male, was shot and killed by someone who lived in the neighborhood. news programming is supposed to report on the facts, placing a picture of a 12 yr as they report that he was killed, can lead the public to believe that a 12 yr old was shot.

or do you think the media should be allowed to paint whatever they want. would it be ok if there was a picture of trayvon dressed up as a gangbanger for halloween and the media used that over and over?

all i’m saying is that rational people know that a fight between a taller 17 year old and a 28 year old is usually more equal than a fight between a 12 yr old boy and a 28 yr old man.
 
St_Francis said:
I posted that *as an example, *not saying that it was even likely, to show how even if she were called as a witness, her comment about it’s being an accident would not come up in court. I do wish everyone would stop mentioning it–I’m sure they will have much better voice analysts than the mother of the son who died as witnesses.
Click to expand...
There is no reason to be defensive. Even if they have better voice analysts, they may also bring the mother up. However, due to her changing statements about the incident, the prosecution may decide that would be risky. Once you have someone on the stand, there is the possibility of such comments being brought up. The prosecution does not have complete control of the questions being asked - the defense gets a chance with the witnesses too. Even if there is an objection and the jury is told to disregard, it can taint the testimony.
 
jen_fla said:
i admit it’s normal to show more pictures of someone who has died than of someone living. you got me there, but since we don’t know exactly what happened and another person’s life could be placed in prison, it simply isn’t responsible for news programming to show such bias while reporting the case… bias in either direction i might add.

the news is there to report what info they had and that was that a 17 yr old male, was shot and killed by someone who lived in the neighborhood. news programming is supposed to report on the facts, placing a picture of a 12 yr as they report that he was killed, can lead the public to believe that a 12 yr old was shot.

or do you think the media should be allowed to paint whatever they want. would it be ok if there was a picture of trayvon dressed up as a gangbanger for halloween and the media used that over and over?

all i’m saying is that rational people know that a fight between a taller 17 year old and a 28 year old is usually more equal than a fight between a 12 yr old boy and a 28 yr old man.
Click to expand...
I truly believe that the media used the first photo that was at hand:
the one of the boy in the red shirt. My guess - maybe they got the pic
from one - or both - of his parents. When more pics became available,
those were published too.
 
catharina said:
I truly believe that the media used the first photo that was at hand:
the one of the boy in the red shirt. My guess - maybe they got the pic
from one - or both - of his parents. When more pics became available,
those were published too.
Click to expand...
In light of NBC doctoring up the audio portion of 911 call, do you really feel that they didn’t have an agenda?
 
JMJSHJ said:
In light of NBC doctoring up the audio portion of 911 call, do you really feel that they didn’t have an agenda?
Click to expand...
Who mentioned NBC?
Oh. Right. You did.

I have never quoted or referenced NBC in any of my posts - among the current 4000+ posts. Nice guessing game though. Keep jumping around if that suits you. Does it?
 
catharina said:
Context rests in Z’s perception of a stranger as a criminal.
Every large city in the nation has dealt with “lack of willing witnesses” for decades.
Click to expand...
catharina said:
The affidavit and links to it have been posted here.
It’s quite easy to find it. Take a look.
Click to expand...
Are you talking about the prosecutor’s affidavit? I was unable to find that in there. That’s why I thought you might mean a different affidavit.

(In case you forgot, here is what you said: **The affidavit clearly states
that Zimmerman perceived Martin to be “CRIMINAL.”
**
Read the affidavit and do the math.)
 
catharina said:
Context rests in Z’s perception of a stranger as a criminal.
Every large city in the nation has dealt with “lack of willing witnesses” for decades.
Click to expand...
I actually thought those men were criminals, too, and yet I followed them. I wrote that in response to your saying that you didn’t think that Zimmerman would have followed Martin if Zimmerman had been unarmed. I was trying to show that that was not necessarily the case.

Moreover, whatever following Zimmerman, altho armed, did, may have been for the same reason I followed the men I suspected of kidnapping a little girl: to be able to better direct the police rather than to “confront” Martin.

Notice that Zimmerman’s original reaction was not to approach Martin but to call the police. He chose to call the police rather than to ask Martin anything himself despite the fact that he (Zimmerman) was armed.
 
catharina said:
I truly believe that the media used the first photo that was at hand:
the one of the boy in the red shirt. My guess - maybe they got the pic
from one - or both - of his parents. When more pics became available,
those were published too.
Click to expand...
you may be right. the second one that has been used over and over again of him in the hoodie was photoshopped. i have not seen any true picture of him wearing a hoodie, but of course that doesn’t mean i couldn’t have missed it.
 
St_Francis said:
Are you talking about the prosecutor’s affidavit? I was unable to find that in there. That’s why I thought you might mean a different affidavit.

(In case you forgot, here is what you said: **The affidavit clearly states
that Zimmerman perceived Martin to be “CRIMINAL.”
**
Read the affidavit and do the math.)
Click to expand...
Ok. Not your problem nor mine.
The affidavit continues to ‘disppear.’

Here’s a link to affidavit printed TODAY. Hope it works. Good luck!

talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2012/04/george-zimmerman-affidavit-of-probable-cause.php?page=1
 
St_Francis said:
I actually thought those men were criminals, too, and yet I followed them. I wrote that in response to your saying that you didn’t think that Zimmerman would have followed Martin if Zimmerman had been unarmed. I was trying to show that that was not necessarily the case.

Moreover, whatever following Zimmerman, altho armed, did, may have been for the same reason I followed the men I suspected of kidnapping a little girl: to be able to better direct the police rather than to “confront” Martin.

Notice that Zimmerman’s original reaction was not to approach Martin but to call the police. He chose to call the police rather than to ask Martin anything himself despite the fact that he (Zimmerman) was armed.
Click to expand...
Huge difference:

You acted to protect a child.
Z acted to prevent possible damage to property.

I would do what you did.
I would NOT do what Z did.
 
St_Francis said:
I actually thought those men were criminals, too, and yet I followed them. I wrote that in response to your saying that you didn’t think that Zimmerman would have followed Martin if Zimmerman had been unarmed. I was trying to show that that was not necessarily the case.

Moreover, whatever following Zimmerman, altho armed, did, may have been for the same reason I followed the men I suspected of kidnapping a little girl: to be able to better direct the police rather than to “confront” Martin.

Notice that Zimmerman’s original reaction was not to approach Martin but to call the police. He chose to call the police rather than to ask Martin anything himself despite the fact that he (Zimmerman) was armed.
Click to expand...
I am solidly behind the Second Amendment and support the right to bear arms. Citizens most definitely have the right to arm themselves if they so choose to protect themselves against actions of the not so law-abiding and downright evil among us. The idea of just bad guys and the police having guns is a scary one to me.

With that being said, I do wonder if Zimmerman would have gotten out of his truck if he hadn’t had a weapon. I wonder if carrying changed the way he perceived a possible threat and thus his reaction to the situation?

I’ve said it before, but I’ll repeat it here. If he hadn’t had his weapon with him during the confrontation with Martin, perhaps Zimmerman would be the deceased instead of Martin. But, if Zimmerman had just stayed in his truck to begin with, just observing and reporting, both men would be alive now, right? Did having the gun with him help him decide that exiting the truck was a manageable risk, that he could meet any threat and stay safe if he got out of the vehicle? I have the benefit of hindsight being 20/20 and I would think Zimmerman would have chosen differently if he could have foreseen the outcome, but I do wonder if he had left his gun locked up at home that night, would he have acted the same, gotten out of his truck to investigate anyway, or would he have just made the 911 call and watched from his vehicle instead? Maybe he still would have gotten out of his truck.

I can’t answer my questions. Maybe Zimmerman couldn’t really either if I were to ask him. And, I’m not asking these questions to portray Zimmerman as bad or weak or anything like that. I guess I’m just sadly reflecting on and questioning the why and how of a terrible outcome.
 
I’m frankly so tired of those who argue on both sides of the fence race shouldn’t be talked about… And that discussing race in this incidence will only incite a race war… We are not a racially blind society, and if the society is ever going to get passed its race issues, we are going to need to have some frank discussions.

I find the idea that people think this kids race played absolutely NO rule in him being ruled as suspicious is hilarious, to say the least… The kid was clearly doing nothing wrong, and so what else could be suspicious than the fact that he was black, with a hoodie and maybe urban clothing. If people think its easy being a young black man walking down the streets, you aren’t a young black man. Then again given the violence going on in the African community couldn’t there be SOME discussion of people’s fears being a bit warranted.

The fact of the matter is in this case, this guy Zimmerman took it upon himself to play cop when he’s not a cop. I find his story to be questionable at best. Zimmerman has (a misdemanner for battery in his record not just charges, right?). I find the idea that Trevyon, who knows he’s unarmed, would go about punching a guy, who weighs more than him, in the dark, who has been following him, for just no reason to be more than a bit ridiculous.

Trevyon may have put on twitter (it could have been someone else) he beat up a bus driver but kids put things on twitter all the time, there’s no documented record of anyone claiming this kid was violent. There’s documented record of Zimmerman being over zealous and violent at times.

What I think is more than likely happened is that Zimmerman took it upon himself to play cop, tried to detain the kid perhaps with force, and then when the kid fought back, shot the kid. Zimmerman who knows he has a weapon is far more likely to attack then a kid, who knows he’s unarmed. Did Zimmerman go in with the intent to shoot this kid, probably not. But his whole Trevyon just punched me for no reason, doesn’t add up. At All.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top