Open Thread on Zimmerman Trial

[rlg94086]

Go back and read the thread. Two.

Heck no…too long.

But, vz71 stepped up. Thanks, vz71! :tiphat:

So, “two” is more people than thought Zimmerman was guilty before he even came to trial? Hardly. Go back and read the 1000+ post threads.

 

[rlg94086]

I wouldn’t place a bet either way.

It really should come down to whether the jury believes it was reasonable for Zimmerman to be in fear for his life/of serious bodily injury at that point in the fight AND that he wasn’t in that position because Martin was defending himself.

No one was a witness to the critical point- who attacked.

Exactly. Thus, my point. How could one not have reasonable doubt, when there are no clear witnesses? It would be unreasonable to convict someone of murder, imo, without that important information. Killing him? Of course…plenty of evidence of that. But, not all killing is a crime. These are tough cases.

 

[MaryT777]

You will always find that investigating incidents. Witnesses in even minor traffic accidents will make contradictory statements, even things that couldn’t physically have happened swearing they are true. And their stories will morph over time, and I don’t think there is any malice behind it. Note the number who mentioned new information not in previous statements- did they deliberately withhold it, imagine it, make it up, remember it, or really simply not think it relevant enough not to mention it without being asked.

Exactly; Cross examination by second and second and minute has got to be grueling
unless you have a photographic memory. Whew.

 

[vz71]

I welcome an answer to the following questions:

1. Why would he need to go wandering around looking for an address after telling the dispatcher where he wanted to meet the police officer and ending the call?

I do not know.

1. Why would he need to go so far away from the truck, passing multiple buildings to find an address?

I do not know about his neighborhood, but not every house in mine is marked with a number that can be readily seen.
Has there been testimony to tell us if there were addresses readily viewable at night and in the rain?

1. Why was he walking in the opposite direction of where his truck was parked if he was just walking back to his truck?

Was he?
I missed this testimony.

1. If Martin had jumped out of the bushes and attacked him, where are the bushes?

There are no bushes where the beating took place.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

How could one not have reasonable doubt, when there are no clear witnesses?

You don’t need witnesses of the event to have reasonable confidence of Zimmerman’s motive for pursuing Martin or knowledge that Zimmerman’s version of events does not jive with the facts. I am reasonably confident that he is guilty of manslaughter.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

I do not know about his neighborhood, but not every house in mine is marked with a number that can be readily seen. Has there been testimony to tell us if there were addresses readily viewable at night and in the rain?

There’s a building facing the street very close to where his truck was parked. All he had to do was walk up and take a look. But he didn’t even need to do that because he already told the dispatcher where he would meet the police officer.

Was he? I missed this testimony.

Yep, we have a map of complex showing where Zimmerman’s truck was parked and the paths of both Martin and Zimmerman.

There are no bushes where the beating took place.

Exactly.

 

[rlg94086]

You don’t need witnesses of the event to have reasonable confidence of Zimmerman’s motive for pursuing Martin or knowledge that Zimmerman’s version of events does not jive with the facts. I am reasonably confident that he is guilty of manslaughter.

As someone who has already convicted him months ago, I’m not surprised you feel this way.

The testimonies are conflicting on both sides, so I don’t see how you are so confident. Apparently, you give some sort of weight to one side without reason to do so.

 

[MaryT777]

Heck no…too long.

But, vz71 stepped up. Thanks, vz71! :tiphat:

So, “two” is more people than thought Zimmerman was guilty before he even came to trial? Hardly. Go back and read the 1000+ post threads.

I’ll let you tabulate the results if it matters to you and report back LOL

 

[rlg94086]

I’ll let you tabulate the results if it matters to you and report back LOL

 

[donsnow]

Good evening, Seamus,

I presume this is your poll. I hope you and the other posters will understand my unwillingness to read all 31 pages of this thread, before I post.

I voted for #8. I’ll get to why, after digressing to the fundamentals of my opinion.

When the killing first occurred, I listened closely to the available facts at that time. At that time, the first week, I came to the conclusion that had Travon Martin gone straight to his father’s apartment, and not have sought out Zimmerman, he would be alive today, then. I think that opinion is as valid this today, as it was then.

Subsequent to my initial conclusion, and admitting that two police officers had a difference of opinion about George Zimmerman’s killing Travon Martin, I have the opinion that a witch hunt by black racists against Mr. Zimmerman ensued and that he was summoned to a kangaroo court.

God loves you,
Don
P.S.
I just saw the map. if and only if that map is accurate, and we have no guarantee of the validity of the information on it, then it looks like Zimmerman did not return to his truck, as instructed.
I have been an uniformed night watchman at apartments, and from that background, I comment that it looks like Zimmerman, only if the map is true, can go to jail for disobeying his dispatcher. And, that’s the way it is, folks. In my mind, the killing is no longer moot, if only manslaughter. if and only if that map is accurate, George Zimmerman is guilty of disobeying his dispatcher.
DDS

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

As someone who has already convicted him months ago, I’m not surprised you feel this way. The testimonies are conflicting on both sides, so I don’t see how you are so confident. Apparently, you give some sort of weight to one side without reason to do so.

I give weight to the side that makes sense given the incompatibility of Zimmerman’s account with the facts, his history of violence, and his history of aggressive behavior as the self-appointed neighborhood watch captain. The doubt isn’t reasonable IMO for a manslaughter guilty verdict. Murderers and rapists go free because people misinterpret reasonable doubt as any doubt.

 

[vz71]

I’ll let you tabulate the results if it matters to you and report back LOL

For the record though, I believe I am the only one here that has admitted the belief that this should never have gone to trial.

I can readily admit my bias. But I am open to going where the evidence takes me.

But if the evidence simply leads to “I don’t know.” then the default is not guilty.

 

[Seamus_L]

Don
I began the thread, but not the poll, I guess it was just combined, no idea who started it.

 

[ishii]

Mr, you perhaps might if it were your precious 17 year old son shot to death. Peace, Carlan

No, I’m talking about the media frenzy surrounding this trumped up crime. Carlan - how many tragic shootings result in trials that are NOT covered 24/7 by the media and turned into a circus? This is the exception - and its not because someone got shot and killed, its because the media decided that it made a good story: white guy kills black man just minding his own business. If the race were reversed, or if it was the black man who killed another black man or white killing white or black killing white, it would be just another crime and trial and Carlan would not be making posts on a thread devoted to it.

This whole story is just another sensationalistic media driven diversion away from the more serious issues.

• immigration
  -assault on marriage
• corruption in government/IRS
• Egypt falling apart
• Syria falling apart
• our president is in Africa, talking about… global warming of all things.

And you all are glued to your TV sets waiting for the next bit of drama to unfold from the trial of the year.

Ishii

 

[rlg94086]

I give weight to the side that makes sense given the incompatibility of Zimmerman’s account with the facts, his history of violence, and his history of aggressive behavior as the self-appointed neighborhood watch captain. The doubt isn’t reasonable IMO for a manslaughter guilty verdict. Murderers and rapists go free because people misinterpret reasonable doubt as any doubt.

You had “reasonable doubt” before the case even came to trial:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9101251&postcount=198

You wouldn’t have even been admitted to a jury with your attitude toward the case, so I don’t find your conclusions reasonable or relevant. You went with the guilty until proven innocent route. Too many Americans do these days…

 

[ishii]

Mr, you perhaps might if it were your precious 17 year old son shot to death. Peace, Carlan

…or, if your loved one was being accused of being a racist and murdering someone he shot in self-defense.

Both good reasons for someone who actually knows the defendant or victim. But not really a good reason for the entire country to get caught up in the media driven frenzy/tragedy TV.

Ishii

 

[vz71]

I give weight to the side that makes sense given the incompatibility of Zimmerman’s account with the facts, his history of violence, and his history of aggressive behavior as the self-appointed neighborhood watch captain. The doubt isn’t reasonable IMO for a manslaughter guilty verdict. Murderers and rapists go free because people misinterpret reasonable doubt as any doubt.

Martin had a violent history as well.
Although the judge does not want to hear of it, it is still pertinent.

This leaves us with two people in the rain at night.somewhere along the way, Martin ended up beating Zimmerman, caused injury to Zimmerman’s face and head and injured his own knuckles from the beating.

He was subsequently shot and killed in what was claimed to be self defense.

I see no reason to think otherwise at the present time.

 

[rlg94086]

Martin had a violent history as well.
Although the judge does not want to hear of it, it is still pertinent.

This leaves us with two people in the rain at night.somewhere along the way, Martin ended up beating Zimmerman, caused injury to Zimmerman’s face and head and injured his own knuckles from the beating.

He was subsequently shot and killed in what was claimed to be self defense.

I see no reason to think otherwise at the present time.

I see no way of determining whether it was self defense or not, which is my point. Reasonable doubt seems to exist, so far, in this trial. I haven’t seen compelling evidence to show anything more definitive. Perhaps, the prosecution is holding the good stuff until the end…

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

You had “reasonable doubt” before the case even came to trial:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9101251&postcount=198

Not applicable. The defense is not arguing Stand Your Ground so the evaluation is different.

You wouldn’t have even been admitted to a jury with your attitude toward the case…

Hardly anyone believed then that Zimmerman would succeed with a Stand Your Ground defense including his own defense attorney.

You went with the guilty until proven innocent route.

I compared the evidence available at the time to the Stand Your Ground requirements and found it incompatible for a successful defense; as his own defense attorney did.

 

[rlg94086]

Not applicable. The defense is not arguing Stand Your Ground so the evaluation is different.

Hardly anyone believed then that Zimmerman would succeed with a Stand Your Ground defense including his own lawyer.

I compared the evidence available at the time to the Stand Your Ground requirements and found it incompatible with that defense; as his own lawyer did.

I’ve been following the threads from the beginning, and you had Zimmerman convicted from day 1. It’s sad and pathetic, but you aren’t the only one. Vigilante justice spurred by the media is what most Americans seem to favor. Ironic, since that is what Zimmerman is being accused of.