F
Fairwinds
Guest
relatively speaking, no. most other ways of finding an acceptable version of the truth aren’t acceptable.
- Status
M
MaryT777
Guest
The problem is that Zimmerman did profile TM as a “suspect” and called him as such.
He should not pay the price for the botched robbery of other persons in that neighborhood.
M
MaryT777
Guest
It’s not as simple as who initiated the confrontation. TM may have feared for his own life and we don’t know because he can’t obviously testify. I don’t believe it only went to court because of the media and the President.
J
JamesCaruso
Guest
Really, then why did TM circle back, himself approach GZ, and punch him in the nose and get him down on the ground, BEFORE he even knew what GZ’s purpose was? Are you justifying any act of violence out of paranoia?
Why didn’t TM continue to go home? The truck had stopped. GZ was returning back to his truck. You can argue all you want about whether he should have been out of the truck or not, or whether he was really just checking for the house address which was the number in the front of the house, He posed no threat to TM by returning to his truck.
Also, whether wise or unwise, being out of the truck is not a crime. But walking up to someone who you think may be a stalker and punching them in the face, then proceeding to attack him on the ground, is a crime in all 50 states.
If TM had survived, he would be guilty of assault and battery. It was unwise of him not to continue his journey home, especially when he could see that the pursuit had stopped. If he had any doubts, TM could have stayed out of sight and watched GZ as he returned to his truck. Just because he is the one killed, does not mean that we should put all the responsibility for what happened on GZ.
Again, following someone is not a crime. Hitting someone who is following you is a crime. The case comes down to one thing and one thing alone-- did GZ shoot because he feared he was in danger of serious bodily harm? It has nothing to do with whether he had or had not received serious bodily damage up to the point of shooting. What matters is whether he perceived that he was in danger of serious bodily harm. Since we cannot possibly get into his mind on this, there must be a reasonable doubt. Under Florida’s stand your ground law, he should be found not guilty.
V
Vanny
Guest
It is also not completely certain that Martin was the first one to confront Zimmerman. It could have been the other way around and Martin may have been fighting back for his life.
We will never know for sure, as there are no good witnesses who saw or heard the whole thing. I don’t consider Trayvon’s phone partner(Jenteal?) to be helpful at all one way or the other. I come at this as a mother with a 17 and 18 year old.
There are many variations as to what really happened and Zimmerman’s account may not be completely accurate but we will never know for sure.
I wish this had remained a local media case and not garnered such national attention.
Tragic all the way around.
I do feel the 2nd degree murder charge too high as we don’t know for sure what happened/who started it, and I don’t think Zimmerman set out intending to shoot Martin.
I do wonder if he wanted to apprehend/detain Martin until the police arrived, and things went badly south after that.
We will never know for sure, as there are no good witnesses who saw or heard the whole thing. I don’t consider Trayvon’s phone partner(Jenteal?) to be helpful at all one way or the other. I come at this as a mother with a 17 and 18 year old.
There are many variations as to what really happened and Zimmerman’s account may not be completely accurate but we will never know for sure.
I wish this had remained a local media case and not garnered such national attention.
Tragic all the way around.
I do feel the 2nd degree murder charge too high as we don’t know for sure what happened/who started it, and I don’t think Zimmerman set out intending to shoot Martin.
I do wonder if he wanted to apprehend/detain Martin until the police arrived, and things went badly south after that.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
I do. Not the President part. Would have gone to court with a white Prez.
The charge of “racism” sells. In journalistic and in legal terms, it was “sensational.” And it has been further sensationalized.
S
SwizzleStick
Guest
Can’t find the trial transcript, could probably search more and find it, but here is the bond hearing transcript excerpt addressing that.
…O’MARA: Mr. Zimmerman gave a statement that very night, did he not?
GILBREATH: Yes.
O’MARA: And within that statement, he said that he saw somebody, he was concerned, he got out of his car, he called non-emergency, and began to go towards the person. Is that paraphrasing but pretty correct so far?
GILBREATH: Paraphrasing, yes.
O’MARA: Ok. And if I go wrong, stop me and let me know where I wrong.
GILBREATH: I will.
O’MARA: And then he said he went back around and went towards his car, did he not? In his statement.
GILBREATH: In his statement after he was told not to talk by the dispatcher.
O’MARA: Got you.
GILBREATH: He says that he continued on to find a street sign and then went back to his car.
O’MARA: So he said before he knew anyone else saw or did not see what had happened, he gave a statement saying he went back to his car, correct?
GILBREATH: No. Towards his car.
O’MARA: Sorry. You’re right. He went towards his car. Seemingly away from Mr. Martin, though, correct?
GILBREATH: That part of the interview I don’t recall because I don’t know that he indicated where Martin was.
O’MARA: Did he tell you who started the fight? Did he give you any indication what happened?
GILBREATH: No.
O’MARA: Not you. I apologize. Are you aware of any information of the statements that he had given regarding that?
GILBREATH: Yes.
O’MARA: Ok. And in those statements that you’re aware of and were part of your foundation for coming up with this probable cause affidavit, what did he tell the officers?
GILBREATH: That he was the victim in this, and that it was Martin that confronted him and assaulted him.
O’MARA: When did he say that? When was the first in relation to when the event happened. When did he say that?
GILBREATH: The initial interview that was conducted at Sanford Police Department.
O’MARA: How long after the event?
GILBREATH: Within an hour and a half.
O’MARA: Had if been disclosed before he made that statement any information about what other evidence the police had gathered regarding this investigation?
GILBREATH: You mean to him? O’MARA: Yes.
GILBREATH: Not to my knowledge.
O’MARA: Would it be safe to assume then in giving him, and him giving that statement to the police wherein he said one, “I turned around and went back to my car”; and two, that he did not start the fight and that he was assaulted by Mr. Martin. When he gave that statement, did he have any indication that there were or were not half a dozen witnesses who saw the whole thing?
GILBREATH: I have no knowledge of that. I don’t know what –
O’MARA: any insight you can give us as to –
(CROSSTALK)
GILBREATH: I have no indication what he picked up from other officers at the scene. I know from reading reports there were witnesses gathered around while he was still at the scene. And this was prior to their having statements taken from them. So I don’t know what he picked up from overheard conversations.
O’MARA: That statement that he had given you – sorry, law enforcement that day, that we just talked about, turning around and that he was assaulted, do you have any evidence in your investigation to date that specifically contradicts either of those two pieces of evidence that were in his statement given several hours after the event?
GILBREATH: Which two?
O’MARA: That he turned back to his car. We’ll start with that one.
GILBREATH: I have nothing to indicate he did not or did not to that.
O’MARA: My question was do you have any evidence to contradict or that conflicts with his contention given before he knew any of the evidence that would conflict with the fact that he stated I walked back to my car?
GILBREATH: No.
O’MARA: No evidence. Correct?
GILBREATH: Understanding – are you talking about at that point in time?
O’MARA: Since. Today. Do you have any evidence that conflicts with his suggestion that he had turned around and went back to his car?
GILBREATH: Other than his statement, no.
O’MARA: Any evidence that conflicts with that.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He answered it. He said no.
O’MARA: Any evidence that conflicts any eyewitnesses, anything that conflicts with the contention that Mr. Martin assaulted first?
GILBREATH: That contention that was given to us by him, other than filling in the figures being one following or chasing the other one, as to who threw the first blow, no.
O’MARA: Ok. Now, you know as one of the chief investigators that is the primary focus in this case, is it not?
GILBREATH: There are many focuses in this case.
O’MARA: That would be considered the primary, would it not, in your opinion, 35 years experience?
GILBREATH: I don’t know that it’s primary. It’s one of the concerns, yes.
O’MARA: Nothing further.
Blue excerpt from source link: transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1204/20/cnr.02.html
M
MaryT777
Guest
To say TM should have gone home is to put the blame on the Victim. TM was not a suspect of anything and that was stated by the police in the trial. That was an unfair characterization and profiling someone who was not a criminal as a suspect.
Was the defense the Stand your ground law?
Zimmerman stated he had no knowledge of this yet took a class and received an A.
I agree there is some doubt because one party of the incident cannot testify unfortunately.
It is pure speculation that TM would have been charged with anything. I don’t know about anyone else but I would not go home if someone was following me so they can then discern where I live. I would be gravely concerned about the state of mind of someone following me when I had done nothing wrong but walk in the rain with skittles and an iced tea.
You may have a hard time selling that particular line to every police officer in the US that carries their gun as part of their job.
Likewise your logic fails as well for all of those that regularly carry their weapon for nothing more then defense.
M
MaryT777
Guest
I disagree completely. A young man was dead walking in the rain with skittles and an iced tea; followed in a neighborhood of 3 streets, and ended up dead by a man who claimed to know nothing about defense laws but indeed took a class and aced it.
That there were robberies by what was described as young black men is no reason for
TM to be considered a suspect and treated as such by a man not a police officer.
S
SwizzleStick
Guest
Here’s a link to an interactive map and info about the altercation that led to Martin’s death.
hlntv.com/interactive/2013/06/17/zimmerman-trayvon-map-interactive
S
SwizzleStick
Guest
Maybe it would be helpful to read the entire post again rather than that excerpt above. I read that stygwillidar was saying how anti-gun folks will wrongly view the simple fact that Zimmerman was carrying as an indication that he was out looking for trouble, not that stygwillidar personally thinks that those who carry are violence-seekers.
M
MaryT777
Guest
I also wonder if he wanted to detain his "suspect’ until the police came.
TM was not a suspect in any crime.
L
LisaA
Guest
You seem totally fixated on the idea that “profiling” Martin was wrong. I don’t know what kind of a neighborhood you live in, but I know my neighborhood pretty well, who looks like they are going about their business, or live here or if they seem to be engaging in suspicious behavior. We have a nice, relatively crime free neighborhood but it is also close to two high schools and we had a rash of daytime break ins where it turned out local high school students were breaking into homes while residents were at work. Thus were I to see a teen wandering around the neighborhood in the middle of a school day, I would “profile” him in the context of our neighborhood and what had been happening.
GZ was a neighborhood watch member, the neighborhood had had a series of burglaries including one detailed at the trial where a young mother was terrified for her life. It’s a rainy night and a kid in a hoodie (and note the video, he kept it on INSIDE the store where he was buying said Skittles) seemed to be wandering around, staying under the eves of homes and according to testimony I heard he was walking between some homes on a private path used by residents. That’s something that stood out to GZ. It would have stood out to me as well. I assure you that I watch around my neighborhood and if I see people who seem to be sort of wandering aimlessly around on a rainy night I’d pay attention.
There was nothing illegal about “profiling” Martin. He didn’t seem to belong, he didn’t seem to be going anywhere. His behavior was suspicious. And according to Janteal’s testimony Martin also “profiled” GZ and apparently deemed him worth confronting.
The whole case rests on whether or not Martin initiated the contact. Before that moment all each had done was display irritating or rude behavior. That’s not illegal.
And yes I think this case is ALL about race baiting and those whose livelihood depends on ginning up every incident as racism. Were the same group of screaming meemies as outraged by DOZENS of young black men and even children being gunned down every week in Chicago they might be taken seriously. But they are just a bunch of race baiting blowhards.
Lisa
L
LisaA
Guest
Speculation. There is ZERO evidence of that. WHY are you trying so hard to ignore actual evidence because it doesn’t fit your preconceived notion?
I am truly trying to understand this mode of thinking.
Lisa
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Ah, yes. He must be innocent because of his race. The victim, always, and always innocent.
Others have corrected you on this. GZ was not hired as a professional nor acting as a professional. The standard in this case will be, What a reasonable person, in those same circumstances, would have and should have done and not done.
But it was reason for scrutinizing anyone not immediately recognized, and perceived as acting oddly.
The jury will have to determine whether TM, as well, had certain perceptions & (reasonable) reactions in that situation which would have resulted in aggressive behavior.
M
MaryT777
Guest
Profiling Martin because he was young and black and other neighbors were robbed by black people is wrong. He shouldn’t have to give his life for the wrongs of others.
What is rude about walking home in the rain?
That does not make you a suspect and yes Zimmerman did profile him, call him as suspect, follow him as such, He could have initiated the confrontation and scared Martin to the point he feared for his life. We don’t know TM’s side of the story.
He can’t speak from the grave.
Zimmerman’s ability to answer truthfully about any knowledge with self defense laws was non existent. He aced the class while stating on a national interview he had no understanding of defense laws. Therefore I don’t hold much stock in what Zimmerman had to say.
Not to mention the initial bond hearing where they had issues with how much money he
had and a passport.
Not a good track record in my opinion of telling the truth.
M
MaryT777
Guest
The telephone tapes with the police dispatcher speak for themselves.
I see the “suspect” These guys always get away…etc.
Perhaps your right.
Apologies, I am skimming through to catch up.
This thread appears to be moving quick and I don’t have 30 minutes at a time to catch up.
L
Lormar
Guest
Ah, yes. He must be innocent because of his race. The victim, always, and always innocent.
Others have corrected you on this. GZ was not hired as a professional nor acting as a professional. The standard in this case will be, What a reasonable person, in those same circumstances, would have and should have done and not done.
But it was reason for scrutinizing anyone not immediately recognized, and perceived as acting oddly.
The jury will have to determine whether TM, as well, had certain perceptions & (reasonable) reactions in that situation which would have resulted in aggressive behavior.
- Status