Open Thread on Zimmerman Verdict

  • Thread starter Thread starter sweetcharity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
MaryT777 said:
The dispatcher testified he can only say things like
We don’t need you to do that for liability reasons.

He meant don’t follow him…

The dispatcher never said go follow him at a safe distance,

so no those were not his exact words but you could make a case he did mean as such.
Click to expand...
Not relevant…it was not said…Zimmerman was under no legal obligation to NOY follow Martin…nor is there any indication that Zimmerman followed him after that point…it does look like Martin stalked Zimmerman though.
 
BroomWagon said:
We got on a tangent as to whether the trial found Trayvon of being “foolish and violent”, I would contend the Jury only finds George Zimmerman not guilty of murder or other chages.

Sam H. does bring up a good point as to whether if one uses self-defense, does that automatically mean the attacker is violent and even in this, there could be exceptions, someone is hunting, firing at a deer, one is in the way, the attack is inadvertent, the attacker is not really being violent to the person attacked. Anyway, this is a bit of a tangent but in the end, the Jury makes no finding as to Trayvon being violent or foolish, only that George Zimmerman is “not guilty”.

If we are arguing that someone is “violent”, then we are bringing in a sort of psychological evaluation of the trial. And then, one would wonder if even if one was acting in self-defense, are they in a sense being violent too if they discharge a pistol. They are defending themselves but in some people’s views, would still be acting violently.

So, I would again surmise, the Jury did not make this kind of finding even if the case is self-defense. Perhaps one could say the Defense is making this kind of case. But as I said, this is a bit of a tangent.
Click to expand...
Exactly; the defense attorneys willing to debate this issue said would be acquitted for there is reasonable doubt when one person is dead and can’t testify.
 
Tomdstone said:
But do you have to kill someone who is confronting you? If you have to shoot, can’t you just shoot him in the foot?
Click to expand...
And how, while on your back with someone on top of you, would you aim for the foot, exactly??
 
BroomWagon said:
I did not say that.

A poster said that, I did not.

But you asserted the Jury asserted that Travyon was violent and foolish but that is false. So you don’t have a source. Thank you.
Click to expand...
The defense never even said Trayvon was violent and foolish. That was simply an opinion not a fact.
 
Yerusalyim said:
yes…thus the tapes used in court.
Click to expand...
I edited my post as you were posting your reply.

Anyhow, if I was on the jury, that fact alone would tell me Zimmerman instigated the altercation. I’d have argued he’s guilty.
 
LisaA said:
When making an argument I prefer to state facts. But you are entitled to believe your opinion is the equivalent 🙂

I think that Zimmerman has an excellent case against NBC particularly. I wouldn’t be too worried about a DOJ review of the violation of Martin’s civil rights. I doubt if there is a right to beat someone who’s annoying you.

I heard an interesting take by a Liberal Civil Rights attorney who said those criticizing the verdict are exhibiting blatant disrespect for the WOMEN on the jury by claiming that their review and resultant verdict should be nullified. She said that was a violation of their civil rights more than any perceived violation of the rights of Martin.

Alan Dershowitz said bringing this case at all was a gross demonstration of prosecutorial incompetence.

The defense rests.

Lsia
Click to expand...
My opinion is the only one that counts to me…and your opinion is the only one that matters to you… Amen
 
Inego_de_Loyola said:
Mr.Zimmerman was perfectly reasonable in calling the police to report him as suspicious and also in keeping an eye on him till the police arrived. Are you honestly suggesting that he overstepped his authority by calling the police and following him?
Click to expand...
Absolutely not; calling the police was a better plan.
The dispatcher said we don’t need you to follow him…it was too late he already had probably had TM scared to death following him around in the rain when it was dark.

He overstepped his authority by profiling him as a “suspect” and saying these “punks and whatever expletive that went with that” always get away speaks to intent and state of mind.

IE This ONE is not getting away on my watch.
I believe he did intend to detain him (which is my opinion) and that does overstep your authority.

Either that or we can replace the police with armed neighborhood watch personnel following anyone in a neighborhood that is
1: not recognized as “should be there.”
2: Did not “register” appropriately at the gated community
3. Fill in the blank.
 
fix said:
Without the weapon GZ would be dead.
Click to expand...
The weapon is not the issue. We could argue that all day.
Maybe without the weapon he wouldn’t be following someone around and so self assured to get out of his car and follow him more. He admits he was following him. Maybe without the weapon he’d say “I’m neighborhood watch captain what’s up.” He never identified himself as such (because he was acting as a police officer then in my opinion hoping to detain his "suspect.)

I don’t think any police officer would really agree you should be following someone that
is
1: Suspect
2: Up to no good (looks like it; whatever that means)
3: looks like they’re on drugs.

Good grief. Stay away from that suspect.
 
The mainstream media is still trying to incite a race war over this.
 
maryjk said:
To which Zimmerman was under no legal obligation to follow those instructions.

But he did anyway. Remember, he was returning to his vehicle.
Click to expand...
He shouldn’t have been following him in the first place; it’s police that should be detaining and following and apprehending criminals. I don’t understand why you’d follow some
up to no good, punk of a suspect on drugs.

If we can all do that we could save a lot of money by doing away with a police force.
 
livingwordunity said:
The mainstream media is still trying to incite a race war over this.
Click to expand...
California isn’t doing a bad job themselves. :rolleyes:
The Los Angeles Police Department called a citywide tactical alert at approximately 7:30 p.m. local time following the freeway incident. Motorists were urged to avoid the area around the 10 Freeway and Crenshaw Boulevard due to jammed traffic.
Click to expand...
The Times also quoted an LAPD spokesman who said that at least one arrest was made after rocks and D-cell batteries were thrown at officers at the corner of Washington Boulevard and 10th Avenue. Police also fired non-lethal rounds at the demonstrators. No injuries were immediately reported.
Click to expand...
Read more: foxnews.com/us/2013/07/15/zimmerman-verdict-protestors-block-los-angeles-freeway/#ixzz2Z5WGGymx
Click to expand...
 
maryjk said:
California isn’t doing a bad job themselves. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I was watching the mainstream media news reporting on the verdict, and the reporting gave almost all the air time to the opinions of those who disagree with the verdict. And the opinions of the protesters were way off base from the actual facts of the case. It’s like the protesters didn’t even watch the trial. The irony is that it’s obvious that the protesters think that Zimmerman is guilty BECAUSE HE IS WHITE. They have made him into their scapegoat for every act of racism the white man has ever done to blacks.
 
LisaA said:
Yes but again, there is a difference between observing someone at a distance and tracking him like a bloodhound. I do not think there is any evidence of the latter before GZ reported Martin’s behavior to the dispatcher. Further when the dispatcher said " you don’t need to do this…" Zimmerman was NOT following him, he was in his car making the call. It’s rather hard to be in two places at once.
Click to expand...
The dispatcher asked him if he was following the suspect, he said yes. That doesn’t compute with standing by his car.
You presume that he got out of the car to track Martin. He says he didn’t continue to follow him and had lost sight of him after the call.
Click to expand...
Once again, that’s not what he told the dispatcher. He was on the phone with the dispatcher, said he was following the suspect and then said the suspect had taken off running. That’s not at all consistent with calling 911 *after *he lost the suspect.
 
MaryT777 said:
He shouldn’t have been following him in the first place; it’s police that should be detaining and following and apprehending criminals. I don’t understand why you’d follow some
up to no good, punk of a suspect on drugs.

If we can all do that we could save a lot of money by doing away with a police force.
Click to expand...
  1. Zimmerman did not attempt to detain or apprehend Martin. Why do you keep repeating a falsehood?
  2. Martin is/was not a criminial or engaged in criminal behavior that we are aware of on the night he was killed
  3. You aren’t a neighborhood watch member so that you don’t understand why someone would follow “some punk” isn’t very relevant. You have to step into Zimmerman’s shoes before passing judgement on his actions
  4. Your last statement makes no sense
Lisa
 
NewEnglandPriest said:
The dispatcher asked him if he was following the suspect, he said yes. That doesn’t compute with standing by his car.

Once again, that’s not what he told the dispatcher. He was on the phone with the dispatcher, said he was following the suspect and then said the suspect had taken off running. That’s not at all consistent with calling 911 *after *he lost the suspect.
Click to expand...
The operative word is “WAS” Z was asked if he had been following Martin. He was told “we don’t need you to do that…”

Again you missed the tense in the statement. He didn’t call the non emergency line AFTER losing sight of Martin. Based on the testimonyt (did you read it?) he had Martin in sight when reporting his behavior. He told the dispatcher that Martin WAS running. He did not argue with the dispatcher when she said “We don’t need you to do that… (follow).”

Zimmerman then hung up. Based on both Zimmerman’s and Jeantel’s testimony, Zimmerman lost sight of Martin AFTER the call. Your statement does not comport with the timeline in the testimony.

Again read the testimony from the call to the dispatcher. Zimmerman was engaged in conversation regarding the address, regarding how he would connect with police. There was a bunch of back and forth. He reported Martin had run away. Jeantel reported Martin could no longer see Zimmerman.

Ergo Zimmerman was not running after Martin, all the while talking on the phone with the dispatcher. Get the timeline right and Zimmerman’s testimony makes sense and comports with other testimony.

Lisa
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top