Open Thread on Zimmerman Verdict

  • Thread starter Thread starter sweetcharity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Robert_Sock said:
Again, all we have is GZ’s statements, and no evidence what happened in the 4 minutes of dead time between the time GZ ends his call with the dispatcher and time the police arrived. We don’t have the alternative perspective because TM was shoot dead. What you call facts is really your own conjecture.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
 
MaryT777 said:
It’s not all about the gun to me. I agree Zimmerman wasn’t the right person to have one given his violent tendencies but the law allows plea deals even on assault to police officers.

I have nothing against Neighborhood Watch either. Just don’t believe it necessitates
citizens doing police work and a man ending up dead. Won’t happen again most likely.
Click to expand...
👍
 
MaryT777 said:
Well it’s a fact that there is another side of the story buried with TM.
Click to expand...
Does it occur to you that there are not mitigating facts? Jeantel was on the phone with Martin during much of the period between Martin’s and Zimmerman’s initial encounter and the death of Martin. Zimmerman was on the phone with the dispatcher during this time. Now you may find Jeantel a rather incredible source but again her words comport with what was found at the scene as well as Martin’s behavior. Zimmerman’s discussion with the dispatcher went on following Martin’s departure from the scene. Some portions of the fight were witnessed as well.

So we have outside sources corroborating the defense position that Martin confronted Zimmerman, initiated a physical altercation, was getting pounded and given his justified fear for life or serious bodily injury he shot Martin.

And as the ME reported, dead men tell many tales. Again an outside source corroborating Zimmerman’s report.

And to support your theory of ??? you have ???

I used to watch Perry Mason and he’d often state an objection to advancing “facts not in evidence.” You have no facts. You have no evidence. You think Zimmerman is guilty because Martin is dead. Therefore because you cannot accept that the facts and the law support Zimmerman AND the jury for that matter, you keep claiming that because the famous four minutes were not enshrined in encrypted video, that we must toss out all of the evidence because none of it supports your theory.

Again if you have a fact or two to go along with your speculations, assumptions and suspicious, we’d love to see them…whaddaya say? Oh and can you answer my good neighbor question?

Lisa
 
LisaA said:
Does it occur to you that there are not mitigating facts? Jeantel was on the phone with Martin during much of the period between Martin’s and Zimmerman’s initial encounter and the death of Martin. Zimmerman was on the phone with the dispatcher during this time. Now you may find Jeantel a rather incredible source but again her words comport with what was found at the scene as well as Martin’s behavior. Zimmerman’s discussion with the dispatcher went on following Martin’s departure from the scene. Some portions of the fight were witnessed as well.

So we have outside sources corroborating the defense position that Martin confronted Zimmerman, initiated a physical altercation, was getting pounded and given his justified fear for life or serious bodily injury he shot Martin.

And as the ME reported, dead men tell many tales. Again an outside source corroborating Zimmerman’s report.

And to support your theory of ??? you have ???

I used to watch Perry Mason and he’d often state an objection to advancing “facts not in evidence.” You have no facts. You have no evidence. You think Zimmerman is guilty because Martin is dead. Therefore because you cannot accept that the facts and the law support Zimmerman AND the jury for that matter, you keep claiming that because the famous four minutes were not enshrined in encrypted video, that we must toss out all of the evidence because none of it supports your theory.

Again if you have a fact or two to go along with your speculations, assumptions and suspicious, we’d love to see them…whaddaya say? Oh and can you answer my good neighbor question?

Lisa
Click to expand...
Lisa, can you please address my statements to you in post #2746?
 
LisaA said:
Does it occur to you that there are not mitigating facts? Jeantel was on the phone with Martin during much of the period between Martin’s and Zimmerman’s initial encounter and the death of Martin. Zimmerman was on the phone with the dispatcher during this time. Now you may find Jeantel a rather incredible source but again her words comport with what was found at the scene as well as Martin’s behavior. Zimmerman’s discussion with the dispatcher went on following Martin’s departure from the scene. Some portions of the fight were witnessed as well.

So we have outside sources corroborating the defense position that Martin confronted Zimmerman, initiated a physical altercation, was getting pounded and given his justified fear for life or serious bodily injury he shot Martin.

And as the ME reported, dead men tell many tales. Again an outside source corroborating Zimmerman’s report.

And to support your theory of ??? you have ???

I used to watch Perry Mason and he’d often state an objection to advancing “facts not in evidence.” You have no facts. You have no evidence. You think Zimmerman is guilty because Martin is dead. Therefore because you cannot accept that the facts and the law support Zimmerman AND the jury for that matter, you keep claiming that because the famous four minutes were not enshrined in encrypted video, that we must toss out all of the evidence because none of it supports your theory.

Again if you have a fact or two to go along with your speculations, assumptions and suspicious, we’d love to see them…whaddaya say? Oh and can you answer my good neighbor question?

Lisa
Click to expand...
I used to watch Perry Mason too AND Columbo.

You’ll have to go back and read my posts. I can’t reiterate the facts every post.

Like a good neighbor…I’d rather not have a neighborhood watch than one where someone ends up dead.
No homeowner’s association will probably be to willing to insure a HOA sponsoring a neighborhood watch where they endorse people in newsletters. Not a good plan as your insurer is responsible then for irresponsible citizens like Zimmerman.
 
LisaA said:
Does it occur to you that there are not mitigating facts? Jeantel was on the phone with Martin during much of the period between Martin’s and Zimmerman’s initial encounter and the death of Martin. Zimmerman was on the phone with the dispatcher during this time. Now you may find Jeantel a rather incredible source but again her words comport with what was found at the scene as well as Martin’s behavior. Zimmerman’s discussion with the dispatcher went on following Martin’s departure from the scene. Some portions of the fight were witnessed as well.

So we have outside sources corroborating the defense position that Martin confronted Zimmerman, initiated a physical altercation, was getting pounded and given his justified fear for life or serious bodily injury he shot Martin.

And as the ME reported, dead men tell many tales. Again an outside source corroborating Zimmerman’s report.

And to support your theory of ??? you have ???

I used to watch Perry Mason and he’d often state an objection to advancing “facts not in evidence.” You have no facts. You have no evidence. You think Zimmerman is guilty because Martin is dead. Therefore because you cannot accept that the facts and the law support Zimmerman AND the jury for that matter, you keep claiming that because the famous four minutes were not enshrined in encrypted video, that we must toss out all of the evidence because none of it supports your theory.

Again if you have a fact or two to go along with your speculations, assumptions and suspicious, we’d love to see them…whaddaya say? Oh and can you answer my good neighbor question?

Lisa
Click to expand...
👍
 
MaryT777 said:
I have nothing against Neighborhood Watch either. Just don’t believe it necessitates
citizens doing police work and a man ending up dead. Won’t happen again most likely.
Click to expand...
It won’t happen in a lot of places. In fact, nobody will volunteer for neighborhood watch in a lot of places. Defend yourself and you get turned into a hunted man and a professional defendant. Your family is threatened with death. Even if you’re found not guilty, you will be proclaimed guilty.

“Stand your ground” is, as a practical matter, dead. All it means is that if you are charged with a homicide or a shooting or an assault, you will not have to prove you had no means to escape notwithstanding that the prosecutor can cook up several possible ways after the fact. But since self-defense itself is not to be a defense anymore, nobody would “stand his ground”. He would run and be killed from behind.

That’s really what this is about. Run from the aggressor even if it costs you your life.
 
BroomWagon said:
Looks like the Nation did print Zimmerman was trolling his ex-fiance per the Miami Herald, looks like this was involved in the domestic violence accusations. Maybe it could have been stated better but all the same, doesn’t exactly fall into “making things up.”

I don’t like the Nation as a source but they published this too:

I wouldn’t connect the dots like the Nation does but not positive it is totally false.
Click to expand...
The way restraining orders work is *anyone *goes in and says pretty much *anything *about someone else, and the restraining order is handed down. There is no consideration of whether or not the facts even make sense (a la David Letterman), much less of their veracity.

Now, had his ex-fiancee gone to the police and charged Zimmerman with all this and there had been a court case and there was a guilty verdict, then you might have a case. Bit what we have with the restraining orders is he-said, she-said. And here you are, believing her words as gospel truth in order to throw mud on someone’s whose statements 1. are corraborated by what evidence there is, and 2. were given before he knew what that evidence was, and 3. were given at a time when he had been told there might be a video of the incident–to which he had replied Thank God.
 
Robert_Sock said:
Lisa, can you please address my statements to you in post #2746?
Click to expand...
You are wrong. There isn’t “no evidence” of what happened in those four minutes. It’s just the evidence doesn’t comport with your preconceived notion that something completely out of the realm of the available evidence happened that would turn the entire case and verdict around.

Again you have NO EVIDENCE OF AN ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO. None. You have some gap of time where you apparently think Zimmerman bashed in his own head, broke his nose and then pulled Martin on top of him so he could shoot him…sorry but that dog don’t hunt.

All the available evidence comports with the jury verdict and Zimmerman’s rendition of the series of events.

Lisa
 
Ridgerunner said:
It won’t happen in a lot of places. In fact, nobody will volunteer for neighborhood watch in a lot of places. Defend yourself and you get turned into a hunted man and a professional defendant. Your family is threatened with death. Even if you’re found not guilty, you will be proclaimed guilty.

“Stand your ground” is, as a practical matter, dead. All it means is that if you are charged with a homicide or a shooting or an assault, you will not have to prove you had no means to escape notwithstanding that the prosecutor can cook up several possible ways after the fact. But since self-defense itself is not to be a defense anymore, nobody would “stand his ground”. He would run and be killed from behind.

That’s really what this is about. Run from the aggressor even if it costs you your life.
Click to expand...
Better plan than having vigilante neighborhood watch persons like Z out and about trolling around and following innocent people.

No need to run and get killed at all; stay in your car and let the police be the police.
There are persons here that say police often never draw their gun. It’s ludicrous some citizen in NW had to.
 
LisaA said:
You are wrong. There isn’t “no evidence” of what happened in those four minutes. It’s just the evidence doesn’t comport with your preconceived notion that something completely out of the realm of the available evidence happened that would turn the entire case and verdict around.

Again you have NO EVIDENCE OF AN ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO. None. You have some gap of time where you apparently think Zimmerman bashed in his own head, broke his nose and then pulled Martin on top of him so he could shoot him…sorry but that dog don’t hunt.

All the available evidence comports with the jury verdict and Zimmerman’s rendition of the series of events.

Lisa
Click to expand...
Robert is right. TM IS dead.
 
LisaA said:
You are wrong. There isn’t “no evidence” of what happened in those four minutes. It’s just the evidence doesn’t comport with your preconceived notion that something completely out of the realm of the available evidence happened that would turn the entire case and verdict around.

Again you have NO EVIDENCE OF AN ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO. None. You have some gap of time where you apparently think Zimmerman bashed in his own head, broke his nose and then pulled Martin on top of him so he could shoot him…sorry but that dog don’t hunt.

All the available evidence comports with the jury verdict and Zimmerman’s rendition of the series of events.

Lisa
Click to expand...
Again, the only reason we do not have TM’s perspective is because he was shoot dead. People on this thread ought to acknowledge this fact order to form a balanced opinion!
 
St_Francis said:
The way restraining orders work is *anyone *goes in and says pretty much *anything *about someone else, and the restraining order is handed down. There is no consideration of whether or not the facts even make sense (a la David Letterman), much less of their veracity.

Now, had his ex-fiancee gone to the police and charged Zimmerman with all this and there had been a court case and there was a guilty verdict, then you might have a case. Bit what we have with the restraining orders is he-said, she-said. And here you are, believing her words as gospel truth in order to throw mud on someone’s whose statements 1. are corraborated by what evidence there is, and 2. were given before he knew what that evidence was, and 3. were given at a time when he had been told there might be a video of the incident–to which he had replied Thank God.
Click to expand...
Are we supposed to believe now that people are just wasting their time getting restraining
orders? I believe that someone that assaulted a police officer could assault a girlfriend.
I believe someone following a “suspect” in NW could have followed a girlfriend thus necessitating a restraining order.

Zimmerman is never truthful why believe anything he says?
I don’t know anything about self defense? Yet he Aced the class.
Yea right, he knew exactly what to say and what he could get away with.

He did just that, He killed someone so there is no evidence against him.
 
MaryT777 said:
Yes he was lower level judge. I never said he was a high flying power broker on (ON or IN?) Florida. I never said he was more than high school educated either.
Click to expand...
No, what you said was: Dad Judge can’t protect him now anymore from trials and charges.

Now, does that not imply that his father had some pull in the Florida legal system that he could constantly pull strings for his son? But what his father was was a *magistrate, *is “[a] judicial officer with limited powers who handles certain preliminary matters such as issuing warrants, determining bail, issuing emergency protection orders and temporarily committing people to mental institutions” which at the time Zimmerman Sr was working did not even require any college education.

So let me ask you, do you honestly believe that Zimmerman Sr had all this pull in the FL legal system as a result of his low-level job some years before several hundred miles away in a different state?

ETA: Link
 
St_Francis said:
No, what you said was: Dad Judge can’t protect him now anymore from trials and charges.

Now, does that not imply that his father had some pull in the Florida legal system that he could constantly pull strings for his son? But what his father was was a *magistrate, *is “[a] judicial officer with limited powers who handles certain preliminary matters such as issuing warrants, determining bail, issuing emergency protection orders and temporarily committing people to mental institutions” which at the time Zimmerman Sr was working did not even require any college education.

So let me ask you, do you honestly believe that Zimmerman Sr had all this pull in the FL legal system as a result of his low-level job some years before several hundred miles away in a different state?
Click to expand...
Dad Judge is in hiding now. He’s as much of a Judge as we perceive it as GZ was a police officer. My point is that is what GZ called him as well as his official title in that state at the time.
Yes I do believe he could have had some pull at the time of the assault on the police officer and the girlfriend.
On this trial no. He was in hiding during it; lose your “pull” if you had any then.
 
MaryT777 said:
Better plan than having vigilante neighborhood watch persons like Z out and about trolling around and following innocent people.

No need to run and get killed at all; stay in your car and let the police be the police.
There are persons here that say police often never draw their gun. It’s ludicrous some citizen in NW had to.
Click to expand...
“persons like Z” are what, exactly? How well do you know him? And how do you know Martin was “innocent”? You don’t. If one believes Zimmerman, as the jury did, Martin was most definitely not “innocent”. He tried to kill or seriously injure a man.

"Stay in your car??? And if you’re not in your car? And if the assailant breaks the window, which is quite easy to do?

You’re not safe sitting in a car. I thought everybody knew that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top