Call for Riots/Murder if Zimmerman found Not Guilty

[Caine]

That I got but I thought you were talking about where onthe grass it happened.

Sorry my bad.

Where they were on the grass, to me, isn't that relevant really.

 

[Josie]

Question ---- why wasn't the jury allowed to go to the crime scene?

 

[Mason66]

Where they were on the grass, to me, isn't that relevant really.

Well maybe the distance from the concrete might be important but I think we know where that was from where Martin was found.

 

[Caine]

Well maybe the distance from the concrete might be important but I think we know where that was from where Martin was found.

In that regard you have a point......

 

[Excon]

I stand by the opinion that he was following Martin when it was not wise and I can understand if Martin felt threatened or like he was being pursued.

There was nothing unwise about following top maintain surveillance.

SUGGESTION: If I call a 911 operator and they suggest I stay in my house I will defer to their expertise. If you want to call it a suggestion fine, but he should have acknowledged their expertise and stayed in his car.

What expertise? Knowing how to take a call?

They are not crisis operators any such thing.
They are call takers. That is all.

Secondly. Remained in his car?
WTF?
He was already out of his vehicle. Do you really not know that?
And lastly he did follow the suggestion. What do you not understand about that?
There was no continuing to following after that point. None.
™ had gone South. Zimmerman went East, passed the point where ™ went South.
Zimmerman then returned West, at which point ™ came at him out of the darkness, in a hurried pace, yelling his question, and immediately struck Zimmerman upon arrival.
Learn the damn evidence.

But way to ignore the fact that he was told to let the Call-taker know if the suspicious person did anything else.

EVIDENCE REGARDING THE ATTACK: None of that is evidence. What specifically are you calling evidence? Zimmerman's testimony? Not evidence. And Z's testimony did change.

Wrong!
Zimmerman's account is evidence.
Evidence the jury gets to consider. Did you really not know that?
And his account did not change. It is still the same account.
Even the irrelevant inconsistencies that those on your side has pointed out, are not really inconsistencies.
And as Serino said, "don't amount to much".
And having those irrelevant inconsistencies makes his account more believable, because if he didn't have them, it would be an indication that the person was lying.

There were no witnesses.

Wrong!
Sure there wasn't. :doh
Tell that to John Good.

And Zimmerman's account is corroborated in parts, and supported in others, by witness testimony and the physical evidence.

The fact that Z cooperated gives you reason to assume something about his testimony but that is not evidence of the truth of his statement.

Wrong!
That is in conjunction with the other circumstances surrounding his account.
It all adds up as his account being believable. And having withstood scrutiny. Or did you not know that?

Also, no you don't have to go with what you have. The evidence must stand based on its own merits.

You clearly have no clue as to which you speak.
No. If the evidence is not refuted, discounted etc..., it stands as is.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

There was nothing unwise about following top maintain surveillance.


What expertise? Knowing how to take a call?

They are not crisis operators any such thing.
They are call takers. That is all.

Secondly. Remained in his car?
WTF?
He was already out of his vehicle. Do you really not know that?
And lastly he did follow the suggestion. What do you not understand about that?
There was no continuing to following after that point. None.
™ had gone South. Zimmerman went East, passed the point where ™ went South.
Zimmerman then returned West, at which point ™ came at him out of the darkness, in a hurried pace, yelling his question, and immediately struck Zimmerman upon arrival.
Learn the damn evidence.

But way to ignore the fact that he was told to let the Call-taker know if the suspicious person did anything else.


Wrong!
Zimmerman's account is evidence.
Evidence the jury gets to consider. Did you really not know that?
And his account did not change. It is still the same account.
Even the irrelevant inconsistencies that those on your side has pointed out, are not really inconsistencies.
And as Serino said, "don't amount to much".
And having those irrelevant inconsistencies makes his account more believable, because if he didn't have them, it would be an indication that the person was lying.


Wrong!
Sure there wasn't. :doh
Tell that to John Good.

And Zimmerman's account is corroborated in parts, and supported in others, by witness testimony and the physical evidence.


Wrong!
That is in conjunction with the other circumstances surrounding his account.
It all adds up as his account being believable. And having withstood scrutiny. Or did you not know that?


You clearly have no clue as to which you speak.
No. If the evidence is not refuted, discounted etc..., it stands as is.

What was the reason that Zimmerman needed to follow trayvon Martin in the first place?

 

[Excon]

What was the reason that Zimmerman needed to follow trayvon Martin in the first place?

It doesn't matter as his actions were legal.
Keeping eyes on the suspicious person so he could point them out to the police when they arrive is not illegal. Is it?
So it doesn't matter.

™ attacking Zimmerman was.


But way to ignore that he was he was told to let the Call-taker know if the suspicious person did anything else.

 

[Mathematician]

What was the reason that Zimmerman needed to follow trayvon Martin in the first place?

Zimmerman followed because there was a history of thefts in the neighborhood, Zimmerman was a night watch person, and Martin looked suspicious to Zimmerman that night. Those questioning what constitutes "suspicious looking" need to realize thieves aren't exactly physically labeled to allow conclusive identification at first glance. Hence, Zimmerman followed to likely observe whether Martin would leave the neighborhood or gain ordinary access to a residence.

 

[opendebate]

You clearly don't know what evidence was given in court do you?

What did the ME say about where Zimmerman and Trayvon were when the shot was fired?

What did the witnesses say about what they saw when they witnessed the fight?

What are you calling evidence?
Where they were when the first shot was fired provides no evidence as to who the aggressor was.
Who are you calling a witness?

 

[Excon]

What are you calling evidence?
Where they were when the first shot was fired provides no evidence as to who the aggressor was.
Who are you calling a witness?

Yeah, it kind of does, because where they were includes their individual positions. ™ was on top of Zimmerman.

 

[opendebate]

You are saying Zimmerman approached Martin and there was no evidence of that at trial.

I see you like to get your information off the net but I watched the trial and that is the evidence that is important.

Nowhere in the trial was there evidence of Martin not being able to find his home, because if that had been true the prosecution surely would have used it. That would have explained why he didn't go straight home, but since it didn't happen, they didn't.

Did you also see where the dispatcher said "we don't need you to do that" and Zimmerman said "OK"

Now what makes you beleive Zimmerman was following Martin in the pitch black that it was that night?

________

No, I am saying we don't know who approached whom.
What evidence was provided that conclusively proves that Martin approached Zimmerman?

What Martin was doing, why he was taking so long....those are all inconsequential. It doesn't matter.

I am not certain what you are asking in that last question. Can yo rephrase please?

 

[opendebate]

Yeah, it kind of does, because where they were includes their individual positions. ™ was on top of Zimmerman.

Please explain. Lets say that TM was on top, this where he was when he was shot not where they started but where things ended.

 

[Excon]

What Martin was doing, why he was taking so long....those are all inconsequential. It doesn't matter.

Really?
:doh
iLOL

In looking at the case, one point defense lawyer O’Mara made in closing argument stands out with me: the 4 minute silence. It is the ‘oldest trick in the book’ to use silence to get the jury to understand some important time matter, but what I had not thought about is this: the 4 minute time period began when Trayvon Martin was on the phone with his friend and when he started running at the urging of his friend.

It would have taken less than one minute to run to where he was staying (I have been there at the scene) and he obviously did not run home.

So the reasonable inference is that he remained in the area to confront George Zimmerman.

Who confronted who as the attack commenced would be important to me in deciding this case if I were a juror. It identifies the aggressor at a key point in the time line and the non aggressor would be more likely to have a valid and legitimate self defense.

Of course there are many facts to consider, but this one O’Mara argued in his closing stood out with me.

I had not thought about this: the Zimmerman trial (and did you think of this?) | Gretawire​

 

[Excon]

Please explain. Lets say that TM was on top, this where he was when he was shot not where they started but where things ended.

Right!
That shows he is the aggressor at that point. It shows Zimmerman could not escape.

Now you consider that in conjunction with Zimmerman's injuries, and with what Good said.

And whether you want to or not, is all supports Zimmerman's account which the jury has as evidence.

Of course ™ was the aggressor.

 

[Josie]

Please explain. Lets say that TM was on top, this where he was when he was shot not where they started but where things ended.

If Zimmerman ever had the upper hand, Trayvon would've had fistfight injuries. He didn't.

 

[Excon]

If Zimmerman ever had the upper hand, Trayvon would've had fistfight injuries. He didn't.

Nice!

 

[opendebate]

If Zimmerman ever had the upper hand, Trayvon would've had fistfight injuries. He didn't.

I hear you however, I don't really see the relevance. Even if Martin had the upper-hand was it really necessary for Z to shoot him? I don't see it as a question of who had the advantage or who started it. Z shot and killed this child and I have a hard time understanding the necessity for such extreme measures in response to this situation. Z followed him, take your lumps for putting yourself in that position and call it a day. Don't kill someone because you are afraid they are going to beat you up.

 

[Josie]

I hear you however, I don't really see the relevance. Even if Martin had the upper-hand was it really necessary for Z to shoot him? I don't see it as a question of who had the advantage or who started it. Z shot and killed this child and I have a hard time understanding the necessity for such extreme measures in response to this situation. Z followed him, take your lumps for putting yourself in that position and call it a day. Don't kill someone because you are afraid they are going to beat you up.

Did you hear the screams?

 

[opendebate]

Did you hear the screams?

I did, I assume it was a frightening situation for both people. However, I chose not to react emotionally. The sound of the screams, if they can be proven to be Z, support the idea that he felt threatened but I don't question that. I question how he chose to manage and react to what he was feeling.

 

[Josie]

I did, I assume it was a frightening situation for both people. However, I chose not to react emotionally. The sound of the screams, if they can be proven to be Z, support the idea that he felt threatened but I don't question that. I question how he chose to manage and react to what he was feeling.

If you feel threatened, you have the right to use deadly force.

 

[opendebate]

If you feel threatened, you have the right to use deadly force.

I respect your point however, I can't agree with that sentiment. Some people feel threatened far too easily. Some people feel threatened by the mere presence of someone who is different.

 

[Josie]

I respect your point however, I can't agree with that sentiment. Some people feel threatened far too easily. Some people feel threatened by the mere presence of someone who is different.

It's the law. If you have reasonable fear of great bodily harm (again, did you hear the screams?), you have every right to defend yourself in any way.

 

[opendebate]

Nice!

It's really not the point. The question is, was it necessary for Z to shoot Martin? I don't see the necessity

 

[Josie]

It's really not the point. The question is, was it necessary for Z to shoot Martin? I don't see the necessity

I suppose you might think differently if you're ever pinned to the ground, getting punched in the face, your head grinding into concrete, a hand smashing your broken nose down, he's reaching down for your firearm saying, "You're gonna die tonight!" and NO ONE is helping you.

 

[opendebate]

It's the law. If you have reasonable fear of great bodily harm (again, did you hear the screams?), you have every right to defend yourself in any way.

Who decides what reasonable fear is