Did Zimmerman begin following Martin at a gas station?

[Josie]

That makes no sense.

Precisely how I feel about your statements.

 

[opendebate]

Precisely how I feel about your statements.

Okay, so let's try another angle. Where do you get a your information that this is something the LA Times made up? I am not saying it's true, I won't believe or disbelieve until I confirm. You get it now?

 

[Josie]

Okay, so let's try another angle. Where do you get a your information that this is something the LA Times made up? I am not saying it's true, I won't believe or disbelieve until I confirm. You get it now?

Okay, I'll just repeat myself since you missed it the first time.

I know that because there is no evidence or testimony or statements or video that supports it.

 

[OscarB63]

Okay, so let's try another angle. Where do you get a your information that this is something the LA Times made up? I am not saying it's true, I won't believe or disbelieve until I confirm. You get it now?

from zimmerman's NEN call. he was nowhere near any gas station when he called to report the "suspicious person". and looking at the street layout, it would have been impossible for Zimmerman to start following Martin at the 7-11 and keep him in sight without parking his vehicle and following on foot. which would have made it impossible for Zimmerman's vehicle to have been parked where it was when the police arrived on the scene.

reality makes it impossible for Zimmerman to have followed Trayvon home from a gas station. therefore the LA time had to have either simply misreported the truth or they made **** up.

 

[opendebate]

Okay, I'll just repeat myself since you missed it the first time.

I did get that. I am referring to "they made it up" statement. That's inflammatory. It's accusatory. It's divisive.

 

[Lutherf]

from zimmerman's NEN call. he was nowhere near any gas station when he called to report the "suspicious person". and looking at the street layout, it would have been impossible for Zimmerman to start following Martin at the 7-11 and keep him in sight without parking his vehicle and following on foot. which would have made it impossible for Zimmerman's vehicle to have been parked where it was when the police arrived on the scene.

reality makes it impossible for Zimmerman to have followed Trayvon home from a gas station.

I can't believe that after a year and a half of this people are still expecting Trayvon supporters to be focused on reality. That all went out the window a long, long time ago.

 

[opendebate]

from zimmerman's NEN call. he was nowhere near any gas station when he called to report the "suspicious person". and looking at the street layout, it would have been impossible for Zimmerman to start following Martin at the 7-11 and keep him in sight without parking his vehicle and following on foot. which would have made it impossible for Zimmerman's vehicle to have been parked where it was when the police arrived on the scene.

reality makes it impossible for Zimmerman to have followed Trayvon home from a gas station. therefore the LA time had to have either simply misreported the truth or they made **** up.

I think it is so easy to just run with something when it supports what you already believe. I also think that making inflammatory statements like "they made it up" is counterproductive. It is my guess that this is sloppy reporting but that is a different story. The words you choose matter.

 

[Josie]

I did get that. I am referring to "they made it up" statement. That's inflammatory. It's accusatory. It's divisive.

And it's true.

 

[OscarB63]

I did get that. I am referring to "they made it up" statement. That's inflammatory. It's accusatory. It's divisive.

it is physically impossible for Zimmerman to have followed Martin home from a gas station for a number of reasons.

1. The 7-11 from which Martin started his trip home does not sell gasoline. therefore it is not a gas station

2. It is physically impossible to follow a pedestrian from the 7-11 to where Zimmerman placed his NEN call while riding in a vehicle and keep the pedestrian in sight. In order for Zimmerman to have followed trayvon from the 7-11 and remained in his vehicle, he would've had to have had prior knowledge of where Martin was going. And since Zimmerman was in his vehicle when he placed his NEN call, it is impossible for him to have followed Trayvon from the 7-11

3. The physical confrontation occurred some 75 yards away from Brandy Green's townhouse. Therefore Zimmerman did not follow Martin home.

4. Brandy Green's apartment was not Trayvon's "home"

Therefore, the statement "Zimmerman followed Martin home from a gas station" is patently false.

that leaves us with only two options:

1. The LA times made it up

2. The LA times is guilty of shoddy reporting and fact checking

my guess is that it is a combination. the "writer" of the article simply made it up (most likely out of ignorance) and the editor failed to correct it.

 

[Josie]

I think it is so easy to just run with something when it supports what you already believe. I also think that making inflammatory statements like "they made it up" is counterproductive. It is my guess that this is sloppy reporting but that is a different story. The words you choose matter.

"Sloppy reporting" = "they made it up"

Whether they did it to try to imply something that wasn't true or someone typed it, realized it was wrong but was too lazy to go back and edit it - either way - they made it up.

 

[opendebate]

it is physically impossible for Zimmerman to have followed Martin home from a gas station for a number of reasons.

1. The 7-11 from which Martin started his trip home does not sell gasoline. therefore it is not a gas station

2. It is physically impossible to follow a pedestrian from the 7-11 to where Zimmerman placed his NEN call while riding in a vehicle and keep the pedestrian in sight. In order for Zimmerman to have followed trayvon from the 7-11 and remained in his vehicle, he would've had to have had prior knowledge of where Martin was going. And since Zimmerman was in his vehicle when he placed his NEN call, it is impossible for him to have followed Trayvon from the 7-11

3. The physical confrontation occurred some 75 yards away from Brandy Green's townhouse. Therefore Zimmerman did not follow Martin home.

4. Brandy Green's apartment was not Trayvon's "home"

Therefore, the statement "Zimmerman followed Martin home from a gas station" is patently false.

that leaves us with only two options:

1. The LA times made it up

2. The LA times is guilty of shoddy reporting and fact checking

I don't disagree with any of this. With one edit...The LA Times MAY be guilty ...

My point is that you don't have enough information to claim the LA Times "made it up" and pawn it off as the truth. This is the kind of thinking that makes communication between people with different views... IMPOSSIBLE

 

[Lutherf]

I think it is so easy to just run with something when it supports what you already believe. I also think that making inflammatory statements like "they made it up" is counterproductive. It is my guess that this is sloppy reporting but that is a different story. The words you choose matter.

The words do matter. That's the whole point of this thread:censored

 

[OscarB63]

I don't disagree with any of this. With one edit...The LA Times MAY be guilty ...

My point is that you don't have enough information to claim the LA Times "made it up" and pawn it off as the truth. This is the kind of thinking that makes communication between people with different views... IMPOSSIBLE

I have to disagree. since the statement has no bearing on reality....someone had to have made it up. the only question is about the intent behind the action.

 

[joko104]

The anti-Zimmerman propagandists increasingly resort to outright lying.

 

[opendebate]

"Sloppy reporting" = "they made it up"

Whether they did it to try to imply something that wasn't true or someone typed it, realized it was wrong but was too lazy to go back and edit it - either way - they made it up.

Again, lots of assumptions

 

[Josie]

Again, lots of assumptions

Assumptions that all lead to the same conclusion. Why are you even arguing about this?

 

[sharon]

Trayvon Martin's parents 'stunned absolutely' by Zimmerman verdict - latimes.com

"Trayvon Martin, 17, was shot and killed by George Zimmerman after a struggle, which started after Zimmerman began following an unarmed Martin home from a gas station on Feb. 26, 2012. Zimmerman's acquittal on a second-degree murder charge sparked demonstrations in dozens of U.S. cities after the case highlighted ongoing racial discord across the country.

This report indicates that George began following Trayvon before he entered the Retreat. How would they know unless George claimed it?

 

[WCH]

This report indicates that George began following Trayvon before he entered the Retreat. How would they know unless George claimed it?

Some say this was a misprint or just poorly written.

There is no proof or testimony indicating Zimmerman saw Martin before he actually did. In fact, Zimmerman said he was leaving his home and headed for the store.

My opinion is the author of this story is embellishing to create more confusion and angst.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

My opinion is the author of this story is embellishing to create more confusion and angst.

Your belief in that conspiracy angle is why we love you.

 

[Buckworth]

I am shocked to see that these parents think it just peachy for someone to violently attack, knock to the ground, mount and continue to beat someome for daring to "follow them". Just what crime do these fine citizens allege that GZ, the "creepy ass cracker", committed to deserve a good "ass whooping" from TM and thus deny GZ the right, of all citizens, to defend himself from that violent attack? TM was not gunned down as he skipped home carrying Skittles and a soda because he was black kid, thus the state was unable to show why GZ did not have a right to defend himself from TM's attack. This was a simple case of you do not bring Skittles and an attitude to a gunfight twice.

Why does everybody on both sides of this issue assume that Trayvon instigated the fight? Or that being followed was the sole provocation? I can think of myriad alternate possibilities, and I find no reason to assume that Zimmermans version is the truth. To make this assumption is to try and convict Trayvon Martin for assault, without the benefit of corroborating evidence.

Winning a fight isn't starting a fight. We only know that Zimmermans errors lead to a melee, and the self defence laws don't protect you from imminent danger in a situation where you are the aggressor - it protects the person you threatened or attacked.

What's the law trying to say? That without witnesses, whoever lives gets to claim self-defence? We all know that's not the spirit of the law.

 

[SMTA]

I'm good with that but apparently the story changes day by day. I want to know who started this rumor.

Why don't you call them and ask them.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Why does everybody on both sides of this issue assume that Trayvon instigated the fight? Or that being followed was the sole provocation? I can think of myriad alternate possibilities, and I find no reason to assume that Zimmermans version is the truth. To make this assumption is to try and convict Trayvon Martin for assault, without the benefit of corroborating evidence.

Winning a fight isn't starting a fight. We only know that Zimmermans errors lead to a melee, and the self defence laws don't protect you from imminent danger in a situation where you are the aggressor - it protects the person you threatened or attacked.

What's the law trying to say? That without witnesses, whoever lives gets to claim self-defence? We all know that's not the spirit of the law.

Under Floriduh law, although I find it flawed, the initial agressor is still able to use deadly force in self defense if they either cease aggression (and the other party persists) or if that force is in response to reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm. As nobody knows just what happenned to start the "conflict" we are left with what witnesses saw/heard and the physical evidence that GZ suffered fight injuries while TM did not.

76.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

 

[Grim17]

Why does everybody on both sides of this issue assume that Trayvon instigated the fight?

Because based of the evidence and testimony, that is the conclusion that makes the most sense.

Or that being followed was the sole provocation?

Because again, there is no credible evidence that indicates otherwise.

I can think of myriad alternate possibilities, and I find no reason to assume that Zimmermans version is the truth.

The reason most accept his version, is there was nothing uncovered or presented at trial indicating his version wasn't the truth.

To make this assumption is to try and convict Trayvon Martin for assault, without the benefit of corroborating evidence.

Trayvon Martin is not on trial.

Winning a fight isn't starting a fight. We only know that Zimmermans errors lead to a melee,

None of Zimmerman's "errors" were illegal or justify being attacked... Unfortunately, you can't say the same about Trayvon's "errors"...

and the self defence laws don't protect you from imminent danger in a situation where you are the aggressor - it protects the person you threatened or attacked.

OMFG... It just never ends... That statement is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG and it's also WRONG.

Learn the facts instead of just making them up... Will ya?

What's the law trying to say? That without witnesses, whoever lives gets to claim self-defence? We all know that's not the spirit of the law.

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but spirit of the law is exactly why Zimmerman was found not guilty... He went into the trial "innocent" and it was the job of the state to prove he was not just "guilty" , but guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt".

The verdict adhered to the spirit of the American justice system just as it was intended by the founding fathers, which is the reason he wasn't found guilty,

 

[Buckworth]

Under Floriduh law, although I find it flawed, the initial agressor is still able to use deadly force in self defense if they either cease aggression (and the other party persists) or if that force is in response to reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm. As nobody knows just what happenned to start the "conflict" we are left with what witnesses saw/heard and the physical evidence that GZ suffered fight injuries while TM did not.



Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

I repeat, winning a fight doesn't mean you started a fight. Read: Being a bad fighter doesn't excuse you from responsibility.

I believe in your link you are trying to trump (2) with (a), since neither (1) or ,(b) apply. What I still said still stands: without corroborating evidence we cannot assume that the specifics of (a) were met.

You are convicting Trayvon based on the practised testimony of his killer, and therefore excusing Zimmerman of the only evidence we have: that he was the aggressor.

I find Zimmermans testimony far too 'gift wrapped' to be believable.

 

[Buckworth]

The verdict adhered to the spirit of the American justice system just as it was intended by the founding fathers, which is the reason he wasn't found guilty,

I'm pretty sure your founding fathers didn't intend to protect the rights of vigilantes who accidentally kill kids on their way home from the store. Which is what happened. In about half of the USA, it would have been open and shut manslaughter because he would have been legally required to stay in his vehicle - and a measure of justice would have been served.

Let me ask you this: If Zimmerman pulled his gun, and only grazed Trayvon or missed, then Trayvon beat Zimmerman to death - would that also satisfy the same 'imminent danger of death' to acquit Trayvon? In essence, you (and mostly ttwtt78640) are saying that the law says "to the victor go the spoils"?