Zimmerman verdict - Page 16 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

ruchase · #**226** 07-15-2013, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTUpower

So following someone is tantamount to instigating a confrontation? It's only a confrontation if both parties one or both parties are hostile. TM was hostile- he broke GZ's nose and bloodied his head. We don't know that GZ was hostile or if he was willing/wanting to get into a physical altercation- you can be suspicious and not willing to physically engage.

On the night of July 4th after midnight I heard some close firecrackers outside. I looked outside and two 25-30YO's I did not know were in the middle of the street and then they proceeded to my neighbors car. They ducked down and light a M-80 or equivalent and threw it over his fence and into his backyard- looked like they were aiming for the house. They ran for 10 seconds and then did it again to another neighbor. I brought my phone and walked outside and followed them at about 200 yards. They did not see me; I called the LEO and described them. I had no intention of being hostile or getting into a confrontation. If there had been a third to these two who I did not notice who watched me and then circled around and surprised me ... was I the one who can be considered guilty of "instigating a confrontation"???
Was I hostile?

Your "circumstantial evidence" argument holds very little water.

The scenario you describe bears very little resemblence to TM & GZ. Fact is TM was walking along casually when GZ spotted him and figured he looked "suspicious". Suspicious has a very different meaning for different folks.

We know from GZ's 911 call that he was under the impression that TM was up to no good; however, he had no factual basis to make that assertion. It was purely based on his instincts, which were clearly wrong. Had GZ been a real cop, he might've known he would've had to have probable cause to stop/question an individual; however, we know from the events that night that GZ indeed profiled TM, and concluded simply based on TM's physical appearance that he was a hoodlum.

Part of living in a free society is being able to walk without the fear of being harassed simply for how you look. Had someone actually witnessed TM do something illegal, then GZ (and any LEO) would have every reason to follow him and possbly search/arrest him.

P.C. · #**227** 07-15-2013, 02:58 PM

^^^Besides, there was no evidence that Trayvon Martin possessed M-80's.

Txjake · #**228** 07-15-2013, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ruchase

The scenario you describe bears very little resemblence to TM & GZ. Fact is TM was walking along casually when GZ spotted him and figured he looked "suspicious". Suspicious has a very different meaning for different folks.

We know from GZ's 911 call that he was under the impression that TM was up to no good; however, he had no factual basis to make that assertion. It was purely based on his instincts, which were clearly wrong. Had GZ been a real cop, he might've known he would've had to have probable cause to stop/question an individual; however, we know from the events that night that GZ indeed profiled TM, and concluded simply based on TM's physical appearance that he was a hoodlum.

Part of living in a free society is being able to walk without the fear of being harassed simply for how you look. Had someone actually witnessed TM do something illegal, then GZ (and any LEO) would have every reason to follow him and possbly search/arrest him.

according to the ONLY living witness to the event, GZ didnt stop TM and question him. GZ got out to identify on the dark rainy night the street he was on and TM ambushed him. Not against the law to think someone suspicious, not against the law to follow someone in your neighborhood that you dont recognize, and not even against the law to ask someone what they are doing in your limited access housing area. It is however, against the law, to assualt someone doing the preceding things

Skid Row Joe · #**229** 07-15-2013, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

He might be hard pressed to find a job because he is percieved as a hot headed dumbazz.

Or he might find gainful employment as a spokesman for the NRA, or as a commentator to assist Sara Palin on Fox news!

Did you even follow the transcript of the case or review the evidence presented at trial??

It's a fair question, since, several of your comments made on this thread, indicate to me that you have not.

Now you're resorting to name-calling of Geo. Zimmerman, after he was found to be "NOT GUILTY" in a court of law? Why are you doing this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTUpower

A "hot heated XXXXXXX" ???
By whom?
You and those like you which were admittedly ignorant of the facts of the case?

I have to agree, MTUPower.

spdrun · #**230** 07-15-2013, 03:32 PM

Just because someone isn't a felon doesn't make them a smart or pleasant person to be around. Criticize away on Zimmy.

t walgamuth · #**231** 07-15-2013, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTUpower

The fact that the voice could not be conclusively identified Tom, did you forget so quickly?

I assume you mean "trial", and no I could not watch the whole trial- only those actually in the courtroom could watch the whole trial. Do you think anyone not actually in the courtroom could "watch the whole trail?"

ACtually I knew they could not identify the voice but did not know why.

My question was meant to ask if you had watched it on TV as much as they showed?

P.C. · #**232** 07-15-2013, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skid Row Joe

Did you even follow the transcript of the case or review the evidence presented at trial??

It's a fair question, since, several of your comments made on this thread, indicate to me that you have not.

Now you're resorting to name-calling of Geo. Zimmerman, after he was found to be "NOT GUILTY" in a court of law? Why are you doing this?

I have to agree, MTUPower.

Do you think that certain people on this forum snuggled up to OJ Simpson after his acquittal?

t walgamuth · #**233** 07-15-2013, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Txjake

according to the ONLY living witness to teh event, GZ didnt stop TM and question him. GZ got out to identify on the dark rainy night the street he was on and TM ambushed him. Not against the law to think someone suspicious, not against the law to follow someone in your neighborhood that you dont recognize, and not even against the law to ask someone what they are doing in your limited access housing area. It is however, against the law, to assualt someone doing the preceding things

I guess I am not willing to accept Z's statement made to the police on face value....as you know....fact.(?).

Txjake · #**234** 07-15-2013, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

I guess I am not willing to accept Z's statement made to the police on face value....as you know....fact.(?).

well, the police believed him, do you beleive them?

cmac2012 · #**235** 07-15-2013, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Not to mention the back of his head.

As noted above, nothing really matters except that Z was in fear for grave bodily injury or loss of life.

Had Z not shot M, M would likely have been charged with assault & battery.

Some people are more prone to fear than others. The part you ignore in that line of thought is: were his fears rational, at any point in the drama? I submit that they were not. His fear led him to create a confrontation, one in which he had deadly force on his person.

I gotta give it to spd: "He brought a gun to a fistfight."

One major unknown in this drama, surely not a point we could count on GZ to be forthcoming about, is: did GZ flash his gun at TM at any point? One of those, "watch out, I'm armed, you best comply with my instructions until police get here" ? TM could well have had more cause to be in fear of his life. A man not a policeman was following him and (possibly) displayed a gun, certainly was toting one. GZ initiated this drama and played the insecure, naïve fool throughout it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Is it a crime to be weak?

Would you suggest that weak people should not have the means to defend themselves?

A weak person with unstable mind might be fearful that the large man passing him on the street was approaching to do harm and pull out his portable manliness and shoot him with it. GZ wanted to be tough but couldn't pull it off with MMA training. Mssrs. Smith and Wesson did the trick, however.

cmac2012 · #**236** 07-15-2013, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTUpower

Following someone walking around is provocation to you? That's "instigation"?

Once again- unless someone utters fighting words or they mortally threaten you the right to swing your fist ends where someone else's nose begins. The FBI found no racism on the part of GZ. Perhaps TM did feel mortally threatened- his world had a good amount of drugs, guns and fighting. The lesson here is don't bring a fist to a gun fight- or run to live another day if you don't know if someone has a gun. It certainly appears that TM surprised GZ, sucker punched him and then did the ground and pound.
Do you have a reason why TM knuckles were bruised and GZ's nose was broken and head bleeding?

No one has a clue about what GZ said to Martin at any point in this. GZ has clearly been playing his cards very close to his chest. He did not want to accept responsibility for anything in this drama, he wanted to get off. There is no evidence that I've heard that in any way backs up the 'surprised GZ, sucker punched him' line. It's all on the word of GZ.

I believe TM's girlfriend. I have little doubt that GZ's attitude and approach were at least somewhat menacing. After all, the little chits always get away with it. But not this time, uh-huh, George Zimmerman, protector of decency and the American Way was on the job!

t walgamuth · #**237** 07-15-2013, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Txjake

well, the police believed him, do you beleive them?

Did they believe him or did they lack solid evidence to discredit him?

Skid Row Joe · #**238** 07-15-2013, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

Did they believe him or did they lack solid evidence to discredit him?

The police detective that questioned Mr. Zimmerman substantiated his story (read believed him) and was a key witness in favor of the defense at trial.

Is this news to you?

cmac2012 · #**239** 07-15-2013, 05:22 PM

His head didn't look badly abused in the jailhouse video. But apparently there was some damage. The officer had no basis not to accept Z's explanation of events. I suspect there was indeed a scuffle but none of the details are clear. I have no trouble accepting that TM was getting the better of him in a scuffle. He was a young athlete from a cultural group in which youth rough-housing and hard play produces capable fighters. By all accounts, Zimmerman was not. His MMA teacher could barely contain his contempt for him. No surprise. A man with solid martial arts skills would have been unlikely to end up in Z's predicament.

No bruises at the hands of TM clear Zimmeman for having provoked the event. Zimmerman was the first threat.

MS Fowler · #**240** 07-15-2013, 05:22 PM

Racist?

I heard ( on the radio while driving--you confirm or deny) that Zimmerman took a black girl to his HS prom, and that he lives in a multi-racial community where his black neighbors speak well of him.

The only "evidence" of a racial nature is that Z shot a young black man. If you see than as racial, then to you it is.

How many hundreds of young black men die anonymously in big cities like Chicago, DC, Baltimore, LA and no one raises any storm of protest?
The answer is easy--the race-hustlers can't get any face time on these stories.