by UnConfused 314 Replies latest social current
The evidence and testimony was clear - they cannot, do not and did not order GZ to stay in his car just that they didn't need him to follow TM and there was no evidence presented by the presecution that he did.
It only requires basic grade reading and comprehension skills but is apparently too much for some to take in or, more likely, they chose to ignore the evidence that doesn't go along with their personal and biased beliefs.
"you're presumed reality. That reality is still up in the air. I'm not saying it's an absolute lie. But it certainly isn't an absolute truth."
Why presume any "reality" except this: You are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If the reality of this situation is still "up in the air", then he, by definition is innocent. But it is worse than that. All real evidence, brought forth in the trial, paints a "reality" consistent with GZ.
It doesn't mean GZ didn't make mistakes. It doesn't mean TM didn't make mistakes. It means legally he is innocent. It meas that you there was never a case here. It means that what you "feel" the mistakes GZ made are irrelavant.
MMM
People know me here. I walk to the store. A white man unknown to me, starts to ghost me. I feel a little uncomfortable so I walk another direction. The man is in touch with law enforcement who tell him to stay put. He doesn't. I then see this man out of his car. He asks what I'm doing here. Knowing the best way not to become a victim is to not act like one, I come on strong. "Who the hell are you and what business do u have here"? If you are law enforcement, Identify yourself now or F off!" This man gets in my way, we struggle, I get the best of him. He shoots me.
Is that what happened, wha happened?
People know me here. I walk to the store. A white man unknown to me, starts to ghost me.
Okay.
I feel a little uncomfortable so I walk another direction.
How far in the other direction do you walk? Do you walk south 70 yards or so clear to your residence and out of danger, have a conversation with your girlfriend and then walk back north to confront the man? You do realize that in the eyes of the law, that would not be a continuation of the original interraction; it is the start of a new one where you are now the aggressor?
The only way this would have flown is if Zimmerman walked south looking for Martin and confronted him in the vicinity of Brandy Green's residence per Ms Jeantel's testimony. Any scenario where Martin goes back looking for Zimmerman makes Martin the bad guy. The prosecution obviously knew this. It's just difficult to prove given the fact that the fatal altercation took place in the vicinity of Zimmerman's vehicle, not in the vicinity of Brandy Green's residence.
The man is in touch with law enforcement who tell him to stay put. He doesn't.
The 911 non emergency dispatcher is not law enforcement. And they did not tell him to stay put. During the prosecution phase of this trial, there was actual testimony to the effect that 911 dispatchers never tell people what to do or not do.
Here is the relavant portion of the transcript:
Dispatcher:OK, which entrance is that he’s headed towards?
Zimmerman:The back entrance.
Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah.
Dispatcher: OK.We don’t need you to do that.
Zimmerman: OK.
Zimmeraman's story is that he went east to check a street sign. Walking at a 90 degree tangent to Martin's last known location is not following him especially if it puts buildings between them.
I then see this man out of his car. He asks what I'm doing here.
Again, how did you get back into speaking distance with this man after the two of you lost track of each other? Did he follow and approach you or did you go back looking for him because he made you mad?
Knowing the best way not to become a victim is to not act like one, I come on strong.
In a state like Florida, that is exactly the best way to become a victim. In concealed carry/stand your ground states, every person you see on the street is potentially armed. 'Coming on strong' to a stranger when you could have simply gone home and called the police yourself is a very big first step towards a situation where the stranger will have a viable claim of self defense.
"Who the hell are you and what business do u have here"? If you are law enforcement, Identify yourself now or F off!" This man gets in my way, we struggle, I get the best of him. He shoots me.
And your family mourns you. Assuming the case is prosecuted and goes to trial, they will look for indications that he actually participated in a fight. They will look for trauma to his hands and to your face. They will look for your DNA on his hands. If they don't find any, you do realize how this will look once you're dead and can't tell your side of the story?
The Black Panthers are offering up a $1,000,000.00 reward for the capture of George Zimmerman.
Go to youtube and watch it.
Are you talking about last March, before Zimmerman was charged?
I don't think either Martin or Zimmerman is a saint. A wanna-be cop and a wanna-be gangster met up with tragic onsequences.
But I'm sad that we are expecting a 17 year old to act with the wisdom and insight of an adult. Young men are often stupid and foollish at that age. It's too bad that Martin met up with the likes of Zimmerman and paid for his mistake with his life.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2013/05/28/george-zimmermans-relevant-past/
"In July 2005, he was arrested for“resisting officer with violence.” The neighborhood watch volunteer who wanted to be a cop got into a scuffle with cops who were questioning a friend for alleged underage drinking. The charges were reduced and then waived after he entered an alcohol education program. Then in August 2005, Zimmerman’s former fiance sought a restraining order against him because of domestic violence. Zimmerman sought a restraining order against her in return. Both were granted. Meanwhile, over the course of eight years, Zimmerman made at least 46 calls to the Sanford (Fla.) Police Department reporting suspicious activity involving black males."
But of course Trayvon Martin was the thug and Zimmerman was definitely not a racist.
How is a man with a history of violence allowed to have a gun anyway?
It's this mentally accepted appeal to emotion, without regard to evidence and presented sworn testimony and even comon sense, that is rather disturbing to me.
It's not about facts, or law, or even common sense. The anger is purely about emotional perceptions.
Personally my heart aches for the parents of TM. It also aches for GZ because his life will foreer be haunted with the fact he took a life with a gun. Both are tragic.
OMG beat wighin an inch of his life? Did I miss something? Was GZ in the ICU after being beat within an inch of his life? Maybe they saved him from dying at the police station.
So after reading the actual evidence does anyone feel like we were being led down a path that was not reallly there? I went along thinking that it was a case where a white guy walked up on a black kid, started shit and then kiled him.
When I actually read about the case it did not seem the same.
- The only injuries on TM were the gun shot and skined knuckles. (Indicates that Z did not fight back until the gun shot)
- Zimmerman had a broken nose and injuries to the back of his head that are consistant with being slamed against the ground.
Forensics indicate that TM was on top of Z. John Good a witness also testified that he saw TM on top of Z
"Renowned forensics expert Vincent Di Maio may have been one of Zimmerman's strongest witnesses. He told the jury that the pattern of powder burns and other forensic evidence on Martin's body indicated that the teenager's sweatshirt was two to four inches away from his body at the time he was shot, meaning that Martin was leaning forward over Zimmerman when he was killed."
Based on Florida's Stand Your Ground law, it sound like simple self defense. Z might have been an idiot vigilante but in the end he is backed up by the law. This thread really should be about how if you dont like the law elect better state legislators. I think Stand Your Ground is silly, there should be a duty to retreat if possible. In this case if TM was on top of Z that would not have been possible.
Edit: So based on that information even if half of it is wrong....Do you think you could say beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self defense?
911 cannot give direct orders because they can be held liable for anything yhat may happen after following an order. Of course law rnforcement doesnt want civillians to follow. Its common sense.
