Questions for George Zimmerman supporters.

[FriendlyFire]

Stephen Molyneux probably had the best analysis of the case.

I had thought TM was suspended for repeatedly coming late to school and not for fighting or suspected theft ?

Trayvon Martin, the teenager whose shooting death has sparked a national uproar, was suspended from school last month for having a baggie that contained marijuana residue in his book bag, a family spokesman said Monday.

"There was no substance found. There was a baggie that school officials believe may have formerly contained marijuana. There was no arrest or citation from the police," Ryan Julison said. The Miami Herald reported that Martin was suspended two other times from school. The first time was for missing school or being late.
In October, Martin was suspended with friends for writing “W.T.F.” on a hallway locker, according to a school report obtained by the Herald. A security guard looking through his backpack for the graffiti marker and instead found women’s rings and earrings and a screwdriver, described by the staffer as a “burglary tool.”

Ben Crump, an attorney for Martin’s parents, told the Herald they had never heard about the bag of jewelry.
“And anyway, it’s completely irrelevant to what happened Feb. 26,” Crump told the Miami Herald. “They never heard this and don’t believe it’s true. If it were true, why wouldn’t they call the parents? Why wasn’t he arrested?”

1 for lateness
1 for graffiti
1 for drugs

SANFORD, Fla. - Attorneys won't be able to mention Trayvon Martin's drug use, suspension from school and past fighting

Seems TM got into fights in the past.

 

[Crezth]

No he didn't. What are you? A mind reader? Please.

Why do you preface your posts with these pithy, snarky little remarks? I'm saying that Zimmerman killed Martin. Where was Martin's fair trial? Regardless of if Martin attacked Zimmerman - for which a good case can be made, to be sure - a man lies dead against the better justice our country could muster. The untried death is the tragedy.

He viewed him as engaging is suspicious behavior in how he was moving in and around the houses in the area as opposed to just walking on the sidewalk.

I'm not convinced. I personally navigate neighborhoods in exactly this way - zagging between fences and property lines. To date I have neither been accosted nor shot. To me that says that Martin was comfortable in the area, but because of Zimmerman's unreasonable suspicions he automatically assumed the worst.

Might have been a slightly stronger case for the manslaughter charge, but only slightly - remember, all things being equal he still had physical wounds (broken nose, cuts on scalp, etc.). The mere existence of those is enough to create quite a bit reasonable doubt on a case to convict Zimmerman.

Sure enough. I think it was a tussle and an accident. But the lack of evidence and the end result are what scare me. Zimmerman killed someone and we really only have his word to go off of. We simply don't know. And I know the jury did the right thing and wouldn't convict him - I couldn't convict him - but this is nevertheless a gray area in which men can be killed without repercussion.

Do you honestly think Zimmerman went into the situation pre-meditating murder?

The guy isn't smart enough for that.

No. Don't misrepresent my position. It's immature and foolish.

 

[timtofly]

Seems TM got into fights in the past.

Does not indicate aggression, but it would indicate that he could handle himself in a fight.

 

[Antilogic]

No. Don't misrepresent my position. It's immature and foolish.

He and the rest of the crew have been doing that for at least a week now. Only winning move is not to play.

 

[classical_hero]

Yet Zimmerman decided for himself that Martin was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This is my issue. I am aware of how the justice system works, I am just disappointed with the implications. If Zimmerman had not been a night watchman I find it hard to believe he'd have been found innocent.

There is no proof of that. If Zimmerman had done that, then why did he call the police?

Again the facts show that situation did not happen like that.

 

[MobBoss]

Why do you preface your posts with these pithy, snarky little remarks?

It's what I used to point out nonsensical silly comments.

I'm saying that Zimmerman killed Martin. Where was Martin's fair trial? Regardless of if Martin attacked Zimmerman - for which a good case can be made, to be sure - a man lies dead against the better justice our country could muster. The untried death is the tragedy.

We don't try dead people. Kind of a silly thing to even suggest.

I'm not convinced. I personally navigate neighborhoods in exactly this way - zagging between fences and property lines.

Well, fwiw, that's also behavior that thieves and burglers exhibit. You shouldn't be traveling on peoples private property.

To date I have neither been accosted nor shot. To me that says that Martin was comfortable in the area, but because of Zimmerman's unreasonable suspicions he automatically assumed the worst.

There was testimony that the area had been experiencing break-ins. Even the people living there had been suspicious of such activity.

Sure enough. I think it was a tussle and an accident. But the lack of evidence and the end result are what scare me. Zimmerman killed someone and we really only have his word to go off of.

No. We also had testimony from home owners in the area, expert forensics testimony about the gunshot and wounds, testimony from Martins girlfriend, and much more.

It was a three week trial. If all we had was Zs comments it would have been less than a week.

We simply don't know. And I know the jury did the right thing and wouldn't convict him - I couldn't convict him - but this is nevertheless a gray area in which men can be killed without repercussion.

Welcome to reality. Sometimes the innocent get convicted and sometimes the utterly guilty walk free.

No. Don't misrepresent my position. It's immature and foolish.

Then clarify because you comment implies precisely that.

He and the rest of the crew have been doing that for at least a week now. Only winning move is not to play.

Try reading the comment I replied to. What I asked is precisely what he implied.

Pardon me for calling people out on what they are posting. If that's not what he meant then by all means he can clarify.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Try reading the comment I replied to.

Here's my question. If I consider a man in my neighborhood suspicious and I'm a neighborhood watchman, may I pursue and kill him if there is no evidence that he didn't start a fight?

This does not say "Zimmerman went into the situation pre-meditating murder"

What I asked is precisely what he implied.

Ah, so now you're the mind-reader.

 

[warpus]

 

[Formaldehyde]

There is no proof of that.

There is no "proof" other than Zimmerman's own phone call to the police, not to mention his own walk-through with the detectives:

1) "a real suspicious guy".

2) "looks like he is up to no good".

3) "on drugs or something".

4) "walking around and looking about" when he was actually just hanging out at the mailbox kiosk out of the rain.

5) "just staring" at someone who is clearly staring at him while talking on the phone.

6) "he's got a hand in his waistband" as he is "coming towards me" when he actually had no weapon.

7) "something's wrong with him" as he's being stared at by a man in a truck.

8) "he's coming to check me out" when he just walked by Zimmerman's truck to continue to walk home.

9) "he's got something in his hands. I don't know what his deal is" when his deal was that he had no weapons.

10) "they always get away" which is apparently referring to someone entirely different who actually did something wrong.

11) "he's running" after Zimmerman followed him in his truck from the mailbox kiosk...

Again the facts show that situation did not happen like that.

Again, you seem to think speculation on your part are "facts".

 

[MobBoss]

This does not say "Zimmerman went into the situation pre-meditating murder"

To me that is how it read.

Ah, so now you're the mind-reader.

No, just a text reader. He is free to clarify if he so chooses. Preferably with a minimum of whining. Especially from the cheap seats.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

To me that is how it read.

This doesn't sound like opinion.

"What I asked is precisely what he implied."

But I'm glad you clarified

 

[MobBoss]

This doesn't sound like opinion.

"What I asked is precisely what he implied."

But I'm glad you clarified

You're welcome. But I still stand by my comments. To me it does indeed imply that Zimmerman had foreknowledge that he could kill someone (i.e. Martin) and get away with it. When I look at that guy (or even the situation at large), that's not what I see. I see a wanna-be cop sure, but not a cold blooded thinking-ahead murderer.

 

[timtofly]

If authority figures shot every one that they felt deserved it, this world would have a lot less people in it.

 

[MobBoss]

Is Zimmerman now 'an authority figure'?

 

[JohnRM]

"We don't need you to do that" was a polite way to tell him to stop being a vigilante and a wannabe cop when there was no reason to think a crime had even been committed. To return to his truck instead of continuing to be a "creepy-ass cracker".

Too bad they were being polite. That unfortunate choice of words turned their statement from a command into a suggestion. The law does make a distinction.

You mean besides the 2-minute gap that neither he nor the defense attorneys ever explained?

Do you actually believe a known serial liar in this regard when his excuses make no actual sense at all based on the testimony of the witnesses?

In our justice system, we presume an individual innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on the defense. There could be a gap of 2,000 years that the defense didn't explain. They don't have explain a damn thing. That is for the prosecution.

 

[Crezth]

He and the rest of the crew have been doing that for at least a week now. Only winning move is not to play.

Sheesh, you're not kidding.

 

[ArianeRigor]

um maybe I don't know a whole whole lot about this, but I will say...

that um, in manila only the gangs have guns, and I lived in a "squatter" area, which is poor, and allot of gangsters. Three times someone was shot near to my front door. Nobody could defend themselves. All we can do is hide, and hope we hide good enough. so many times papa wished he had the right to protect us all, but he could only hide with all the rest of us. and hope.

so that's my part to say.

 

[AlpsStranger]

<snip>

 

[Formaldehyde]

In our justice system, we presume an individual innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on the defense. There could be a gap of 2,000 years that the defense didn't explain. They don't have explain a damn thing. That is for the prosecution.

There is no doubt in my mind that the prosecution proved far beyond any possible doubt that George Zimmerman is a serial liar through the evidence and the witnesses they presented. Yet the "law and order" right-wing authoritarians continue to use his account as the basis for why they think he must be innocent.

Three of the jurors were also convinced at the start of deliberation that the prosecution had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was guilty of second degree murder or manslaughter. But apparently due to the absurd way the statutes are now written due to "stand your ground", and even the "stand your ground" law itself which was included in the jury instructions at the demand of the defense attorneys, the other three eventually convinced them that he really hadn't.

And one of those jurors who did convince them has shown that she should have not been on that jury in the first place by her own statements, even prior to the trial. But there were apparently even worse jurors the prosecution felt they had to remove!

Granted this isn't any clear-cut case at all. Combine that with the inane way the laws are now written, the blunders that the prosecution and the police made, along with a key prosecution witness transforming into a key defense witness on the stand, and jurors who were specifically chosen because they don't read newspapers or watch the news on TV, you have a recipe for injustice. This is indeed the white version of the OJ case.

 

[timtofly]

I think though that with this line of reasoning, attempting to make George Zimmerman out to be an aggressive wannabe cop, the more one sees Trayvon Martin as an aggressive crook.

That is the picture that Z himself was trying to paint the more he tried to make it look like he was doing all he could to be the good guy.