Zimmerman Not guilty

And that was a fatal decision on his part to attack an armed man. That is what makes it self-defense on Zimmerman's part.

Not really. The whole "self defense" argument is extremely flimsy. Zimmerman had no real reason to follow the deceased, apart from "looking for trouble". That became a self-fulfilling prophecy, where when of the two parties ended up dead.

From personal experience: I once got into an altercation with a total stranger for bumping into that person. Apparently that was "aggressive" on my part, even though I said "Sorry" the moment it happened. No "following" was involved. Obviously I didn't let that escalate into a fight. If I - or he - had, that doesn't automatically imply self defense if either of us had a gun.

A lot of the discussion about the Zimmerman case seems to be about what he said, she said etc. That's entirely irrelevant to the case, being hearsay. Especially considering one of the parties can't even give his hearsay (oral "evidence") on account of being dead.
 
That's nice speculation. Too bad it isn't actually factually accurate other than where Zimmerman was when he ended his call with the dispatcher.

I wouldn't call that speculation, but where was he when the call ended?

edit

Thx Bam, you're right... The dispatcher was "egging" Z on a bit before telling him they didn't need him to do that.

Tell me what he does

which way is he running

are you following

ok, no need for that

based on that people have been accusing Z of defying the dispatcher's instructions?

:rolleyes:
 
Form, most of your posts are inaccurate with your speculating zimmerman was a rascist.
According to someone who continues to make incredibly "inaccurate" comments regarding this case as well as my opinions? :rotfl:

Then I'm sure you will have no problem at all proving that.

And I have never claimed that Zimmerman is a racist, apparently like his brother. That is just yet another example of your incessant hyperbole regarding my actual opinons. I claimed he racially profiled Martin, which is what the DAs tried to also do in court until they were overruled by the judge. Do you claim they were also "speculating"?
 
Listen for yourself.

http://www.wftv.com/videos/news/raw-911-call-zimmerman-made-to-sanford-police/vGZq9/

Basically yes, but that's because at the time Zimmerman was watching Mrtin from his truck so I wouldn't read too much into it.

The dispatcher in that recording never egged Zimmerman on. Asking Z to let them know if M does anything, is not an invitation to follow the guy, but just report what you see out of the ordinary. When M walked away, (Z never stated that he ran, he just stated that they always get away), it seems Z got impatient and opened his door. It was then that M started to run. Z started to follow M.

You can hear the change in wind, as if Z was running and he was slightly out of breath, but it only lasted for about 20 seconds. However by the end of the phone call he was calm and it seems waiting for the police to arrive. Most likely near his vehicle.

His last question was not one of bewilderment asking to go look for M or the alleged street sign. He just asked for the police to call him when they arrived. Z was obviously not near his truck when they got there.

@ Berzerker

Z told the dispatcher that he was near the cut off in his truck. He was already parked while on the phone and opened his door to get out of the truck only when M was almost out of sight. That is why he started to hurry and the dispatcher asked Z if he was following M. He may have made it to the T, but going further would only make sense, if you believe that he told the police he was looking for a street sign. The only reason he wanted them to think he was looking for that was not because of the conversation with the dispatcher, but he needed a reason other than M for him to be going in that direction.

I realize that Z did not have the number, he explained that he was at the cut off (sidewalk area known as the T). He and his truck were parked there, and it is plausible that he made it to the T because he told the dispatch that M was running toward the rear entrance (south on the T). We now have M running slightly longer than Z and he made it further south on the T into the darkness.

We have the conversation of M, that stated Z stopped and it was dark, so he no longer could see Z. That Z suddenly appeared again meant that after Z ended his phone call he did keep going south after M instead of waiting near his truck.

I cannot see M just hiding. He did seem to stop and wait, and it is reasonable to think that maybe he was looking for trouble. In fact, when M claimed to see Z, his friend told him to run, but instead M allegedly asked Z why Z was following him. Neither sides agree on what was actually said, and no one knows but Z and maybe the friend what was actually said and done. The only thing we have is who to believe.

Having superficial cuts on the back of the head and a bloody nose is not an indication that Z was near death. In fact he seemed rather well for almost loosing his life. Perhaps knowing that a gun may be involved, might have scared him while M was on top of him, but it does not seem it took that long for him to get a shot off, unless there was a struggle for the gun and it accidently went off.

That M was high and not acting normal as given by Z's conversation on the phone, M was probably not coherent enough to do the right thing much less the "wrong" thing. According to the record, it took him 45 minutes on a route that takes about 15 minutes. The last 15 on the phone with a friend. I doubt M and the person on the phone were conspiring to commit a crime. It was given on both sides that two people using phones were checking each other out and commenting on the phone how they thought the other person was up to no good. Sounds like normal activity to me.

It is recorded that M started to run after Z opened his truck door and got out while still on the phone. How would any one take these facts and then claim M was out to get Z? We do see that Z was a little irritated that M was able to walk away from him. We see M may have been creeped out with Z eying him while on the phone. Z's accounting does not match up well enough to fit all the information we have, and he is the one left with the burden to prove he was in the right. It is also possible that he could be lying.

You also need to hear the sounds going on, not just read the transcript.
 
Not really. The whole "self defense" argument is extremely flimsy.

Apparently the jury disagrees with you. The gunshot experts forensic testimony actually wasn't flimsy at all, and it largely confirmed Z's account of the incident.

Zimmerman had no real reason to follow the deceased, apart from "looking for trouble". That became a self-fulfilling prophecy, where when of the two parties ended up dead.

Again, you can argue that it wasn't a good idea for Z to do that, but it was hardly unlawful. Nor is it an excuse to M to allegedly attack him.

A lot of the discussion about the Zimmerman case seems to be about what he said, she said etc. That's entirely irrelevant to the case, being hearsay. Especially considering one of the parties can't even give his hearsay (oral "evidence") on account of being dead.

The burden of proof still remains on the prosecution. They didn't achieve their goal. In fact, some of their witnesses probably helped Z more than their own case against him.
 
All of Zimmerman's accounts in the case are pretty inconsistent. He changed the story each time. Its pretty obvious he's lying. The prosecution did an extremely bad job in this case.

Again, you can argue that it wasn't a good idea for Z to do that, but it was hardly unlawful. Nor is it an excuse to M to allegedly attack him.

How is getting out of your vehicle and running after said person with armed gun after the dispatcher told you not to not considered stalking?
 
A few inconsistencies in a typical recollection is hardly the same thing as over a dozen deliberate self-serving lies.

What the state should be asking is why the forensics investigators, detectives who interviewed the witnesses, and prosecution did such a bad job. Why the medical examiner for the county was completely incompetent on the witness stand. And most of all, why the chief investigator turned into a star witness for the defense. How could he possibly claim that Zimmerman's account was in any way credible? He should fired and perjury charges should be brought against him.
 
I've got a few questions about this court ruling.

First, is it now officially legal for anyone in Florida to pick a fight with someone while carrying a gun and then shoot them dead if they try to defend themselves, or is this a special case?

Second, as an unrelated matter of curiosity, was the jury entirely white/hispanic in addition to being all-female?
 
I've got a few questions about this court ruling.

First, is it now officially legal for anyone in Florida to pick a fight with someone while carrying a gun and then shoot them dead if they try to defend themselves, or is this a special case?

Second, as an unrelated matter of curiosity, was the jury entirely white/hispanic in addition to being all-female?

If there is no witnesses, it is incredibly difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it wasn't self deffence.
 
Logical fallacy: if you carry a weapon, the other party would have a stronger case for arguing self defense.

Apparently the jury disagrees with you. The gunshot experts forensic testimony actually wasn't flimsy at all, and it largely confirmed Z's account of the incident.

Yes, I'm sure most juries are filled with legal experts. And how does gunshot forensic evidence confirm self-defense? Which is not at all the same as being in accordance with Zimmerman's account of events.

Again, you can argue that it wasn't a good idea for Z to do that, but it was hardly unlawful. Nor is it an excuse to M to allegedly attack him.

That's not my argument now. By following the deceased Zimmerman set a string of events in motion ending with him killing the other party. Since Zimmerman was the one with a weapon, if anybody could argue self defense that would ost likely be the deceased. At any rate, killing someone because you feel threatened (not Zimmerman's argument, by the way) is hardly reasonable. If it were, Zimmerman wouldn't even have been tried in the first place.

The burden of proof still remains on the prosecution. They didn't achieve their goal. In fact, some of their witnesses probably helped Z more than their own case against him.

I'm not even arguing that. But I can if you prefer that instead of what I actually said.
 
Logical fallacy: if you carry a weapon, the other party would have a stronger case for arguing self defense.

Simply having a weapon does not make one more or less likely to assault or be assaulted. Is "logical fallacy" just something that people spout when they want to sound cool and edgy or ivory towery?
 
The dispatcher in that recording never egged Zimmerman on. Asking Z to let them know if M does anything, is not an invitation to follow the guy, but just report what you see out of the ordinary. When M walked away, (Z never stated that he ran, he just stated that they always get away), it seems Z got impatient and opened his door. It was then that M started to run. Z started to follow M.

Jesus, I post the actual 911 recording for easy reference and you STILL make stuff up. At time 2:07 of the recording I posted Zimmerman clearly reports Martin running away.

If you can't get basic things like that right why should anyone pay attention to the ret of you contortionist attempts to bend the truth?
 
All of Zimmerman's accounts in the case are pretty inconsistent. He changed the story each time. Its pretty obvious he's lying. The prosecution did an extremely bad job in this case.

The investigating police officers testified that his discrepancies were minor and irrelevant and that they Are normal for someone recounting a tragic incident.

How is getting out of your vehicle and running after said person with armed gun after the dispatcher told you not to not considered stalking?

Because you like making things up when you obviously know better. But since you can't be honest...

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ng=&URL=0700-0799/0784/Sections/0784.048.html

You will note that "and repeatedly" is included in each section of the statute not dealing with breaking a protective order or violating a condition of sentencing. All of which is common sense of course but when you are fishing...

EDIT: sorry mods for the double post, I lost track and thought I was in the other tread.
 
If there is no witnesses, it is incredibly difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it wasn't self deffence.
If it's clearly proven that Zimmerman (a) initiated the confrontation and (b) shot the victim dead, why should it fall on the prosecution to prove that it wasn't self defence?

Since when was proving that the killer killed the victim insufficient on its own for a manslaughter conviction?
 
If it's clearly proven that Zimmerman (a) initiated the confrontation and (b) shot the victim dead, why should it fall on the prosecution to prove that it wasn't self defence?

Since when was proving that the killer killed the victim insufficient on its own for a manslaughter conviction?

Actually the evidence points to Martin initiating the violence (which is largely what counts) and that Zimmerman was seriously being beaten and on the bottom when he shot Martin, once.
 
What evidence indicates who initiated the violence? The problem for the prosecution (who carried the burden of proof) is that there was no conclusive evidence either way. Just because Z got a little booboo on his head doesn't mean he wasn't the initiator. From a legal perspective, all the verdict means is that the prosecution did not pprove beyond a reasonable dount that Z did not have a self defense claim.
 
First, is it now officially legal for anyone in Florida to pick a fight with someone while carrying a gun and then shoot them dead if they try to defend themselves, or is this a special case?
No, this is unfortunately all too common. And what is even more disturbing is how many forum members see nothing at all wrong with this. That they think people should have the right to kill those whom they get into fights when it seems they might lose the fight.

The Daily Show had a field day with this last night.

Acquitted Development

The controversial conclusion to the George Zimmerman murder trial suggests it's time for Florida to change the state motto.

Right. And that is what makes this so much worse. You get a verdict like this, not because the system was broken down, but the system works exactly as designed. How can 2013 Florida have a law that seems cut and pasted from 1881 Tombstone?

But let's be clear. According to current Florida law, you can get a gun, follow an unarmed minor, call the police, have them explicitely tell you to stop following them, then choose to ignore that, keep following the minor, then provoke a confrontation with him. During any of that process, if you get scared, you can shoot the minor dead, and the state of Florida will say "Well, you did what you could."

You know, I think it is time for the Sunshine State to officially change its motto. <Sign saying "The WORST state".>

Or, as was mentioned on page one of this thread:

r0AYH.gif

Second, as an unrelated matter of curiosity, was the jury entirely white/hispanic in addition to being all-female?
I read that it was all-white. But I just came across a Fox News graphic which claimed one of the six was possibly black and Hispanic.

If you can't get basic things like that right why should anyone pay attention to the ret of you contortionist attempts to bend the truth?
Does the phrase "double standard" have any meaning at all to you?

The investigating police officers testified that his discrepancies were minor and irrelevant and that they Are normal for someone recounting a tragic incident.
You mean one officer did who should obviously be fired for doing so. But thanks for providing yet another example of the above.
 
No, this is unfortunately all too common. And what is even more disturbing is how many forum members see nothing at all wrong with this. That they think people should have the right to kill those whom they get into fights when it seems they might lose the fight.

How many posters have actually demonstrated a fairly complete understanding of Stand your Ground idiocy and then gone on to support this brick-to-head law? The only real reason you could possibly support this is if you think that you have no duty to at least nominally try to walk away from somebody scary on the street before killing them. Castle doctrine non-withstanding because that's a separate case that involves you being inside during a home invasion.

If anyone actually does think that their manly pride, that could potentially be wounded by "retreating," is more important than human life to the point that Stand your Ground laws are something you support, would they be kind enough to explain why they think that in small bulleted points so that I might conceivably begin to understand why, in people whom I do not think are evil, there is support for this legislation that I can only accurately describe to myself as evil?
 
Back
Top Bottom