Archive

Will Zimmerman get a fair trial in the Travon Martin case?

  • sherm03
    O-Trap;1477003 wrote: As for the girl on the phone, she's not a credible witness of what it would take eyes at the scene to witness.

    There is zero credible evidence to suggest Zimmerman was doing anything harassing. Those who suggest otherwise are seeing something that isn't there. Possibly what they want to see.
    I agree that there is no concrete evidence that GZ was doing anything harassing. But I think the real truth lies somewhere in the middle of both stories. Each side claims that the person they support wasn't doing anything wrong and that the other guy was the one who was the asshole. And it didn't have to be racial either. Could have been something as simple as GZ calling TM a "motherfucker" like he said on the 911 call. If someone is following me, and catches up to me and says something like that, I'd probably swing, too.

    I'm not saying that's how it happened. And I obviously have no link to support it. Just offering it up that, more than likely, both sides were being dicks which led to the fight and the eventual shooting.
  • rmolin73
    ccrunner609;1477056 wrote:could you please post a link to these facts? THis is the biggest problem in this whole debate....ignoring the facts of the case. Here, on TV, the president.....people are just making the whole thing up to fit what they think happened.
    Really?
    ccrunner609;1474219 wrote:i said that the day she took the stand. Her ghetto ass egged him on to confront the creepy ass cracker. She didnt want to testify. Cause her pushing him got his butt dead.
    You mean like the above?
  • sherm03
    ccrunner609;1477056 wrote:could you please post a link to these facts? THis is the biggest problem in this whole debate....ignoring the facts of the case. Here, on TV, the president.....people are just making the whole thing up to fit what they think happened.
    To be fair, the eye witness testimony did not pick up until after the fight had begun. There is a gap between when GZ hangs up on the 911 call and when the eye witness testimony picks up. So the only "facts" that you are using for your stance is the word of GZ.

    While he may be telling the truth, it's also likely that his story is skewed to make himself look better. I don't fault him for that. That's how all humans are. But to say things happened exactly how GZ said they did, and point to his words as "facts" is just as flimsy as saying that things happened a different way without having anything from the case to back it up.
  • BoatShoes
    ccrunner609;1477056 wrote:could you please post a link to these facts? THis is the biggest problem in this whole debate....ignoring the facts of the case. Here, on TV, the president.....people are just making the whole thing up to fit what they think happened.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin
    At approximately 7:09 PM,[SUP][Note 4][/SUP] Zimmerman called the Sanford police non-emergency number to report what he considered a suspicious person in the Twin Lakes community.[SUP][73][/SUP] Zimmerman stated, "We've had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there's a real suspicious guy."[SUP][35][/SUP] He described an unknown male "just walking around looking about" in the rain and said, "This guy looks like he is up to no good or he is on drugs or something."[SUP][74][/SUP] Zimmerman reported that the person had his hand in his waistband and was walking around looking at homes.[SUP][75][/SUP] On the recording, Zimmerman is heard saying, "these assholes, they always get away."[SUP][76][/SUP][SUP][77]
    [/SUP]About two minutes into the call, Zimmerman said, "he's running".[SUP][16][/SUP] The dispatcher asked, "He's running? Which way is he running?"[SUP][78][/SUP] Noises on the tape at this point have been interpreted by some media outlets as the sound of a car door chime, possibly indicating Zimmerman opened his car door.[SUP][79][/SUP] Zimmerman followed Martin, eventually losing sight of him.[SUP][16][/SUP] The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following him. When Zimmerman answered, "yeah", the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." Zimmerman responded, "Okay."[SUP][80][/SUP] Zimmerman asked that police call him upon their arrival so he could provide his location.[SUP][16][/SUP] Zimmerman ended the call at 7:15 p.m.[SUP][16][/SUP]
    The police officer arrived at 7:17 and Martin was dead. If GZ was telling the truth and Martin ran around 7:11pm, he had to have chased after him. This was corroborated by Rachel Jeantel when she said one of the last things she heard was a sound of someone coming up and asking Martin what he was doing and then hearing Martin say "Get off me" "Get Off Me".
  • BoatShoes
    O-Trap;1477003 wrote:I'm not sugar-coating anything. I'm just not reading anything into it, which you seem to be doing.

    And it doesn't matter if you would "feel" harassed. Following someone, showing no signs of aggression, is not harassment.

    As for the girl on the phone, she's not a credible witness of what it would take eyes at the scene to witness.

    There is zero credible evidence to suggest Zimmerman was doing anything harassing. Those who suggest otherwise are seeing something that isn't there. Possibly what they want to see.
    You just don't think it's credible. GZ did not engage in reasonable, prudent behavior that ordinary citizens should be expected to deal with prior to the altercation. I certainly would not have felt comfortable in TM's shoes based upon the limited testimony from Jeantel as well as the timeline of events provided in the record of the dispatch. If you run away from someone you shouldn't have to be concerned about being tracked down.
  • Trueblue23
    BoatShoes;1477073 wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin



    The police officer arrived at 7:17 and Martin was dead. If GZ was telling the truth and Martin ran around 7:11pm, he had to have chased after him. This was corroborated by Rachel Jeantel when she said one of the last things she heard was a sound of someone coming up and asking Martin what he was doing and then hearing Martin say "Get off me" "Get Off Me".

    That girl also said she heard "wet grass", which is obviously stupid.

    GZ didn't have to "chase" TM, Martin waited for him and attacked him.
  • BoatShoes
    Trueblue23;1477077 wrote:That girl also said she heard "wet grass", which is obviously stupid.

    GZ didn't have to "chase" TM, Martin waited for him and attacked him.
    Even if we accept this theory, it still follows that George Zimmerman had to pursue Martin over some distance if the following are true:

    Zimmerman acknowledged to the dispatcher that he went after him.
    Zimmerman followed Martin, eventually losing sight of him.[SUP][16][/SUP] The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following him. When Zimmerman answered, "yeah"
    Also, what evidence in the record is there that Trayvon Martin "waited and attacked" unless Jeantel is not only very stupid but a deliberate, malicios liar...multiple times...on television and in court. Possible yes, but a little harder to believe than TM just wrongly flying off the handle when confronted. It also begs the question as to why the telephone call time would have occurred up until the altercation if he was waiting to pounce on his victim?

    But either way...don't really care about that and what happened after the altercation began.

    Here's the bottom line. Again, GZ did not engage in otherwise reasonable behavior like the GZ apologists act. There was no evidence of crime to give rise to a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. He was not a police officer empowered by the people of Florida to arrest fellow citizens. He had no good reason to pursue/chase/follow a man who ran away from him according to his own words. It's not unreasonable to be unnerved by a stranger following you in a car at night staring at you. There's no requirement that you allow yourself to be arrested at the protestations of a private citizen.

    Like I said, none of this gave Martin the right to beat the piss out of GZ when he engaged him. He should just dealt with it, like countless black males do and gone about his way and maybe allege an unlawful arrest when the Police arrived. But it certainly wasn't just ordinary, acceptable behavior on the part of GZ.
  • Con_Alma
    BoatShoes;1477075 wrote:You just don't think it's credible. GZ did not engage in reasonable, prudent behavior that ordinary citizens should be expected to deal with prior to the altercation. ...
    I disagree when considering the recent neighborhood troubles.
  • Con_Alma
    BoatShoes;1477094 wrote:...
    Here's the bottom line. Again, GZ did not engage in otherwise reasonable behavior like the GZ apologists act. There was no evidence of crime to give rise to a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity....
    Again, I disagree that it was not reasonable to follow an unknown person throughout the neighborhood. There didn't need to be a evidence of a crome to do so. The simple fact that it was an unfamiliar person was enough to follow.
  • gut
    Con_Alma;1477158 wrote:Again, I disagree that it was not reasonable to follow an unknown person throughout the neighborhood.
    Well, I don't think it's really reasonable to "follow", you engage dialogue and/or call the police then move on. Following isn't going to accomplish much, and if you actually speak to the guy then you might get a better cause for calling the police and getting them to respond.

    But I also struggle with the whole "follow" narrative. How many minutes? How many blocks? Was this before or after TM started going in between houses? Did the "following" constitute seeing someone he didn't recognize, and then driving a block or two up the street to see which way he was going?

    The initial media titulation was this idea of stalking, but it's never been clear to me Zimmerman followed TM in a manner remotely approaching tailing, and even following might be generous. I think some people have this image of Zimmerman creeping in his car behind TM for a mile, and I don't think that is anywhere close to reality.
  • Con_Alma
    gut;1477173 wrote:Well, I don't think it's really reasonable to "follow", you engage dialogue and/or call the police then move on. Following isn't going to accomplish much, and if you actually speak to the guy then you might get a better cause for calling the police and getting them to respond.

    ...
    Yeah, we disagree.

    I'm following you wherever you go in my neighbor if I'm concerned.
  • gut
    Con_Alma;1477174 wrote:Yeah, we disagree.

    I'm following you wherever you go in my neighbor if I'm concerned.
    Either you're concerned enough to engage in dialogue, or you let the police handle it.

    I don't think it wise to follow someone, especially if that person is a minor.
  • Con_Alma
    How do you know if it's a minor?

    I am calling the police and following you....and I hope you know I'm following you. I want you to know you are being watched. I don't need to engage in dialogue with you. The police will get there eventually.

    Until then, I'm watching everything you do.
  • BoatShoes
    Con_Alma;1477158 wrote:Again, I disagree that it was not reasonable to follow an unknown person throughout the neighborhood. There didn't need to be a evidence of a crome to do so. The simple fact that it was an unfamiliar person was enough to follow.
    Reasonable, prudent people are overly cautious. They don't do their best Spiderman/Batman impersonations. A reasonable, prudent person does not "follow" or investigate "unknown persons". A reasonable, prudent person doesn't get suspicious of a person simply because they are unfamiliar. A reasonable, prudent person would not suspect a person of wrongdoing simply for walking leisurely through yards at 7:00pm at night. A reasonable, prudent person doesn't follow or suspect potential criminality from an unknown person in a neighborhood at 7pm. It is not reasonable to infer that someone is up to no good because of a hasty generalization due to recent criminality in totally unrelated and separate incidents. A reasonable, prudent person at most would've called the police (and that is being generous as they probably wouldn't have done that) and certainly wouldn't have gotten out of the car.

    And, anyway that is why the black community is so up in arms. White men in suits walking leisurely aren't "followed", reported to the police and subject to unlawful arrests by vigilantes, etc. There was no good reason to suspect any criminal mischief. Zero. But, this was a black kid in a hoodie walking "leisurely".

    And even then, even if we accept that GZ could be somewhat justified in his belief that TM was a potential criminal (which you can't)...calling the police should have been the end of it period. He is not a police officer empowered by the people of Florida to lawfully arrest. This was not some kind of emergency scenario wherein reliance on normal police was impractical or created the substantial risk of the loss of life, etc. If he was really suspicious of crime, attempting to locate/follow/see where the potential criminal went was an irrational and dangerous move and not at all benign.

    GZ was not guilty of a crime based on the evidence available but he was neither reasonable nor prudent.
  • O-Trap
    BoatShoes;1477075 wrote:You just don't think it's credible.
    No. Logic dictates that it is not credible.
    BoatShoes;1477075 wrote:GZ did not engage in reasonable, prudent behavior that ordinary citizens should be expected to deal with prior to the altercation.
    According to whom? And what alternative would you suggest is "reasonable, prudent behavior?" I trust it is something other than, "Call the cops and hope they can find the stranger by the time they actually arrive."

    Also, I trust you have some kind of logical framework to which you appeal to deem this alternative reasonable and prudent.
    BoatShoes;1477075 wrote:I certainly would not have felt comfortable in TM's shoes ...
    And I'm not comfortable in a banana hammock. Other guys seem to enjoy them. Comfort level is neither relevant nor something Zimmerman could have known at the time.
    BoatShoes;1477075 wrote:... based upon the limited testimony from Jeantel ...
    Jeantel was a witness with one of her sense: hearing. She saw nothing. Yes, she can legitimately testify to what she heard, which could be summed up with (a) what she heard was said, and (b) commotion, of which she has no ability to distinguish the cause, not being able to see what's going on.
    BoatShoes;1477075 wrote:... as well as the timeline of events provided in the record of the dispatch.
    The record of the dispatch says that, based on the timeline, Martin had gone a whopping 30 yards in four minutes. Martin could have walked and/or run further than that if he was afraid of being pursued. It's more likely that Martin willingly stopped to engage in the confrontation.
    BoatShoes;1477075 wrote:If you run away from someone you shouldn't have to be concerned about being tracked down.
    If he was running away from someone, he would have gotten more than 30 yards in 4 minutes.

    The facts of this case don't support the picture of the situation as you seem to want to paint it.
  • O-Trap
    BoatShoes;1477075 wrote:You just don't think it's credible.
    No. Logic dictates that it is not credible.
    BoatShoes;1477075 wrote:GZ did not engage in reasonable, prudent behavior that ordinary citizens should be expected to deal with prior to the altercation.
    According to whom? And what alternative would you suggest is "reasonable, prudent behavior?" I trust it is something other than, "Call the cops and hope they can find the stranger by the time they actually arrive."

    Also, I trust you have some kind of logical framework to which you appeal to deem this alternative reasonable and prudent.
    BoatShoes;1477075 wrote:I certainly would not have felt comfortable in TM's shoes ...
    And I'm not comfortable in a banana hammock. Other guys seem to enjoy them. Comfort level is neither relevant nor something Zimmerman could have known at the time.
    BoatShoes;1477075 wrote:... based upon the limited testimony from Jeantel ...
    Jeantel was a witness with one of her senses: hearing. She saw nothing. Yes, she can legitimately testify to what she heard, which could be summed up with (a) what she heard was said, and (b) commotion, of which she has no ability to distinguish the cause, not being able to see what's going on.
    BoatShoes;1477075 wrote:... as well as the timeline of events provided in the record of the dispatch.
    The record of the dispatch says that, based on the timeline, Martin had gone a whopping 30 yards in four minutes. Martin could have walked and/or run further than that if he was afraid of being pursued. It's more likely that Martin willingly stopped to engage in the confrontation.
    BoatShoes;1477075 wrote:If you run away from someone you shouldn't have to be concerned about being tracked down.
    If he was running away from someone, he would have gotten more than 30 yards in 4 minutes.

    The facts of this case don't support the picture of the situation as you seem to want to paint it.
  • gut
    BoatShoes;1477215 wrote:A reasonable, prudent person would not suspect a person of wrongdoing simply for walking leisurely through yards at 7:00pm at night.
    I was with you until this point. lmao, NNNNOOOOO, it's not normal to trudge thru yards even if you live in the neighborhood. It is discourteous and disrespectful to neighbors, which is why someone who ignores that is elevated cause for suspicion.

    In fact, I think that technically is considered trespassing, which I think suspicion of someone is justified when they actually are breaking the law. OK, technically a no trespassing sign needs to be posted.
  • gut
    O-Trap;1477235 wrote: If he was running away from someone, he would have gotten more than 30 yards in 4 minutes.
    I don't know, man. Tokers don't always have the best 40 times.
  • O-Trap
    gut;1477238 wrote:I don't know, man. Tokers don't always have the best 40 times.
    Someone needed to tell Reggie Bush that.
  • Raw Dawgin' it
    Bill O’Reilly Uses Trayvon Martin Killing To Go On A Tirade Against African Americans And President Obama

    http://www.newshounds.us/bill_o_reilly_uses_trayvon_martin_killing_to_go_on_a_tirade_against_african_americans_and_president_obama_07222013

    "    It was wrong for Zimmerman to confront Martin based on his appearance. But the culture that we have in this country does lead to criminal profiling because young black American men are so often involved in crime. The statistics – overwhelming! But here’s the headline: Young black men commit homicides at a rate 10 times greater than whites and Hispanics combined. Presented with damning evidence like that, and like the many Holocausts in Chicago, where hundreds of African Americans are murdered each year, the civil rights industry looks the other way or makes excuses.

    They blame guns, poor education, lack of jobs. Rarely do they define the problem accurately. So here it is: The reason there is so much violence and chaos in the black precincts is the disintegration of the African American family. Right now, about 73% of all black babies are born out of wedlock. That drives poverty and the lack of involved fathers leads to young boys crowing up resentful and unsupervised. When was the last time you saw a public service ad telling young black girls to avoid becoming pregnant? Has President Obama done such an ad?"

    The video is 7 minutes at the bottom of the page.
  • Con_Alma
    BoatShoes;1477215 wrote:Reasonable, prudent people are overly cautious. They don't do their best Spiderman/Batman impersonations. A reasonable, prudent person does not "follow" or investigate "unknown persons". A reasonable, prudent person doesn't get suspicious of a person simply because they are unfamiliar. A reasonable, prudent person would not suspect a person of wrongdoing simply for walking leisurely through yards at 7:00pm at night. A reasonable, prudent person doesn't follow or suspect potential criminality from an unknown person in a neighborhood at 7pm. It is not reasonable to infer that someone is up to no good because of a hasty generalization due to recent criminality in totally unrelated and separate incidents. A reasonable, prudent person at most would've called the police (and that is being generous as they probably wouldn't have done that) and certainly wouldn't have gotten out of the car.

    And, anyway that is why the black community is so up in arms. White men in suits walking leisurely aren't "followed", reported to the police and subject to unlawful arrests by vigilantes, etc. There was no good reason to suspect any criminal mischief. Zero. But, this was a black kid in a hoodie walking "leisurely".

    And even then, even if we accept that GZ could be somewhat justified in his belief that TM was a potential criminal (which you can't)...calling the police should have been the end of it period. He is not a police officer empowered by the people of Florida to lawfully arrest. This was not some kind of emergency scenario wherein reliance on normal police was impractical or created the substantial risk of the loss of life, etc. If he was really suspicious of crime, attempting to locate/follow/see where the potential criminal went was an irrational and dangerous move and not at all benign.

    GZ was not guilty of a crime based on the evidence available but he was neither reasonable nor prudent.
    He doesn't have to be a criminal to follow him.

    It is reasonable to follow anyone that isn't known based on the recent events in the neighborhood.

    It has nothing to do with determining how old the person is, if they are up to no good or not, should they be there or not. None of those things matter.
  • SportsAndLady
    Raw Dawgin' it;1477255 wrote:Bill O’Reilly Uses Trayvon Martin Killing To Go On A Tirade Against African Americans And President Obama

    http://www.newshounds.us/bill_o_reilly_uses_trayvon_martin_killing_to_go_on_a_tirade_against_african_americans_and_president_obama_07222013

    "    It was wrong for Zimmerman to confront Martin based on his appearance. But the culture that we have in this country does lead to criminal profiling because young black American men are so often involved in crime. The statistics – overwhelming! But here’s the headline: Young black men commit homicides at a rate 10 times greater than whites and Hispanics combined. Presented with damning evidence like that, and like the many Holocausts in Chicago, where hundreds of African Americans are murdered each year, the civil rights industry looks the other way or makes excuses.

    They blame guns, poor education, lack of jobs. Rarely do they define the problem accurately. So here it is: The reason there is so much violence and chaos in the black precincts is the disintegration of the African American family. Right now, about 73% of all black babies are born out of wedlock. That drives poverty and the lack of involved fathers leads to young boys crowing up resentful and unsupervised. When was the last time you saw a public service ad telling young black girls to avoid becoming pregnant? Has President Obama done such an ad?"

    The video is 7 minutes at the bottom of the page.
    This is fantastic and absolutely correct.

    It's a joke how many excuses I hear here in Chicago about the murders. No one blames it on the real problem.
  • BoatShoes
    Con_Alma;1477260 wrote:He doesn't have to be a criminal to follow him.

    It is reasonable to follow anyone that isn't known based on the recent events in the neighborhood.

    It has nothing to do with determining how old the person is, if they are up to no good or not, should they be there or not. None of those things matter.
    No, it is not. It is a gambler's fallacy and not a method of reasoning employed by a reasonable, prudent person. Separate, independent break-ins do not affect the likelihood that TM walking around gives rise to a reasonable suspicion of crime. At best, GZ could have been justified for calling the police because of a suspicious person (Nevermind that TM was barely suspicious at best because he was meandering through yards). A cautious and prudent person who was not empowered by the people of Florida to investigate crimes and put the police power into effect in the form of an arrest was not reasonable in pursuing him.

    GZ wasn't going to be following a Meter guy he didn't recognize! He didn't follow TM simply because he "didn't know him". People don't call the police on strangers simply because they don't recognize them...and that is not reasonable behavior anyway. That is borderline paranoid. He called the police and pursued Martin after he apparently started running because he suspected (unreasonably) that he was up to something...because he was walking in between the houses leisurely in the rain, etc.
  • Raw Dawgin' it
    BoatShoes;1477327 wrote:No, it is not. It is a gambler's fallacy and not a method of reasoning employed by a reasonable, prudent person. Separate, independent break-ins do not affect the likelihood that TM walking around gives rise to a reasonable suspicion of crime. At best, GZ could have been justified for calling the police because of a suspicious person (Nevermind that TM was barely suspicious at best because he was meandering through yards). A cautious and prudent person who was not empowered by the people of Florida to investigate crimes and put the police power into effect in the form of an arrest was not reasonable in pursuing him.

    GZ wasn't going to be following a Meter guy he didn't recognize! He didn't follow TM simply because he "didn't know him". People don't call the police on strangers simply because they don't recognize them...and that is not reasonable behavior anyway. That is borderline paranoid. He called the police and pursued Martin after he apparently started running because he suspected (unreasonably) that he was up to something...because he was walking in between the houses leisurely in the rain, etc.
    TM punched GZ in the face, which makes all this irrelevant.
  • Con_Alma
    BoatShoes;1477327 wrote:No, it is not. It is a gambler's fallacy and not a method of reasoning employed by a reasonable, prudent person. Separate, independent break-ins do not affect the likelihood that TM walking around gives rise to a reasonable suspicion of crime. At best, GZ could have been justified for calling the police because of a suspicious person (Nevermind that TM was barely suspicious at best because he was meandering through yards). A cautious and prudent person who was not empowered by the people of Florida to investigate crimes and put the police power into effect in the form of an arrest was not reasonable in pursuing him.

    GZ wasn't going to be following a Meter guy he didn't recognize! He didn't follow TM simply because he "didn't know him". People don't call the police on strangers simply because they don't recognize them...and that is not reasonable behavior anyway. That is borderline paranoid. He called the police and pursued Martin after he apparently started running because he suspected (unreasonably) that he was up to something...because he was walking in between the houses leisurely in the rain, etc.

    We disagree.

    Based on what had happen in the neighborhood in the past...I'm following you. You are an unknown person. I'm calling the police and following you and it's reasonable to do so.

    You don't have to be empowered to investigate or arrest to do so. A meter guy would be checking meters. If you are leisurely walking through houses in the rain...I'm following you.