Florida State Seminoles

[eCat]

here is another thing to think about.

what if Zimmerman didn't have a gun and play out the same scenario.

One, if he didn't have a gun - and this is the bold part that is probably most reasonable - he wouldn't have left the car. Pure conjecture on my part but I think having the gun gave him the nerve to leave the car.

but lets play it out the same way just without a gun.

In this situation however, without a gun, Trayvon Martin beats the shit out of the head of neighborhood watch.

Totally changes the situation. Trayvon is in jail for assault, parents pleas of him being a good kid fall on deaf ears (and they will have to go to some length to prove to the police that he wasn't loitering out there to get into trouble, and his recent issues with school won't help), Zimmerman has to deal with whatever injuries he sustains and Zimmerman is a hero to the community.

[eCat]

you won't think this is a fair question, but do you want justice or a conviction?

Some of your arguments haven't been about what happened but what is admissible in court, it makes me wonder.

I want evidence. I'll make my decision about conviction when I see that. The difference between us is I don't accept his statement for self-defense as fact. If he stood over him and blew him away, he'd make the same statement to the police. Therefore, it means nothing to me. I'll wait for the facts.

As for not testifying, it is extremely risky for Zimmerman to testify in his own defense. There are a lot of things that can come out that otherwise wouldn't be allowed at trial. For example, there is a good chance that his previous problems with the police will be kept out, but he could easily make a mistake during testimony that would make it admissible.

there is evidence all over the place - his bloody head, a witness saying Trayvon was on top with Zimmerman crying out for help - If no one knows who started the confrontation, what is going to be introduced to the jury that will make them think Trayvon *didn't* throw the first punch as Zimmerman stated to the police? Which again goes back to me questioning why there is a trial to begin with. We have alot of information, I just see you ruling some of it out as inadmissible to a court especially if it corroborates Zimmerman's story.

[AlabamAlum]

eCat,

Because the police dispatch was the closest thing to an authority in that situation. When you call PO-PO and they tell you to not pursue, to stand down, you probably should, IMO, absent some overwhelming reason to ignore those instructions. If GZ had listened, he would not be facing an indictment and TM would still be alive. In the end, GZ killed someone who wasn't going to burgle any home and faces a possible prison term.

I"m not arguing that but had Martin not punched GZ, he'd still be alive as well. There are probably 5 other scenarios where if someone didn't do something they'd both be home watching TV tonight. Had Martin not volunteered to be head of neighborhood watch, had he not decided upon advice from Animal Services to get a gun and his CCL. Its ok to talk about what Zimmerman should/n't have done. I'm learning its not kosher to talk about what Martin should or shouldn't have done.

Its debatable to the extent that GZ should have obediently listened to someone who is a dispatcher but not a policeman, but he did not break the law by not listening to them. There are alot of things he probably should have done but all that is out the window if Martin throws the first punch.

All the debate on any actions taken outside of who initiated contact is moot, IMO. Even the whole gun issue on neighborhood watch. He wasn't supposed to have a gun on a non sanctioned neighborhood watch? Is that a state law? He has his CCL. Him carrying a gun was legal. I'll bet you'd be hard pressed to find someone in that neighborhood that would have objected to him having it on him prior to the incident -especially knowing they had a break in to a home with the resident inside with a small child.

A few things, eCat:


1) When I say "complicates" it, I'm not saying GZ is guilty. I am saying if I were a member of a jury, Zimmerman's refusal to follow the (as it turns out, correct) instructions of police dispatch would be something that I considered. When he refused to follow those instructions, did he act in manner that a prudent or reasonable person would? Did he have sufficient reason to ignore their directive and pursue? I don't know.

2) I am a gun owner and a strong proponent of 2nd A rights. I'm okay with him carrying.

3) TM is no angel. He had some skeletons in his closet. For that matter, so does GZ.

4) We have our own beliefs on the matter, but we do not know who initiated contact, and we probably never will.

[eCat]

eCat,

Because the police dispatch was the closest thing to an authority in that situation. When you call PO-PO and they tell you to not pursue, to stand down, you probably should, IMO, absent some overwhelming reason to ignore those instructions. If GZ had listened, he would not be facing an indictment and TM would still be alive. In the end, GZ killed someone who wasn't going to burgle any home and faces a possible prison term.

I"m not arguing that but had Martin not punched GZ, he'd still be alive as well. There are probably 5 other scenarios where if someone didn't do something they'd both be home watching TV tonight. Had Martin not volunteered to be head of neighborhood watch, had he not decided upon advice from Animal Services to get a gun and his CCL. Its ok to talk about what Zimmerman should/n't have done. I'm learning its not kosher to talk about what Martin should or shouldn't have done.

Its debatable to the extent that GZ should have obediently listened to someone who is a dispatcher but not a policeman, but he did not break the law by not listening to them. There are alot of things he probably should have done but all that is out the window if Martin throws the first punch.

All the debate on any actions taken outside of who initiated contact is moot, IMO. Even the whole gun issue on neighborhood watch. He wasn't supposed to have a gun on a non sanctioned neighborhood watch? Is that a state law? He has his CCL. Him carrying a gun was legal. I'll bet you'd be hard pressed to find someone in that neighborhood that would have objected to him having it on him prior to the incident -especially knowing they had a break in to a home with the resident inside with a small child.

A few things, eCat:


1) When I say "complicates" it, I'm not saying GZ is guilty. I am saying if I were a member of a jury, Zimmerman's refusal to follow the (as it turns out, correct) instructions of police dispatch would be something that I considered. When he refused to follow those instructions, did he act in manner that a prudent or reasonable person would? Did he have sufficient reason to ignore their directive and pursue? I don't know.

2) I am a gun owner and a strong proponent of 2nd A rights. I'm okay with him carrying.

3) TM is no angel. He had some skeletons in his closet. For that matter, so does GZ.

4) We have our own beliefs on the matter, but we do not know who initiated contact, and we probably never will.

I was pre-emptively addressing rebuttals to your statements and mine in my response.

Again, this is conjecture, but if animal control told Zimmerman to get a gun for dog protection, what do you think the police told him after they reported a break-in to a home with the resident there, locking themselves in a room with a child?

If I were on a jury, I would ask myself - if you are head of a neighborhood watch, you've reported crimes in process, only to see the police response delayed to the extent the criminal got away, would you stay in the car when someone was walking around - potentially being a criminal that would break in on a female neighbor at home with a small child? I know Martin didn't exhibit any of that behavior that should have lead Zimmerman to think that about him other than he was a black male between the ages of 16 - 28 but given the heightened issue, I can completely understand his logic to follow him.

Would you stay in the car because a dispatcher at the other end of a phone told you to if you were there instead of him?

[AlabamAlum]

Would you stay in the car because a dispatcher at the other end of a phone told you to if you were there instead of him?

I don't know. I would need a good reason to ignore him. I'm not sure that seeing the shady black guy, in and of itself, is enough. In the end, when you ignore that directive, you have to assume some responsibility when you're wrong.

Me chasing down the DUI hit-and-run, for example. I was on the phone with 911 as I gave chase. Funny thing is, they didn't tell me to back off. But if they had, and I ignored them and caused a wreck, or ran the person I was chasing into a ravine where they died - especially, if the person I was chasing was not the actual DUI hit-and-runner - then I have to expect that the members of a jury are going to weigh my refusal to heed instructions and the end result of the chase. Would me citing other DUIs in the area or the fact that I thought the person was drunk, help my case?

[Owlman]

a witness saying Trayvon was on top with Zimmerman crying out for help - If no one knows who started the confrontation

I'll wait for the trial, but the news program I saw on the various witnesses did not have anyone say that Trayvon was on top, just that two people were wrestling and that it was too dark to identify who was who. And that's my point. WE don't have plenty of evidence.

Plus, you keep missing the point. If Zimmerman started the fight, (and there is only Zimmerman's statement to suggest that he didn't), it doesn't matter who is on top. He doesn't get to use deadly force.

[Bklyn]

eCat doesn't believe you...and I didn't read the Dershowitz link to see if he was reading it properly.

[T Dot O Dot]

I've read that one witness hears the cry for help coming Trayvon, not Zim

you know what would be a real good way to flesh all of this out and get to the truth? .......

[eCat]

Would you stay in the car because a dispatcher at the other end of a phone told you to if you were there instead of him?

I don't know. I would need a good reason to ignore him. I'm not sure that seeing the shady black guy, in and of itself, is enough. In the end, when you ignore that directive, you have to assume some responsibility when you're wrong.

Me chasing down the DUI hit-and-run, for example. I was on the phone with 911 as I gave chase. Funny thing is, they didn't tell me to back off. But if they had, and I ignored them and caused a wreck, or ran the person I was chasing into a ravine where they died - especially, if the person I was chasing was not the actual DUI hit-and-runner - then I have to expect that the members of a jury are going to weigh my refusal to heed instructions and the end result of the chase. Would me citing other DUIs in the area or the fact that I thought the person was drunk, help my case?

probably not, but the reason I keep bringing up the home invasion is because that is a line that is crossed.

See, people will tolerate a bike being stolen off your front porch, they'll tolerate your home being broken into while you are away - but you cross a threshold with the resident there, and in this case the resident being a young mother with a small child in the house and its a different set of rules. I believe that Americans are very sympathetic in a situation where people aren't safe in their own homes.

Secondly, in this case, and you may not see a distinction, but for me, Zimmerman handed his card to that woman - and however you want to label it - position of authority, chivalry, etc - I think there was an implied responsibility on his part - at least in his mind. In hindsight of course, we all know Martin was just a typical testosterone filled kid, but Zimmerman just sees someone who matches the description of people that have been committing multiple crimes in their community, one of which was a home invasion of a young mother.

I"m not saying what I would do, because honestly, with all that Zimmerman has put on Martin in that situation, I would be scared shitless of him. A person who crosses a threshold knowing the owner is at home has no regard for their or the owners safety - and that carries some serious weight when considering the idea of following that person (again, I know Martin isn't that person but Zimmerman doesn't know that yet) and potentially engaging them. Zimmerman has been recorded on previous 911 calls asking the police if they were coming because he didn't want to follow this person.

At any rate, I think Zimmerman believes that he has to keep eye contact on Martin to make sure that they don't have another home invasion. And that isn't going to happen with him sitting in the car talking to a guy 10 miles away on his cell phone.

If you were on that jury, would you want a George Zimmerman on neighborhood watch that your daughter, single mother , lived in?

[eCat]

eCat doesn't believe you...and I didn't read the Dershowitz link to see if he was reading it properly.

I'll save you the effort.

"even if Zimmerman was the provocateur, if Zimmerman was then on the ground being beaten by Martin he would have the “traditional right of self defence”." - Dershowitz

[Owlman]

but Zimmerman just sees someone who matches the description of people that have been committing multiple crimes in their community,

Black

[eCat]

but Zimmerman just sees someone who matches the description of people that have been committing multiple crimes in their community,

Black

black male youth

[Owlman]

eCat doesn't believe you...and I didn't read the Dershowitz link to see if he was reading it properly.

I'll save you the effort.

"even if Zimmerman was the provocateur, if Zimmerman was on then on the ground being beaten by Martin he would have the “traditional right of self defence”." - Dershowitz

The prosecutor in my offense says absolutely not and there cases in Florida where they denied the self-defense use among gang bangers who started the fight. Equivalent if Zimmerman started the fight here (plus you don't know if Zimmerman was on the ground.

But according to you, Zimmerman wouldn't have pushed Martin because he had a gun. He would have pulled the gun.

black male youth

Even among police, that is not a probable cause description (as there were black male youths that lived in the neighborhood, including a 13 year old witness). If that all he had, then now you are supporting Bkln's statement that he stereotyped this kid

[eCat]

a witness saying Trayvon was on top with Zimmerman crying out for help - If no one knows who started the confrontation

I'll wait for the trial, but the news program I saw on the various witnesses did not have anyone say that Trayvon was on top, just that two people were wrestling and that it was too dark to identify who was who. And that's my point. WE don't have plenty of evidence.

Plus, you keep missing the point. If Zimmerman started the fight, (and there is only Zimmerman's statement to suggest that he didn't), it doesn't matter who is on top. He doesn't get to use deadly force.

I gave you quotes from a witness earlier today saying Martin was on top. See, I'm sorry but there just seems to be this complete dismissal of information if it supports Zimmerman in any way.

[Owlman]

Hi there. There's a robbery in the area. We're putting out an APB on quote, "Black Male Youth." That's one Black Male Youth to be on the lookout for.

[eCat]

eCat doesn't believe you...and I didn't read the Dershowitz link to see if he was reading it properly.

I'll save you the effort.

"even if Zimmerman was the provocateur, if Zimmerman was on then on the ground being beaten by Martin he would have the “traditional right of self defence”." - Dershowitz

The prosecutor in my offense says absolutely not and there cases in Florida where they denied the self-defense use among gang bangers who started the fight. Equivalent if Zimmerman started the fight here (plus you don't know if Zimmerman was on the ground.

But according to you, Zimmerman wouldn't have pushed Martin because he had a gun. He would have pulled the gun.

black male youth

Even among police, that is not a probable cause description (as there were black male youths that lived in the neighborhood, including a 13 year old witness). If that all he had, then now you are supporting Bkln's statement that he stereotyped this kid

he absolutely stereotyped this kid. No one is ever saying Martin wasn't profiled. But we aren't dealing with the police, we're dealing with a neighborhood watch - who by nature is going to be suspicious of anyone in the neighborhood they don't know, especially a black male youth after a series of crimes in the neighborhood were committed by....black male youth.

its his job to...and stay with me on this...*watch* the neighborhood.

[Owlman]

gave you quotes from a witness earlier today saying Martin was on top. See, I'm sorry but there just seems to be this complete dismissal of information if it supports Zimmerman in any way.

Bullshit. If he testifies to that, I'll include it in my analysis. But pardon me when the supposed witness that saw the shooting said it was too dark to tell in earlier interviews. Now saying that he could tell who was on top of who?? That'll impeach him as a witness.

[Owlman]

First off eCat, his brother said on Piers Morgan that he wasn't on neighborhood watch, (possibly because official neighborhood watches have rules about not carrying a gun).

[eCat]

gave you quotes from a witness earlier today saying Martin was on top. See, I'm sorry but there just seems to be this complete dismissal of information if it supports Zimmerman in any way.

Bullshit. If he testifies to that, I'll include it in my analysis. But pardon me when the supposed witness that saw the shooting said it was too dark to tell in earlier interviews. Now saying that he could tell who was on top of who?? That'll impeach him as a witness.

oh so you did know at one time he said Martin was on top

[AlabamAlum]

eCat,

If Zimmerman had used a tazer, would you be okay with him being found guilty?