Another bite of the Zimmerman apple?

[carwreck]

Originally Posted By: TrevorS
Which is why the police advised GZ not to follow TM and instigate an incident.

During cross examination, the dispatcher admitted that some of his questions prior to "following" could have been interpreted by GZ as the reason that GZ began to follow.

Watch the entire trial including the material that was not given to the jury. It is on youtube without comments.

For the "do not follow", see youtube "ZIMMERMAN TRIAL - 911 DISPATCHER TAKES THE STAND" posted by Phil Owens.
In particular, this is the testimony from the dispatch operator that talked to Zimmerman.
Defense questions start at 16:30 (Warning, this includes "these a--h---- always get away" )

1. The "police" did not tell him "not to follow". (The dispatch operator is not a policeman, cannot give police orders).
2. Operator tells Zimmerman "let me know if he does anything else".
3. Operator asks Zimmerman "Which way did he go...Are you following him ? .... We don't need you to do that"
4. Zimmerman replies "ok". He then tells dispatcher that he will meet the police.

Defense questions about "which way is he running" and "let me know if he does anything else" ( 28:18 ).
Dispatcher acknowledges that someone may interpret that as instructions to follow !

 

[aquariuscsm]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Justice HAS been served


^This. He messed with the wrong person this time and got what he desreved.

 

[itguy08]

Originally Posted By: Nick R
Yeah because if it's nighttime, and you are being followed, you are likely to walk up to them to start a chat.


I'm sure as [censored] not going to start a fight either....

 

[Nick R]

Originally Posted By: itguy08
Originally Posted By: Nick R
Yeah because if it's nighttime, and you are being followed, you are likely to walk up to them to start a chat.


I'm sure as [censored] not going to start a fight either....


I shouldn't even say anything because others are going to beleive what they want to (ie that Martin was a thug who started it and deserved to get shot) so whatever. But again, there is no evidence that is true. I'm not saying convict GZ, but I think that basing your entire opinion of what happened off of his testimony is a little silly. There was plenty of stuff presented by the prosecution during the trial that gives reason to doubt GZ claims- even if not enough to convict.

He wanted to be a cop, and failed numerous times, being the big one. All I'm saying is, it's foolish to say "well TM deserved it because he followed GZ" when it's clearly in the defendants interests to say that. I will doubt what he says, since there is no evidence otherwise and say what is POSSIBLE and just as likely. In other words, it's still entirely possible that GZ started the fight, and TM knocked him down in response.

Why don't we all use some common sense and think about this critically for a minute, instead of just blindly beleiving GZ version of events. Sure there isn't evidence that GZ did commit

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Zimmerman has a criminal history that included violence; domestic violence and assaulting a police officer. FWIW. Like I said before, neither one was/is a choir boy.


And if you would really research the headlines you would see that his Assaulting an officer charge was a ridiculous trumped up charge for sure.

And GZ's history was completely admissible while TM's was excluded! Completely unfair in every way. TM was just learning how good he was in a fight, it's all out there to see if you just look for it.

GZ tutored Black children in his home. He was absolutely not the bad guy here. Some juror comments are out there that explain their reasoning, everyone here has a snapshot of news coverage they are using for a basis and it is incomplete at best. The FBI interviewed over 30 people and concluded the man was absolutely not evil. This thing was investigated to death and tried under very prejudicial circumstances and he still was found NOT GUILTY...

 

[HerrStig]

Originally Posted By: JOD
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI

100% dead on right. It is DISGUSTING what they are doing( or thinking of doing ). Just so wrong on so many levels I wouldn't know where to begin. It sickens me.


I think it's "DISGUSTING" what they're doing, even though they haven't actually done anything (besides look at whether or not there is a civil rights case which should be considered). Umm....OK.

Please, can people save all of this indignation for if and when they actually charge GZ, or is it just OK to think about it and then be mad about it? It's funny, this whole thread has just deteriorated into another "he was looking for it by being a thug and walking around at 2:00 AM" thread. WHOSE not letting it go??? Time to look in the mirror, folks.
The "justice" Department sending a group of government (taxpayer) paid agitators down to Florida was doing "nothing"?

 

[HerrStig]

Originally Posted By: BISCUT
Originally Posted By: dishdude
I think he should have been convicted in Florida, but don't agree with the Feds pressing charges.

Personally I think he is guilty and a reckless individual, and he sure was able to fool the totally incompetent Sanford PD.



Please elaborate on he "totally incompetent Sanford PD."

Fact is they followed the law despite the political pressure of a community activist and it cost the chief his job. He is an example of what we all need for upper mngt in a PD. One who will NOT cower to the political correct or the "will" of a sect of people. What your missing is he did what no politician will do....he would not falter and abdicate his sworn obligation even in the face of special interest groups. AND when the local DA got the case, they too refused to press charges. It was a bad case from day 1.

Law is emotionless yet most continue to present feeling and emotion. Most had already made up their mind due to the media reports. I went back and forth as well after hearing the see - saw of nonsense that was spewed our way. Its human nature.

But not matter what you feel he was set free...that is a verdict that should be respected as it was legitimately come about. THis case reaks of whats wrong in America in so many facets on both sides. Yet we all keep on doing the same [censored] thing and expecting a different result. Isn't that the definition of ignorance??

Our politicians want and NEED this divide. Keeps us all busy and off of how they are screwing us. All of them, not just D's or R's. If I'm and educator in FL how do you not be embarrassed when a 19 year old woman, speaking English, had to have subtitles for the rest of the world to understand what she was saying? That is a school district failure which is a failure of society as a whole.

This once case has us all in a frenzy, yet 500 children dead in Chicago warrants barely a blerb in the media...oh wait, political. Yet in Mexico over 50k dead and that's not anything we involve ourselves in. Are we that ignorant and numb as a nation we only ponder what the media sets before us?

Maybe it's me...and I'm sure you will flame my [censored] but IDC what side you are on there are two adults (under the law they are adults) who BOTH engaged in an event unwittingly knowing how bad it would turn out. Either way BOTH knowingly engaged. This was a street not someones private property. Why aren't we outraged and publicizing events that occur in all states with a 100% unknowing victim and true perpetrator with clear and present malice?? Because the media didn't say we need to stand uo and scream?

+1

 

[HerrStig]

Originally Posted By: 65cuda
So that gives him the right to keep following on foot another person that also legally there in the gated community? For his efforts he now has killed a person and will live wondering if someone will try to get payback. Also if you believe that Fox has been professional in its coverage must not have really been paying attention. Fox is every bit as unprofessional on its side of the fence as the mainstream media is.
So it's against the law to follow someone on private property, where YOU have a right to be, this was a gated community where the STREETS are not city owned. He had EVERY right to follow someone there. EVERY right.

 

[HerrStig]

Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: 97tbird
911 tells GZ not to follow, and he does JUST that, and ends up killing TM.
He should have been punished - he didn't even testify, guilty as [censored].
His life will never be the same though; and he deserves it.


Factually incorrect. A common misconception from the press portrayal. When the 911 dispatcher told Zimmerman to stop following, he stopped following and started to return to his truck.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin

Zimmerman was jumped by Martin when he was returning to his truck. They fought. Zimmerman had done nothing illegal at this point. Martin just did. Zimmerman was losing the fight quickly and felt his life was threatened.

What did Zimmerman say to the police when they told him they had videotaped the shooting? Please look it up.

What is so difficult to comprehend about these facts? The jury heard the truth. They came to the only sensible verdict. Yet you won't believe it. Why??? +1

Here's the disgusting part:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/07/16/DOJ-phone-call-Zimmerman

What about Zimmerman's civil rights????
+ 1

 

[HerrStig]

Originally Posted By: oldhp
If no media in this case, nobody would commenting here.
Example; Look up Jacqueline Gardner. She was murdered for her tip money. I'll leave it there, you can look it up. Where was this on the "great news media"?????
A very sad case BUT, it doesn't fit the liberal vote pandering agenda.

 

[Mystic]

The mainstream news media, the politicians, and the civil rights people need to find a better racial civil rights case than this. They are going to make themselves look silly. The FBI has already investigated Zimmerman and they found nothing. NBC News may be sued because of the doctoring of the audio track. CNN may be sued. There is evidence that there was an attempt to conceal some evidence from the defense.

If they were smart they would back off and find another case.

 

[friendly_jacek]

This is funny how brain is biased by skin color. You can tell from reading this thread which BITOG member is white vs black.

My own 2 cents: Government has too many big problems on hands to waste time scheming to put GZ behind bars at this point.

On the other had, some politicians can benefit from this diversion.

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: Dwight_Frye
If you disagree with the verdict it means you are incapable of understanding that he was fairly tried and acquitted. You may think he was guilty of "something" and may want to convict him for a lot of his actions, but are you so dense so as not to realize that if any of those things had been crimes he surely would have been charged with them ?
His guilt or innocence is not just a matter of opinion. If you disagree, it's because you are wrong. Get over it and pay attention next time.


There is a law here that non white people cannot own property in one of the city. I've also seen laws that disallow alcohol sales on Sunday, or disallow hanging men and women underwear together.

If you do disagree it's because you are wrong. Give me a break.

All it takes is a majority of voters or elected officials to decide on whether to pass a law and it becomes a law. Whether it is constitutional or not is a different matter. Whether it backfired on unintended consequence is another matter (i.e. if you provoke someone and get attacked, are you self defending?).

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
This is funny how brain is biased by skin color. You can tell from reading this thread which BITOG member is white vs black.

My own 2 cents: Government has too many big problems on hands to waste time scheming to put GZ behind bars at this point.

On the other had, some politicians can benefit from this diversion.


Am I white or black? It is obvious that you are the one that accuse people of biased on skin color.

What if someone thinks both GZ and OJ should have been guilty? Is he or she black or white?

 

[itguy08]

Originally Posted By: Nick R

I shouldn't even say anything because others are going to beleive what they want to (ie that Martin was a thug who started it and deserved to get shot) so whatever. But again, there is no evidence that is true. I'm not saying convict GZ, but I think that basing your entire opinion of what happened off of his testimony is a little silly. There was plenty of stuff presented by the prosecution during the trial that gives reason to doubt GZ claims- even if not enough to convict.


I believe there was no evidence on Martin (bruising, etc) that indicated Zimmerman ever touched him other than the shot. There was none of Martin's skin on Zimmerman or other evidence that suggested Zimmerman started it. Even the testimony of the phone call from Martin's girlfriend points to him starting it.

Why is their such a wanting to make it seem like it was Zimmerman who started the fight? Is it because he is older? Is it because Martin was "just a kid"? Or is it something else. Had it been 2 whites, 2 blacks, 2 latinos, we would have no issue with saying what it truly is - a fight that got out of control and someone was defending themself.

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: 123Saab
Lets just all start following "Suspicious" people and confront them while carrying arms, Just to make sure law abiding citizens that do carry arms can be even more stereotyped...

God forbid we actually admit The zimmerman case had nothing to do with guns or stand your ground.

The only reason this whole thing happened was because of his poor judgement. Period.


I probably am the only one that think it all has to do with stand your ground and gun rights.

It wouldn't have happened if the so call neighborhood watch is done with multiple people at the same time (at church we ONLY approach and help homeless when in a team of 2 adults or more for safety).

I also think irresponsible handling of gun (having a law that shield me from using it as I please, so I don't need to think twice before pulling it out) give GZ the false sense of security and make him trigger happy so he dare to go close to people he normally wouldn't approach.

IMO if it is necessary to carry a gun to patrol a place outside of your normal routine, you shouldn't, and the place should hire armed security that's trained and not emotionally attached for the job.

I would have said the same thing if GZ is black and TM is white, or if both of them are black or white. It is all about knucklehead playing cops that gets him into trouble and killing someone when the whole thing could be avoided. Now the court says not guilty, but GZ is part of the blame due to his recklessness and therefore should be held responsible (at least partially) to the loss of TM's family.

 

[DBMaster]

Here in Texas if you approached a "suspicious" person you would most likely end up being the one on the "Justice for..." posters.

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Originally Posted By: Dwight_Frye
If you disagree with the verdict it means you are incapable of understanding that he was fairly tried and acquitted. You may think he was guilty of "something" and may want to convict him for a lot of his actions, but are you so dense so as not to realize that if any of those things had been crimes he surely would have been charged with them ?
His guilt or innocence is not just a matter of opinion. If you disagree, it's because you are wrong. Get over it and pay attention next time.


There is a law here that non white people cannot own property in one of the city. I've also seen laws that disallow alcohol sales on Sunday, or disallow hanging men and women underwear together.

If you do disagree it's because you are wrong. Give me a break.

All it takes is a majority of voters or elected officials to decide on whether to pass a law and it becomes a law. Whether it is constitutional or not is a different matter. Whether it backfired on unintended consequence is another matter (i.e. if you provoke someone and get attacked, are you self defending?).



You're confusing a law with a jury decision.

All states allow the right to self defense. Self defense is allowed if you reasonably believe (knowing only what could have been known to you at the time, not knowing things that become known later) you are threatened with death or grave physical injury. A threat must have all 3 components: 1. Ability to do that harm, 2. the opportunity to do that harm and 3. the intent to do that harm.

In hitting GZ while he was on top of him, TM clearly demonstrated all 3 elements of a threat. Regardless of how they got there, the defense showed that GZ was presented with a threat to his life.

The prosecution had to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt: That GZ did NOT reasonably fear for his life/grave injury. They failed to do so.

So GZ was found innocent. The American legal system operates on a presumption of innocence, despite the willingness of so many to determine the guilt of various parties based on incomplete, and often agenda-driven, facts in the press...

Let's walk through a case in which the situation is equally confusing: Joe breaks into my house - clear criminal act (felony, in fact). I hear Joe. I get my shotgun and rack it. Joe wisely decides to flee. I pursue him into the street.

At this point, the felon, the instigator of this confrontation, Joe, is presented with a clear threat: I have demonstrated my ability (shotgun), opportunity (proximity) and intent (I pursued him when he tried to withdraw).

So, Joe shoots me in self-defense. Joe is acquitted...

This kind of case has happened many times. Sure, Joe was not acting according to the law, but all the stuff that he did before the pursuit does not change the fact that I now threatened his life and he acted in self-defense. Is Joe guilty of a felony? Sure, but he's NOT guilty of murder because he reasonably feared for his life when I came after him. Everyone understands my actions, everyone gets how I must feel after the B&E, but that doesn't change the simple fact that my decision to pursue Joe made ME a threat to HIM.

Stand your ground doesn't change that right of self-defense one bit, it simply clarifies that you don't have to flee before you are able to act in self-defense. It recognizes that an individual may not be able to flee and that the attempt to withdraw from a situation is not a prerequisite to lethal force in self defense.

And we all have the right to self defense...the gun is often the only means by which a person can act on that right...it's the only way that the right can be enforced against a larger, stronger or more numerous set of assailants.

 

[HerrStig]

Why is it,though ignored by the hand wringers and political panderers, that the "bad guy", Zimmerman, is on the phone to the "authorities" reporting a suspicious person while the "good guy", (according to the hand wringers anyway) is on the phone to his "3.0" girly friend. I suppose ya don't call "911" when you are getting ready to jump a "creepy cracker", eh?

 

[HerrStig]

And, BTW, for the edification of all the hand wringers and panderers, the CIVILIAN telephone operators at the answering service known as "911" are NOT cops, have NO police powers, and aren't supposed to "order" anybody to do anything.