The "Hoodie" Incident: Controversial? Racist? - Part 2

[roach]

So after a week of testimony:

Has anyone changed their opinion of guilt or innocent of 2nd degree murder based on the evidence shown in court?
If you believe innocent what do you need to hear or say to change your mind?
if you believe guilty of 2nd degree murder what do you need to hear or say to change your mind?

 

[roach]

This is the factor that I don't get, and unfortunately we can't get the other side of the story either. People are quick to say it was self-defense for Zimmerman - how was it not self defense for Trayvon either? He was the one being pursued by some stranger in the middle of the night.

if we take the murder out of this scenario.
If I am walking down the street and a guy is following me...if I confront the guy and beat him up...I will be arrested when the cops come...

 

[Thundercrack85]

Well, the question shouldn't be whether or not he is guilty, it should be what is he guilty of. Manslaughter or murder.

I don't think they have enough to convict him of murder. That's not to say I think he's innocent of it, they just don't have enough evidence. Manslaughter, on the other hand...

They over-charged, and as a result, he might walk.

 

[roach]

Well, the question shouldn't be whether or not he is guilty, it should be what is he guilty of. Manslaughter or murder.

I don't think they have enough to convict him of murder. That's not to say I think he's innocent of it, they just don't have enough evidence. Manslaughter, on the other hand...

They over-charged, and as a result, he might walk.

I stand corrected...you are 100% right. I guess I should modify it to guilty of 2nd degree murder

 

[Thundercrack85]

The last witness (or I should say the last witness I read about, following the star witness), sort of rocked the boat, by backing up most of Zimmerman's story (except the part of having his head bashed into the pavement... which is odd).

I don't think they have enough to convict for murder.

 

[dodgers2213]

except the part of having his head bashed into the pavement... which is odd.

Sure but it doesn't matter since the damage to Zimmerman's head, broken nose, etc, all physical evidence support Zimmerman. Also the fact Trayvon's damage, other than the gun shot, were cuts on his knuckles. Any holes in the what someone witnessed is just what you would expect, as witnesses are the least credible evidence in any case.

I can see man slaughter, but I definitely believe this is self-defense by George Zimmerman.
The media carefully edited the tapes to make it seem like Zimmerman was pursuing and was this over zelous guy blah blah blah, but extended tapes had the operator telling Zimmerman to "KEEP AN EYE" on the suspect, and later when he told the operator that he was following and they said so famously "we don't need you to do that", he says "OKAY" and stops following!
Most people would never know this, because the media didn't give you the entire story. The story was WHITE MAN (later termed White-Hispanic, go figure that) kills unarmed black CHILD. Bunk

 

[eddy]

Well, the question shouldn't be whether or not he is guilty, it should be what is he guilty of. Manslaughter or murder.

I don't think they have enough to convict him of murder. That's not to say I think he's innocent of it, they just don't have enough evidence. Manslaughter, on the other hand...

They over-charged, and as a result, he might walk.

I agree with you. He might get away with his tail in between his legs and go into hiding. Can TM's family sue him for negligence still?

 

[roach]

The last witness (or I should say the last witness I read about, following the star witness), sort of rocked the boat, by backing up most of Zimmerman's story (except the part of having his head bashed into the pavement... which is odd).

I don't think they have enough to convict for murder.

as I said before in this thread I have yet to see a witness called up by the prosecution that didn't help out the defense more...John Good should have been labeled the defense's star witness.

 

[roach]

I agree with you. He might get away with his tail in between his legs and go into hiding. Can TM's family sue him for negligence still?

not sure
but then again I had saw a case where a man broke into someone's home and the homeowner shot and killed him and the would be burglar's family sued

 

[Thundercrack85]

I agree with you. He might get away with his tail in between his legs and go into hiding. Can TM's family sue him for negligence still?

The Martin family already settled with Zimmerman's homeowner's association over wrongful death, so I don't know.

 

[eddy]

My former brother in law actually shot and killed a man who broke into his house a few years ago(it was mutiple men he shot but if my understanding is right then only one of them died from their wounds) and had to go to trial but he got off/was proven innocent. Its funny to me because I'm against Zimmerman in this trial but if someone was breaking into my house then I would probably do the same as my BIL if I had a gun(I don't.) But if I saw some guy walking around houses on my street acting funny, I wouldn't follow them for several blocks. I'd probably say something to them "hey you, what are you doing over there?!" and they'd most likely leave and that would be it for me.

 

[roach]

The Martin family already settled with Zimmerman's homeowner's association over wrongful death, so I don't know.

I think it depends on the self defense component.

 

[Thundercrack85]

My former brother in law actually shot and killed a man who broke into his house a few years ago(it was mutiple men he shot but if my understanding is right then only one of them died from their wounds) and had to go to trial but he got off/was proven innocent. Its funny to me because I'm against Zimmerman in this trial but if someone was breaking into my house then I would probably do the same as my BIL if I had a gun(I don't.) But if I saw some guy walking around houses on my street acting funny, I wouldn't follow them for several blocks. I'd probably say something to them "hey you, what are you doing over there?!" and they'd most likely leave and that would be it for me.

Were they armed? If they were I assume he lived in a state that doesn't have castle doctrine? In most states, if someone breaks into your house with a weapon, you can literally decapitate them the second they step over the threshold.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

I think people are making way too much out of Good's testimony.

1.) While he did testify that Martin was on top, other witnesses have testified that Zimmerman was on top. Various reports probably ends up meaning that during the scuffle, either man was on top at some point in time. This doesn't mean that Trayvon was beating Zimmerman in a life threatening attack.

2.) Good also testified that he wasn't "sure" that it was Zimmerman crying for help, only that he assumed as much. He also never said he saw for sure any sort of physical attack from the person on top, because it was too dark. None of Good's testimony shows that Zimmerman was in a position of needing to defend himself through deadly means.

Other points:

3.) One of the medical people on the scene testified about Zimmerman's wounds, and didn't give any sort of indication that he had life threatening wounds. Also, the testimony to the fact that Zimmerman declined going to the hospital is a serious indicator that he did not feel very strongly about the severity of his wounds.

4.) Trying to discredit the "happy" pictures of Trayvon Martin is a joke. Using "happy" Martin pictures is no more manipulative than the other side using "thug" Martin pictures.

5.) This whole thing is still forgetting the fact that Zimmerman pursued Martin without cause, as he was not authorized to do so, and created the confrontation in the first place.

For another question, is this jury made up of only 6 people? I thought a jury was supposed to be 12.

 

[Ant-manic]

So after a week of testimony:

Has anyone changed their opinion of guilt or innocent of 2nd degree murder based on the evidence shown in court?
If you believe innocent what do you need to hear or say to change your mind?
if you believe guilty of 2nd degree murder what do you need to hear or say to change your mind?

i need to hear that he didn't call police on this kid who was just minding his own business. i need to hear that he didn't make it his business to harrass this kid.

 

[eddy]

Were they armed? If they were I assume he lived in a state that doesn't have castle doctrine? In most states, if someone breaks into your house with a weapon, you can literally decapitate them the second they step over the threshold.

Not sure if they were armed. It was Tennessee.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Good god...just watched the Rachael Gaentel testimony...is she stoned, or just...special? it seems like she's getting dumb and dumber by the questions LOL

Isn't she supposed to be a witness for the prosecution?

Or, English isn't her first language.

This is the factor that I don't get, and unfortunately we can't get the other side of the story either. People are quick to say it was self-defense for Zimmerman - how was it not self defense for Trayvon either? He was the one being pursued by some stranger in the middle of the night.

Yes, people are quick to forget that Zimmerman was the aggressor by following and confronting Trayvon in the first place.

So after a week of testimony:

Has anyone changed their opinion of guilt or innocent of 2nd degree murder based on the evidence shown in court?
If you believe innocent what do you need to hear or say to change your mind?
if you believe guilty of 2nd degree murder what do you need to hear or say to change your mind?

Nope, nothing has come out or has been said that indicates to me that he is not guilty. I still firmly believe Zimmerman is guilty of murder.

Nothing has come out to show me that he didn't pursue Martin, and that he didn't initiate the confrontation with Martin after pursuit. Even if Martin did do all that damage to Zimmerman, I am not convinced that it was self defense because Zimmerman initiated this whole thing. If anything, it was self defense from Martin who was pursued, approached, and confronted by some random person who he'd never seen before and was obviously posing a threat to him.

Sure but it doesn't matter since the damage to Zimmerman's head, broken nose, etc, all physical evidence support Zimmerman. Also the fact Trayvon's damage, other than the gun shot, were cuts on his knuckles. Any holes in the what someone witnessed is just what you would expect, as witnesses are the least credible evidence in any case.

I can see man slaughter, but I definitely believe this is self-defense by George Zimmerman.
The media carefully edited the tapes to make it seem like Zimmerman was pursuing and was this over zelous guy blah blah blah, but extended tapes had the operator telling Zimmerman to "KEEP AN EYE" on the suspect, and later when he told the operator that he was following and they said so famously "we don't need you to do that", he says "OKAY" and stops following!
Most people would never know this, because the media didn't give you the entire story. The story was WHITE MAN (later termed White-Hispanic, go figure that) kills unarmed black CHILD. Bunk

He absolutely did pursue, you can hear him getting out of the car, he tells the dispatcher that he won't be where he was told to meet the cops, and instead tells the dispatcher to have the cops call him when they arrive so he can inform them where he's at, and the fact that he was even in confrontation with Martin in the first place instead of at his vehicle awaiting the arrival of the police is proof that he pursued.

 

[dodgers2213]

Evidence doesn't support that Zimmerman was on top of Treyvon, he had no damage to his hands that would support he was beating on him.
Photos of the scene and AFTER Zimmerman was with police (so injuries healed some)
http://jacksonville.com/slideshows/...ge-zimmermans-injuries-shooting-scene#slide-1

Slide15 curiously edited to hide some of Zim's bleeding at the scene, so here is a better picture
http://www.nypost.com/rw/nypost/2012/12/04/news/web_photos/04.2n022.Zimmerman--300x300.jpg

So with this damage sustained, damage to Trayvon's fists, gun powder on Trayvon's clothes indicating close firing of the pistol, all this evidence support Zimmerman's story. Along with longer tapes of Zimmerman complying with operator's, also support Zimmerman's story that he was returning to his truck when Trayvon attacked him from behind.

All this points to self-defense. Sorry people, but Zimmerman walks.

 

[dodgers2213]

He absolutely did pursue, you can hear him getting out of the car, he tells the dispatcher that he won't be where he was told to meet the cops, and instead tells the dispatcher to have the cops call him when they arrive so he can inform them where he's at, and the fact that he was even in confrontation with Martin in the first place instead of at his vehicle awaiting the arrival of the police is proof that he pursued.

You're not playing attention to the case. Zimmerman on the extended tape says "okay" after the famous "we don't need you to do that". The sound of him following ends there

 

[Thundercrack85]

Not sure if they were armed. It was Tennessee.

Probably not then. In Tennessee you could probably get away with eating an armed intruder.

 

[Thundercrack85]

You're not playing attention to the case. Zimmerman on the extended tape says "okay" after the famous "we don't need you to do that". This "pursuit", "stalking" thing, is bunk. No case

Didn't Zimmerman claim that Martin confronted him as he was walking back to his car?

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

You're not playing attention to the case. Zimmerman on the extended tape says "okay" after the famous "we don't need you to do that". The sound of him following ends there

No it doesn't. His "okay" is in what you call an "edited" tape also.

But if he didn't pursue, then why wasn't he at his vehicle awaiting the police? Why did he tell the dispatcher he wouldn't be at the location he was told to meet the police, and instead for the cops to call him? If he didn't pursue, why were he and Trayvon in an confrontation in the first place nowhere near where Zimmerman's car was located?

 

[Victarion]

I'd need to see that Zimmerman came at Trayvon unprovoked, brandishing the gun and wasn't subsequently attacked to move past the opinion that both of them dun goof'd.

 

[roach]

More questions:

Regardless on which side fall on who do you think is doing a better job? Prosecution or Defense?

 

[jacobed]

Evidence doesn't support that Zimmerman was on top of Treyvon, he had no damage to his hands that would support he was beating on him.
Photos of the scene and AFTER Zimmerman was with police (so injuries healed some)
http://jacksonville.com/slideshows/...ge-zimmermans-injuries-shooting-scene#slide-1

Slide15 curiously edited to hide some of Zim's bleeding at the scene, so here is a better picture
http://www.nypost.com/rw/nypost/2012/12/04/news/web_photos/04.2n022.Zimmerman--300x300.jpg

So with this damage sustained, damage to Trayvon's fists, gun powder on Trayvon's clothes indicating close firing of the pistol, all this evidence support Zimmerman's story. Along with longer tapes of Zimmerman complying with operator's, also support Zimmerman's story that he was returning to his truck when Trayvon attacked him from behind.

All this points to self-defense. Sorry people, but Zimmerman walks.

Agreed, he's innocent of murder. I've been saying it since day 1. Definitely not murder.