Do you think Zimmerman will be convicted of murder?

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
There was no self defense if you are trying to confront a suspect when you were asked to not do so.

What else is there no defense for me to do if I am asked not to? Take part in a protest? Take part in a march? Put my ideas on a website? Go to lunch with a convicted child pornographer? Go listen to an unapproved speaker who is trying to give a lecture?

How did you come to be so slap happy about violating the supreme law of the land, the US Constitution, about making us citizens pawns of the state?

Why lump trayvon into a example as if he were guilty of some crime? Zimmerman assumed that he was guilty of something but had nothing. Only an assumption because of his appearance. Not surprised that you think this is justifyable for following and murder. It seems people just can not see through this vail that strangers or people unknown to you are nothing more than ants worthy of your foot.

1 Reply

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

Oralloy wrote:
The erroneous profile was not the cause of the shooting. The violent assault is what prompted Zimmerman to shoot.

The erroneous profiling was what motivated the subsequent actions on Zimmerman's part that then brought him into contact with a person he wound up killing.

We don't actually know how they came into contact.

If the speculation in that map Parados linked to is correct, Zimmerman stopped pursuing and stayed in the same area after the dispatcher advised him not to follow.

If that speculation is true, then Trayvon would have had to approach Zimmerman.

firefly wrote:

And the last thing the girl heard Martin saying, to Zimmerman, who had just approached him, was, "Get off me, get off me."

We don't know that Zimmerman was the one who approached Trayvon.

If the speculation in the map that Parados linked to is correct, it would have had to have been Trayvon who approached Zimmerman (who according to the map was remaining in the same spot).

firefly wrote:

If Zimmerman wasn't the provocateur, and the instigator, why would Martin have said, "Get off me, get off me" to him?

I think, the only really credible, and logical, interpretation of the events that led to the altercation suggests that Zimmerman's "creepy" and suspicious and confrontational behaviors frightened Martin and provoked an understandable defensive punch in the nose from him. And I believe the final trigger for that defensive/aggressive response by Martin was some action by Zimmerman, either reaching toward his gun, or grabbing Martin's sleeve, because Zimmerman didn't want the kid to get away before the police showed up.

This is speculation though. There is no evidence that it happened that way.

firefly wrote:

Martin had no idea who this crazy man was, or why he was following him--and he understandably perceived Zimmerman as being "suspicious" and a threat to him--which is what he conveyed to his friend on the phone. And I believe that Martin was trying to protect himself, and subdue this threatening man, so he could get away from him and get back to the residence where he was a guest.
I do not believe the assault on Zimmerman was unprovoked by him,

Evidence of such provocation?

firefly wrote:

I do not believe that Zimmerman is guilty of second degree murder, but I do believe he is guilty of manslaughter--he unnecessarily caused the death of Trayvon Martin. I do not believe his action in shooting Martin was legally justifiable self defense--he provoked, and then over-reacted, to what was nothing more than a fairly evenly matched fist fight until he decided to use his gun.

The second degree murder charge is indeed bizarre.

But we need more than speculation that "it might have happened this way" to justify any conviction. We need actual evidence to show that it did happen that way.

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

I just wanted to add that I think a few aspects in this case are neglected to be mentioned.

One is that zimmerman was asked not to follow trayvon which he did anyways.

Where is the evidence that Zimmerman continued to pursue after being advised not to?

The map that Parados linked to makes it look like Zimmerman stopped his pursuit after the dispatcher's advice.

Krumple wrote:

On top of that, he was not an officer, he was a neighborhood watch which are not suppose to get involved in confronting suspected criminal activity. They are suppose to observe and report but never to confront.

And where is the evidence that he confronted him?

Krumple wrote:

So in my opinion this is two extremely strong support against his actions. He purposely persued trayvon

Well, he did so up until the dispatcher advised him that they didn't need him to do that. Evidence seems to be rather thin on him continuing to pursue after that point.

Krumple wrote:

and if you asked me, murdered him.

No. If Zimmerman is culpable for starting the fight with Trayvon, that would make it manslaughter, but this was definitely not murder.

Krumple wrote:

There was no self defense if you are trying to confront a suspect when you were asked to not do so.

Not necessarily. It depends more on who is culpable for instigating the violence.

But supporting evidence is pretty thin on the speculation that Zimmerman continued to pursue after being asked not to, much less on the speculation that he confronted Trayvon.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

hawkeye10 wrote:
What else is there no defense for me to do if I am asked not to? Take part in a protest? Take part in a march? Put my ideas on a website? Go to lunch with a convicted child pornographer? Go listen to an unapproved speaker who is trying to give a lecture?

How did you come to be so slap happy about violating the supreme law of the land, the US Constitution, about making us citizens pawns of the state?

Why lump trayvon into a example as if he were guilty of some crime?

I do not perceive any such lumping in his post.

Krumple wrote:

Zimmerman assumed that he was guilty of something but had nothing. Only an assumption because of his appearance. Not surprised that you think this is justifyable for following and murder.

Not murder. IF it can be shown that Zimmerman started the fight, then manslaughter, but not murder.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Krurmple wrote not Oralloy.

Quote:

Why lump trayvon into a example as if he were guilty of some crime?

Assault with an attempted to do serous damage is a felony so off hand I would say he was likely guilty of a crime.

Second note following someone on a public street is not a crime attacking someone for daring to follow you is a crime..............

2 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Krurmple wrote not Oralloy.

Quote:
Why lump trayvon into a example as if he were guilty of some crime?

Assault with an attempt to do serous damage
is a felony so off hand I would say he was likely guilty of a crime.

Second note following someone on a public street is not a crime
attacking someone for daring to follow you is a crime..............

WELL SAID !

David

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

The funny thing is he was not ask not to follow Trayvon the comment was you do not need to do that!!!!!!

An that comment was issue by someone that had no power granted by the state to issue orders to citizens even if he had done so.

Silly people who think that we so easily can lose the right of self defense.

"The funny thing is" that following someone is something only "silly people" would interpret to be "the right of self defense".

If someone is a threat or a danger to you, you don't follow them, you try to get away from them--avoiding getting closer to the possibly dangerous person would be true self-defense.

If you're really interested in self-defense, you use your brain, not your gun--although, in your case, that woud be admittedly hard to do.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

There are facts in the case that prove that zimmerman followed and gave chase to trayvon. However; you want to ignore these facts. Things like dropped items such as cellphones and papers. It paints of picture of zimmerman actually moving from his car to chase down travyon.

Not only that but there is a witness which is travyons girlfriend who he had called. She told him to run when travyon said to her that he thinks this guy is following him. He told her he didn't want to run and look suspecious but she kept pleading with him to run which he finally did but it was too late because zimmerman had caught up to him and thats when travyon dropped his phone.

I have seen pictures of the crime scene and they document where items belonging to both travyon and zimmerman were found and according to the police when these items were in their possession and most likely dropped in their opinions. It shows that zimmerman was the chaser here while travyon was trying to flee the scene unsuccessfully.

Not only this but neiborhood watch programs specifically suggest that you never follow or persue a suspect if you think they have been involved in a crime. Instead you are suppose to just report to the police what you have witnessed. This is the number one rule that zimmerman broke and should have followed yet neglected to consider because he has a complex. Either he is racist and assumed trayvon was guilty of something or he wants to be a police officer and have a power trip on controling other people.

3 Replies

@Krumple,

Following and giving chase is not one and the same thing and in any case nether actions would justify his assault on Zimmerman.

If he was concern he had a cell phone to call for help either to the police or to his family and he did neither.

Case close he attacked Zimmerman without justification and did his best to do serous harm to Zimmerman therefore Zimmerman was fully justify in his action of self defense.

Perhaps you would attack someone who is following you on the public streets but such a course of action would not even had enter my mind.

4 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

Case close he attacked Zimmerman without justification

You can't justify that statement at all. You have no idea what Zimmerman might have done to provoke an assaultive/defensive response from Martin when they were finally face to face.

That, in fact, is a big part of the reason this case is in court, where it belongs. Your mind is closed, the case isn't.

You're simply choosing to believe Zimmerman's account, and he's a man who has already been shown to have credibility problems.

2 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

You're simply choosing to believe Zimmerman's account, and he's a man who has already been shown to have credibility problems

His is the only account we know exists. It might be that the evidence has something to say, but as the days go by with no leaks claiming that it does the likelihood of this goes down. With no evidence it will not matter what Zimmermans credibility is, if the jury follows the law they can not convict him.

1 Reply

If the facts as the jury see it add up to a picture wherein there is no reasonable doubt left in their minds that Zimmerman was the aggressor and his aggression resulted in Trayvon's death, they certainly can convict him.

1 Reply

@snood,

And if they acquit him, will you be satisfied with the verdict, or will you imediately complain that there was racism on the part of the jury?

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

With no evidence it will not matter what Zimmermans credibility is, if the jury follows the law they can not convict him.

His statement is the only evidence of what transpired when he and Martin came face to face. And who provoked the fight is very important in determining justified self defense on Zimmerman's part. Martin might have been defending himself from Zimmerman.

And, if his credibility is impugned by inconsistencies and contradictions in his statements, or by implausibility in those accounts, a jury will convict him. The police wanted to charge him with manslaughter the night of the shooting for the same reasons--some of what he told them was inconsistent or contradictory, and some of it didn't seem plausible.

Quote:

His is the only account we know exists

Right, he killed the other witness. That's why his credibility is a crucial element of his defense.

And we already know, from what went on at the first bond hearing, that he is not always truthful.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

For me, it would depend on whether there was any evidence that the jury actually based their decision on race.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Following and giving chase is not one and the same thing and in any case nether actions would justify his assault on Zimmerman.

If he was concern he had a cell phone to call for help either to the police or to his family and he did neither.

Actually he did call 911 but he was cut off by zimmerman.

2 Replies

@mysteryman,

I won't have a warm fuzzy that justice has been done. If they acquit him, I will have to accept it. The whole case has been fraught with shaky facts; I don't like the cozy relationship Zimmerman seemed to have with law enforcement. I don't like that a national outcry had to be raised before this killing even got real scrutiny from law enforcement. But yeah - if they cut him loose, I won't be raising a big stink about racism. If they convict him, I trust we won't be hearing a peep out of you, and you'll quietly accept that the system has worked.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

For me, it would depend on whether there was any evidence that the jury actually based their decision on race.

But see DrewDad - MM wouldn't ask something like that of you, because of course your opinion would be based on rational thought about the facts as you saw them. As opposed to me, who would be just mindlessly knee -jerking about race... I guess.

2 Replies

@snood,

snood wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

For me, it would depend on whether there was any evidence that the jury actually based their decision on race.

But see DrewDad - MM wouldn't ask something like that of you, because of course your opinion would be based on rational thought about the facts as you saw them. As opposed to me, who would be just mindlessly knee -jerking about race... I guess.

One of the things I find intersting is when he was asked what he said during the 911 call about the "coons" comment. Of course his lawyer wouldn't let him answer the question. Typical because it can be used to either demonize him or become a method for more speculation.

However; in my opinion if he had said something non-racial wouldn't that put to rest that it wasn't a racial comment? Yet his lawyer cutting him off only adds fuel to the idea that what was said was actually a racial slur and not to admit to it. I think if it wasn't racial it would be in his best interest to clear the air and actually admit to what was said. I am not certain that he actually said a racial slur during the 911 call.

This is also backed up by a witness who says that both zimmerman and his father have been heard often using racial slurs during conversations about blacks. This doesn't exactly point to him being racist but it does reveal something siginificant about his character.

2 Replies

@Krumple,

Is not that coon comment claims a thing of the past as the tape been work on by audio experts and no coon word could be found as far as I know.

Second who in the world even have the word coon in their minds to used as it is not a common word and had not been for my whole 63 years of life so the idea that a Latin man would come up with an odd and very old fashion word is unlikely to say the least.

Next as far as him being a racist given his history of starting and leading a protect on behaved of a homeless black man over the man arrested I would think that idea should not have too many legs to stand on.

0 Replies

Do you think Zimmerman will be convicted of murder?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know