ZIMMERMAN VERDICT IS IN - NOT GUILTY

Post Reply New Topic

...in which case, it's not far from saying that any death inflicted on another human being by someone else is a murder.

People die at the hands of others through self-defence. They die through stupid, unbelievable freak accidents. They die through manslaughter. None of these mean that there was deliberate malice and planning beforehand.

Defending yourself from a person that is looking to commit serious harm or death to yourself or others (or when you are in serious fear of your life) is different than, say, deliberately going out to a bar, picking someone up, taking them back to your house, beating, raping and torturing them to death, splicing them up, then disposing of the body.

You can't see the woods for the trees, can you? The point is he chose to ignore police advice and instead take the law into his own hands[./quote]

No, he did not do that. Have you actually read about the trial?

He made some silly errors of judgement by, for example, getting out of his car to look for Martin. Just because you go to look for someone does not mean that you initiated a fight, or that you deserve to be beaten up for it. Only the person who initiates violence is responsible for that escalation.

In that case, and due to the lack of other evidence, that party was Martin. There is no evidence to show otherwise. As I have been saying, the jury know this.

Or perhaps we should convict people based on the whims of the most hysterical mob of the time? Yeah, that generally leads to a good justice system.

Zimmerman was doing his job. He may have taken a silly risk by going to look for Martin, but that does not make him a murderer. For him to be a murderer, he would have had to have deliberately hunted him down and beaten him/killed him, and there would have to be substantial evidence of this exact charge. There is not, so Zimmerman ain't a murderer, no matter how much you would like him to be.

Before making assumptions it's good to consider the timeline.

Z was talking by phone for two minutes after T ran. When he arrives to the shooting area, that would make at least 3 minutes. Where could have been T at this moment?

[img][800:400]http://i39.tinypic.com/2qnm5xx.jpg[/img]

Z was intending to bump into him? Well, after the time he waited, and if T had not been waiting for him, there was no way Z could bump into T unless he had 'superspeed' and 'x-rays' to see him through the buildings.

He waited and then he went to check the area behind the buildings. This is watching, not running into conflicts on purpose.

I think it's more like birds of a feather, we are, after all, essentially having an argument between people who want to look at the facts and apply logic and reason, and people who just want to run with their emotions. It's sorta like how people who bought the ShamWow™ are also likely to buy the Chillow™ or MagicMesh™, they're just susceptible to these things.

This from the person with a zombie as his avatar.

Ditto! Man whatever happened to this show? One of the best shows on AdultSwim!

There is no need for it be clear or unclear. Its unknowable. From the lack of blunt impact injuries (fist fight/pushing) on T's corpse we know that either T. was either fully dominating the melee fight or he was incredibly good at evading fists...or that Z. did not try to fight back.

This last possibility is what forensic evidence backs up. Remember, the shooting took place quite a bit away from where Z's vehicle and from the closest street sign to him. Z's version and T's girlfriend testimony both corroborate that T went back to Z. to confront him. The other witnesses testified the two were in a moving fight... meaning they were not fighting it out in one spot or a small area but rather one of the two was backing off or trying to get away. When you have such a displacement and one party receiving all the injuries the other one none (other than a bullet) it all points to Z. trying to break off or get away from T.

It was not until T was on top of Z pummeling him that he had to make the decision to use the weapon as his life was in danger. Pinned and getting clobbered... anyone would've done the same (not taken the hits hoping he wont get killed).



Evidence is not a version of events. Evidence is physical. Aka the recordings, the forensic reports, the medical reports. They all backed Z's version of events very well. Adding to this, Z's version of events recorded by the police when they arrived at the scene was consistent. Even T's GF testimony fit in with it.



We do know he was out of his car for less than 10 seconds since the call has wind audio where before there was none. Since T ran into what is essentially a back alley of the neighborhood it was dark and he couldn't see him. When the dispatcher told him to stop following him , he did so since the wind audio stopped. They talked for 2 minutes without wind audio suggesting Z was standing still just at the road corner/alley entrance. The dispatcher asked him for an address and Z didn't know the house number (he knew the cut-away street name since it was given at the start of the call). This is where the call ends with Z agreeing to meet the police by the mailbox and waiting for their call so he could tell them the house number.

Likely he went to the nearest house.. just next to him, to see the house number. Z was walking away from the alley entrance towards the house front... and that's when T. came back from the alley and confronted Z.



Yes .. but when you think about it, Z was doing what he was supposed to do as part of the Watch. His bad decision was to get out of the car and walk near the alley to see if he could see where T. went. T on the other hand, took the worst decision of the two: he returned to the guy and faced him off instead of just keep going to where he was staying which you could walk (not run) to in less than a minute (aka perhaps 10 seconds run time?).

If Z was on the phone for 2 minutes without moving standing at the alley entrance and T. had vanished from sight for about 3 minutes... that means T. not only did not go to the house (or he did and came back we don't know) but stayed around the area..and then we do know for a fact he confronted Z.

The GF testimony shows that T told her he had 'lost' Z and he was very close to where he was staying... and shortly after that, T told the GF that he had 'seen the man again' and right after that T confronted Z.

The time stamps on Z's police call and T's call to his GF show that when T told the GF he had lost Z is when Z's wind audio on the phone call ends and he starts talking to the dispatcher.

... so it seems T. did go back to that alley to face Z. Really dumb thing to do.




A citizen yes, but Z. was part of the neighborhood watch. He did was he was supposed to do: keep an eye out, report. Z did not call out to T any any point in time (T's GF was on the phone with him and she did not mention any of that).



Right. Z as the only one with injuries of any kind barring a bullet hole. You can't really be the aggressor in a physical fight without landing a hit on the other guy. Unless of course T happens to be damn good at dodging hits...every single one at point blank range. That is hard to assume.




They listed the charge but did not follow it. They were dead set into character assassination of Z and playing the emotional/victim card with the jury to get the murder charge to stick. They failed horribly at that... if they had presented manslaughter as their main argument/objective they would've won the case. With a weak presentation of manslaughter and stand your ground law being claimed in self defense and the mountain of solid evidence from the defense..the jury simply could not find him guilty of either.



Z could not have walked into the alley as the wind audio in the police recording was very brief. At best he left his car and reached the entrance of the alley. That is where he talked for 2 minutes with the dispatcher.

i have already made clear earlier in post that i didnt follow this trial.a post said that zimmerman was charged with manslaughter after another poster said the D.A made a mistake by not charging manslaughter.
i was giving a hypothetical example of how 2nd degree manslaughter defined a reckless conduct leading to homicide could have given the jury more wiggle room with the reasonable doubt clause

but another viewpoint is that some gun owners might hate zimmerman because it makes gun owners look bad,liberal aclu types may be Z supporters too.but your both right in that both gun a Z haters seem to be going mostly on emotion not fact.myself am not getting into what i think of zimmerman because i was an eye witness

I don't see a consensus of hating Zimmerman in the gun community. At least that's not the feeling I'm getting from the gun website forums that I belong to. More like the question; "what could Zimmerman have done differently?" or "what would you have done if you were in that scenario?". In that world the much preferred practice, whenever armed with a deadly weapon, is not to be the aggressor or do anything that might later appear like you were pushing a confrontation or perusing someone. It is much easier to legally and morally defend your use of deadly force when you are clearly not the aggressor. The case with Zimmerman vs. Martin confrontation isn't entirely clear on what exactly took place and it never will be. Zimmerman was acquitted on what the court had to go on, nothing more and nothing less.

After looking at the verdict with a clearer head, I have to say I now agree with you. My emotions just got the better of me. We don't know what happened and there was not enough evidence to convict.
I think Zimmerman should have acted differently and that he is in some way culpable, but not legally. But, I'm still sore from the other thread, so I won't go on about it.
I realize that the environment I live in is not the same as Sanford. Perhaps if I lived in such a climate I would reconsider owning a firearm.

But nobody said that he did the right thing. He doesn't look very smart, and probably he lacked of discreetness when watching T. If you're a neightboorhood watch, you should be discret, nobody likes to freak because somebody is staring at him.

But this is a minor issue. There wouldn't be the first time, for example, that somebody stares at me in the middle of the street. And this is a bit uncomfortable. But dear god, I didn't run into him and started to beat the hell out of him!! ! If everytime that some uncomfortable s**t happens, you think that you have the right to beat somebody, then the streets are gonna be full of violence.

Indeed, that is what actually happens in lot of communities. And it happens because many people think that any stupid minor issue allows him to behave violently.

And the big problem I'm seeing here is that there's a message that is being sent by media, and this message is 'Travyon did the right thing. It's Zimmerman the one to blame'. And no, he didn't. Travyon found a minor uncomfortable situation in the street and he answered with full violence. However, he's showed in the media as the good guy.

And that's a very dangerous message to be sent to the society.

Had I been Zimmerman I think I would have stayed in my vehicle. Even if Zimmerman didn't actually peruse Martin, by him leaving his vehicle for whatever reason it gave the appearance that he may very well have set out to confront Martin and therein lies the huge difference in this case. In an alternate scenario; had Martin come to Zimmerman's car and started bashing the car windows in with a tire iron to get at Zimmerman, he could have emptied the whole magazine into Martin and never would have seen the inside of a jail cell or a court room.

What other thread? There are more than two on this topic.

I've actually been to Sanford and it appeared to be a quiet, well kept city. The old downtown area near the south shore of Lake Monroe is an area attraction. They have a nice German restaurant there, Hollerbach's Willow Tree, that has good food and a good beer selection if you like German cuisine. It's been about two years but I assume it's still the same.

Crime in the states isn't as bad as it's sometimes made out to be but it's certainly not good, either, and seems to be getting worse.

I think Zimmerman showed poor judgement in getting out of his car. He escalated the situation, but again, didn't break any laws.


I'd just as soon forget about it.


Nice. We don't have any good German restaurants where I live. But if you like Indian food and sushi, there's tons to choose from.


It's getting worse here too.

That was not established in court. Trayvon was not convicted of assault or battery. What happened to presumption of innocence?

The simple fact is that no one knows what started it off. But it's odd that Zimmerman, a "watch captain", never managed to identify himself at any time. He's incompetent at best. Which is why the HOA settled with the Martin family.

Do we know that for sure?