Gblock;1469760 wrote:Gz wasn't appointed by anyone to watch the neighborhood and especially not affiliated with a neighborhood watch authorized by the housing development...just some guy sitting in his car with a gun stereotyping people walking by

Honestly, how does this have anything to do with convicting him of second degree murder? What have they presented that made you go "GZ got out of his truck with the intent to kill TM"

Raw Dawgin' it;1469771 wrote:Honestly, how does this have anything to do with convicting him of second degree murder? What have they presented that made you go "GZ got out of his truck with the intent to kill TM"

I agree, the block watch thing is really irrelevant to the case.

Raw Dawgin' it;1469767 wrote:Is that illegal?

No but its outright antagonistic and this dipshit was looking for a fight. Well he got one.

Tiernan;1469773 wrote:No but its outright antagonistic and this dipshit was looking for a fight. Well he got one.

Still irrelevant

Zimmy is very much like Nancy Lanza...both of them had some irrational notion that gangs of armed maniacs are prowling our streets to create havoc and homicide. Sooo these type idiots arm themselves and take on some self-grandiose persona of being the "village sheriff" and let everyone know they ain't gonna wait to be a victim, they're gonna clean shit up before it happens. Well Lanza is dead thank god, but I now think Zimmy is gonna walk and all you other "Lone Rangers" are thinking "hey this mofo is pretty fuclkin cool and I'm gonna do this type shit too."

Tiernan;1469779 wrote:Zimmy is very much like Nancy Lanza...both of them had some irrational notion that gangs of armed maniacs are prowling our streets to create havoc and homicide. Sooo these type idiots arm themselves and take on some self-grandiose persona of being the "village sheriff" and let everyone know they ain't gonna wait to be a victim, they're gonna clean shit up before it happens. Well Lanza is dead thank god, but I now think Zimmy is gonna walk and all you other "Lone Rangers" are thinking "hey this mofo is pretty fuclkin cool and I'm gonna do this type shit too."

Why did he call the police then if he planned on killing TM?

Tiernan;1469779 wrote:Zimmy is very much like Nancy Lanza...both of them had some irrational notion that gangs of armed maniacs are prowling our streets to create havoc and homicide. Sooo these type idiots arm themselves and take on some self-grandiose persona of being the "village sheriff" and let everyone know they ain't gonna wait to be a victim, they're gonna clean shit up before it happens. Well Lanza is dead thank god, but I now think Zimmy is gonna walk and all you other "Lone Rangers" are thinking "hey this mofo is pretty fuclkin cool and I'm gonna do this type shit too."

Yes, as soon as the trial is over I am going to get the streets cleaned up. :rolleyes:

Raw Dawgin' it;1469782 wrote:Why did he call the police then if he planned on killing TM?

Didn't say he "planned" on killing him...and neither is the State, thus he's not being charged with 1st Degree. But I am saying he was armed and ready for a confrontation and helped instigate that confrontation taking place. He's not a moron and called police to cover himself, then proceeded to track Martin down to see what might happen. I'm fairly certain he didn't mean to kill the kid but if he had stayed in the house this whole deal never happens.

WebFire;1469785 wrote:Yes, as soon as the trial is over I am going to get the streets cleaned up. :rolleyes:

You better concentrate on the mean streets of Ann Arbor and how youre gonna clean up the slaughter coming your way.

Tiernan;1469788 wrote:I'm fairly certain he didn't mean to kill the kid but if he had stayed in the house this whole deal never happens.

And if TM keeps walking to his dad's apartment, this never happens.

Tiernan;1469788 wrote:Didn't say he "planned" on killing him...and neither is the State, thus he's not being charged with 1st Degree. But I am saying he was armed and ready for a confrontation and helped instigate that confrontation taking place. He's not a moron and called police to cover himself, then proceeded to track Martin down to see what might happen. I'm fairly certain he didn't mean to kill the kid but if he had stayed in the house this whole deal never happens.

Second degree murder is still intent to kill. You believe he intended to kill TM or just confront him and ask what he was doing? Having a gun probably gave him the confidence to confront him but he never has to use it if TM doesn't confront him.

I was just responding to the meme..it said he was a block watch volunteer..which isnt Tru is all

Sometimes I wonder if these legal commentators are speaking as experts or reading from a script. How in the world can the DA asking a witness "you can't say who threw the first punch, or even if a punch was thrown" NOT contribute to reasonable doubt? I suppose it's all he could do, and maybe it's effective if you're dealing with idiots on the jury.

Every time I hear the DA making arguments I could easily mistake him for Zimmerman's lawyer.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE9680SI20130710?irpc=932

Expert agrees w/ Zimmerman's story based on bullet's trajectory.

gut;1470044 wrote: Every time I hear the DA making arguments I could easily mistake him for Zimmerman's lawyer.

I don't even understand the DA's strategy. All they have tried to do is shed reasonable doubt on the self-defense rather than proving their case. They originally tried to argue that Zimmerman was the aggressor. Now they seem to have conceded the fact that Martin was on top, but instead are trying to argue that it is POSSIBLE that Martin was pulling away; however, they have not offered any evidence to prove that point. Again, they are trying to shed reasonable doubt, but that is not their job.

elbuckeye28;1470309 wrote:I don't even understand the DA's strategy. All they have tried to do is shed reasonable doubt on the self-defense rather than proving their case. They originally tried to argue that Zimmerman was the aggressor. Now they seem to have conceded the fact that Martin was on top, but instead are trying to argue that it is POSSIBLE that Martin was pulling away; however, they have not offered any evidence to prove that point. Again, they are trying to shed reasonable doubt, but that is not their job.

I think they are probably doing the best they can, which just goes to show that they really have nothing. There is a reason they didn't file charges in the first place. The public wanted Zimmerman arrested and charged, and this is what they get in return.

steubbigred;1455215 wrote:Nope . I voted for Obama . I am usually on the other side of these topics . I am a democrat . I have learned more about this case that has caused me to rethink some issues .

Havent you heard that two wrongs do not make a right?

I havent followed it too closely at all but have taken a few things away from it.

Zimmerman did not have to follow this kid. Apparently he wasnt doing anything wrong other than being in the neighborhood. He started to follow him, and when he got near a scuffle ensued. Zimmerman does have the injuries to show he was beaten by this punk kid, but does that make this punk wrong? If you were approached by some guy, with a gun, what would yo do? Would you try to defend yourself? You dont know what the hell is about to go down. Maybe he coulda ran, but if he knows the guy has a gun the best bet may be to try and wrestle it away and then take off.

When the scuffle went full scale zimmerman probably was trying to protect himself.

What you have is both guys trying to protect themselves after one approached and followed the other.

I dont know all the charges that he can be charge with, but if he is convicted of something I think it needs to be of the lower tier.

Fab4Runner;1470312 wrote:I think they are probably doing the best they can, which just goes to show that they really have nothing. There is a reason they didn't file charges in the first place. The public wanted Zimmerman arrested and charged, and this is what they get in return.

Yeah, I guess they are playing the cards they were dealt. It's hard to judge how competent these lawyers are given they have little evidence.

thavoice;1470314 wrote: What you have is both guys trying to protect themselves after one approached and followed the other.

You're assuming.

IMO, TM decided to give Zimmerman a beatdown for eyeballing him, which is something a lot of punk kids might do.

gut;1470321 wrote:You're assuming.

IMO, TM decided to give Zimmerman a beatdown for eyeballing him, which is something a lot of punk kids might do.

And we are all assuming.

One could easily assume that the punk felt threatened by getting approached at night by some dude with a gun.

With that all said.....I think that the only WRONG verdict in this will be convicting him of the harshest of the charges, and if the jury does convict him of them they are doing so out of fear of rioting.

thavoice;1470314 wrote:Maybe he coulda ran, but if he knows the guy has a gun the best bet may be to try and wrestle it away and then take off.

lol

thavoice;1470314 wrote:
Zimmerman did not have to follow this kid. Apparently he wasnt doing anything wrong other than being in the neighborhood. He started to follow him, and when he got near a scuffle ensued. Zimmerman does have the injuries to show he was beaten by this punk kid, but does that make this punk wrong? If you were approached by some guy, with a gun, what would yo do? Would you try to defend yourself? You dont know what the hell is about to go down. Maybe he coulda ran, but if he knows the guy has a gun the best bet may be to try and wrestle it away and then take off.

I think your argument is valid in a general context of reasonable responses given the situation. This is why I don't think either individual is a "bad" guy in the situation. Both made mistakes (Zimmerman didn't HAVE to follow, Martin could have gone straight home and not confronted), but both probably made decisions that seemed reasonable given the situation and their interpretation. I think this has become a false dichotomy of "good" vs. "evil." It's more of two flawed individuals make errors, and we have the benefit of analyzing these errors post-hoc.

That being said, from the legal standpoint of this case, the poor decision making of both parties is for the most part, irrelevant. While Zimmerman didn't HAVE to follow and Martin didn't HAVE to decide to not go straight home, they did not HAVE to do the alternative. They were both within their rights to respond as they did until the point of the confrontation; however, they core of the case revolve around the decisions once they physically met. While hindsight would leads us to conclude they should have not have done this but instead should have done that, the major issues revolves on whether the death of Martin was a result of murder beyond a reasonable doubt. In particular, this murder charge in contrast to the reasonableness of Zimmerman to use self-defense, specifically fear of death and/or great bodily harm in this case, given the confrontation that occurred. Thus far, even the prosecution has conceded that Martin was on top and inflicting blows to Zimmerman. I have a hard time seeing the evidence point refuting the self-defense claim, let alone meeting the standard of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

elbuckeye28;1470346 wrote:I think your argument is valid in a general context of reasonable responses given the situation. This is why I don't think either individual is a "bad" guy in the situation. Both made mistakes (Zimmerman didn't HAVE to follow, Martin could have gone straight home and not confronted), but both probably made decisions that seemed reasonable given the situation and their interpretation. I think this has become a false dichotomy of "good" vs. "evil." It's more of two flawed individuals make errors, and we have the benefit of analyzing these errors post-hoc.

That being said, from the legal standpoint of this case, the poor decision making of both parties is for the most part, irrelevant. While Zimmerman didn't HAVE to follow and Martin didn't HAVE to decide to not go straight home, they did not HAVE to do the alternative. They were both within their rights to respond as they did until the point of the confrontation; however, they core of the case revolve around the decisions once they physically met. While hindsight would leads us to conclude they should have not have done this but instead should have done that, the major issues revolves on whether the death of Martin was a result of murder beyond a reasonable doubt. In particular, this murder charge in contrast to the reasonableness of Zimmerman to use self-defense, specifically fear of death and/or great bodily harm in this case, given the confrontation that occurred. Thus far, even the prosecution has conceded that Martin was on top and inflicting blows to Zimmerman. I have a hard time seeing the evidence point refuting the self-defense claim, let alone meeting the standard of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

I any type of ground confrontation it is reasonable to infer that at one point both may have been on top so Zimmer could have been as well, albeit briefly. They are not refuting that TM was on top raining down punches on Zimmerman. I would think that would be reasonable if someone came up to me, following me with a gun. If a scuffle ensues I am trying to pummel him to no end. You are not going to just hit a few times and hope that is enough and take off. Martin, being the punk they say he is, probably has been in more scuffles like that and was more experienced.

No way should he be convicted of murder in this case. Even though he should not have followed him, he should not be charged with murder since this scuffle came around and he was getting beat up pretty good. At that point when he is getting repeatedly punched Zimmerman was defending himself.

But damn.....if he had just listened to the 911 operator who told him to stop following the person.

I agree with others though who say that the media has done this a big time disservice. Whether it be editing out the 911 call, to showing the pic of TM when he was a kid to get public opinion to rain down on zimmerman that he killed this innocent looking kid.

I don't believe Martin knew he had a gun when Zimmerman was "following" him.

If Zimmerman is found guilty, someone is being paid off. There is no case against him.

Me?;1470367 wrote:I don't believe Martin knew he had a gun when Zimmerman was "following" him.

If Zimmerman is found guilty, someone is being paid off. There is no case against him.

Maybe not when he was following him....but when they got close and shit hit the fan I bet that he knew