Zimmerman Trial Live Feed - Day Four

[RGinWA 816]

If someone was following me, suspecting me of something, why don't I have the right to 'stand my ground'?

Seems perfectly normal to ask someone who is following you why they are following you.

It's been my opinion the whole time. It seems ok for GZ to stand his ground yet TM is not allowed to thwart what he deems a threat; mainly a man following him and approaching him.

[Golden Gate 530]

Yeah, someone following me with a gun and suspecting me of something is provocative and threatening. Turning around and trying to fight that threat is a typical teenager belief in their own indomitability.

[Teddy B 17,252]

Yeah, someone following me with a gun and suspecting me of something is provocative and threatening. Turning around and trying to fight that threat is a typical teenager belief in their own indomitability.

TM did not know that GZ had a gun, nor did he know why he was following him.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

TM did not know that GZ had a gun, nor did he know why he was following him.

Dee Dee thought he might be a rapist, Trayvon said, "Don't go there!"

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

There was a lot of controversy about someone saying " you need to get off". Maybe it was a lovers quarl.

[RGinWA 816]

Dee Dee thought he might be a rapist, Trayvon said, "Don't go there!"

I think the GZ innocent crowd either thinks;

1. TM should have submitted to the following by GZ, the catching up and the questioning without feeling threatened.

2. After being followed TM threw the first punch, which gave GZ the right to shoot him.

3. TM being followed had no right to feel "threatened" and invoke his own "SYG" defense.

Nobody knows who threw the first punch, but its my opinion it really doesn't matter.

TM was followed for no reason, GZ may have had a good reason in his mind, but that's only his internal speculation. By following TM GZ started a chain of events that did not have a legal reason except his own speculation that he needed to investigate TM for his suspicion of looking "high" or "suspicious" and they "always get away". GZ's own words.

Even if you throw out the witness altogether the above is still true. GZ instituted a chase for reasons only held in GZ own mind, mainly that TM would get away with "something"...but he had nothing to get away with except skittles and a drink. So who hit who first is irrelevant under this situation.

The defense hasn't changed the fact that TM is guilty of nothing, no matter what they may suggest and TM was pursued for no reason and if he got hit first there was probably cause for TM to feel a threat from GZ.

Case closed

[Golden Gate 530]

TM did not know that GZ had a gun, nor did he know why he was following him.

Someone following me purposefully is a threat and a provocation. Doesn't matter why he is following me. He obviously wasn't following him to become his friend.

Edited June 27, 2013 by Golden Gate

[lostinblue 1,989]

Trayvon was steps away from his father's home he did not go home according to this witness. Women sitting on the jury would say #######.

The best point in a womans(From safety standpoint)) mind is to be inside and behind a locked door. Next step call the police.. This points to travon being the aggressor. In the jurys mind..

[Golden Gate 530]

I think the GZ innocent crowd either thinks;

1. TM should have submitted to the following by GZ, the catching up and the questioning without feeling threatened.

2. After being followed TM threw the first punch, which gave GZ the right to shoot him.

3. TM being followed had no right to feel "threatened" and invoke his own "SYG" defense.

Nobody knows who threw the first punch, but its my opinion it really doesn't matter.

TM was followed for no reason, GZ may have had a good reason in his mind, but that's only his internal speculation. By following TM GZ started a chain of events that did not have a legal reason except his own speculation that he needed to investigate TM for his suspicion of looking "high" or "suspicious" and they "always get away". GZ's own words.

Even if you throw out the witness altogether the above is still true. GZ instituted a chase for reasons only held in GZ own mind, mainly that TM would get away with "something"...but he had nothing to get away with except skittles and a drink. So who hit who first is irrelevant under this situation.

The defense hasn't changed the fact that TM is guilty of nothing, no matter what they may suggest and TM was pursued for no reason and if he got hit first there was probably cause for TM to feel a threat from GZ.

Case closed

Yes, this.

[Golden Gate 530]

Trayvon was steps away from his father's home he did not go home according to this witness. Women sitting on the jury would say #######.

The best point in a womans(From safety standpoint)) mind is to be inside and behind a locked door. Next step call the police.. This points to travon being the aggressor. In the jurys mind..

I'm a woman, and certainly I would do that, but doesn't mean I would think TM would do that. He isn't a woman, but a typical teenager. Women understand teenagers pretty well, especially if they've had one.

Edited June 27, 2013 by Golden Gate

[RGinWA 816]

Trayvon was steps away from his father's home he did not go home according to this witness. Women sitting on the jury would say #######.

The best point in a womans(From safety standpoint)) mind is to be inside and behind a locked door. Next step call the police.. This points to travon being the aggressor. In the jurys mind..

The only people at home at the time was a 12 year old. Do you think he wanted to bring the situation and involve the younger kid? It seems like if TM just did everything perfectly in that brief moment it would prevent GZ from catching him.

What about not following TM at all...why is that TM's fault?

It seems that GZ has no responsibility here and its all on TM...a 17 year old that was being pursued. That's crazy.

GZ is toast, the DOC needs to start the paperwork.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Yes, this.

This? Kip, is that you?

[Golden Gate 530]

This? Kip, is that you?

Ha ha. No. Just being brief, since I am supposed to be doing my work right now.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I think the GZ innocent crowd either thinks;

1. TM should have submitted to the following by GZ, the catching up and the questioning without feeling threatened.

2. After being followed TM threw the first punch, which gave GZ the right to shoot him.

3. TM being followed had no right to feel "threatened" and invoke his own "SYG" defense.

Nobody knows who threw the first punch, but its my opinion it really doesn't matter.

TM was followed for no reason, GZ may have had a good reason in his mind, but that's only his internal speculation. By following TM GZ started a chain of events that did not have a legal reason except his own speculation that he needed to investigate TM for his suspicion of looking "high" or "suspicious" and they "always get away". GZ's own words.

Even if you throw out the witness altogether the above is still true. GZ instituted a chase for reasons only held in GZ own mind, mainly that TM would get away with "something"...but he had nothing to get away with except skittles and a drink. So who hit who first is irrelevant under this situation.

The defense hasn't changed the fact that TM is guilty of nothing, no matter what they may suggest and TM was pursued for no reason and if he got hit first there was probably cause for TM to feel a threat from GZ.

Case closed

Top this with the fact that Zimmermann thought he was following a "kid". Yes, a kid. That is based on the defendant's own words to the non-emergency police dispatcher.

[RGinWA 816]

Top this with the fact that Zimmermann thought he was following a "kid". Yes, a kid. That is based on the defendant's own words to the non-emergency police dispatcher.

Put it this way:

On a dark night a man thinks he sees a suspicious person and calls 911. On his own he follows him in his car. The man seeing him following runs and the driver gives chase on foot.

Upon catching the pursued man, he gets punched in the face and a fight ensues.

When the man that pursued him is losing the fight, now thinking this was a bad idea, he shoots the man that he originally ran after.

So the man that was shot doesn't have the right to:

A. Feel threatened?

B. Hit the pursuer?

C. Fear for his life?

It's just silly to think even at a "grown man" level that the shooter would not get any jail time for this homicide.

Now make the man a teenager of any color...its even worse.

Edited June 27, 2013 by RGinWA