The Quote That Should End the Trayvon Trial

[spookyturtle 9,465]

HUH ? i am guessing you have not been watching. Hours of photos of his injuries.

I have not watched one second of it nor have I spent time reading about it. I don't know every detail like most here do. I haven't devoted my life to arguing who did what. I actually tried to participate in a discussion. There is ample pig headedness on both sides of the fence. I've got to go with the justice system and let them do their job. We all know OJ walked and most feel he was guilty, but the jury had to make their decision based on the evidence presented and the testimony they heard. It's not their fault the police botched the investigation and that Mark Fuhrman was a liar. The police made lots of mistakes and as a result a likely guilty OJ walked.

I'll still believe in the American justice system and a person's right to a fair trial regardless of the outcome of this case. i don't have a horse in this race. Some here are so passionate that you'd think it was their firstborn on trial. This case has the spotlight. Meanwhile everyday some gets murdered and it's just a blurb on the news.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I haven't seen any testimony by this "lying killer" and neither have you.

There's over an hour worth of police interrogation of Zimmermann that's been made public and then there's the official statement Zimmermann made to the police which is public record as well. These are Zimmermann's accounts of what happened that night. And these accounts by and large do not match the evidence that's available. This was clear to the detectives working the case from the very beginning which is why they wanted to see him arrested and charged the night Zimmermann killed the kid.

[himher 634]

Some here believe that if TM was ever on top of GZ, that precludes that TM was trying to kill GZ. In their world, there is no such thing as a scuffle or brawl where lethal force to end it is NOT justified. So remember that, people - you can behave provocatively toward another human being and if your behavior scares them to the point that they retaliate with aggression toward you, you have a God-given right to use lethal force to stop that aggression and you don't need to even try to use other diffusing measures - your gun is judge and executioner.

Unless you are in Illinois. Then you are at the mercy of random hoods. The statistics indicate that this isn't really working out but each to their own

The mullet is otherwise incorrect in that someone has to be trying to kill you for you to have the right to defend yourself with deadly force in Florida. They can just be trying to seriously injure you.

[himher 634]

There's over an hour worth of police interrogation of Zimmermann that's been made public and then there's the official statement Zimmermann made to the police which is public record as well. These are Zimmermann's accounts of what happened that night. And these accounts by and large do not match the evidence that's available. This was clear to the detectives working the case from the very beginning which is why they wanted to see him arrested and charged the night Zimmermann killed the kid.

Well I haven't seen any interrogations, just physical evidence and testimony of impartial witnesses.

The physical evidence and testimony of impartial witnesses indicate an attack and a self-defense action that falls within the stand your ground law (did you bother to actually READ that law?)

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Exactly the lead investigator has no more information than the attorneys, and was not there or anywhere near there. He can only testify to what the witnesses told him and we already know that.

No, he can and will punch holes into what Zimmermann told him because it does not match the evidence that's been collected and that is available. When the foundation of Zimmermann's defense - his own story is all he has - is shown to be a fabrication, then Zimmermann has no defense left. He lied to the police and made up a story that is incompatible with the available evidence. He will do time.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Well I haven't seen any interrogations, just physical evidence and testimony of impartial witnesses.

That makes you uninformed. Thanks for pointing out that have you have no idea what you're talking about.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Some here believe that if TM was ever on top of GZ, that precludes that TM was trying to kill GZ. In their world, there is no such thing as a scuffle or brawl where lethal force to end it is NOT justified. So remember that, people - you can behave provocatively toward another human being and if your behavior scares them to the point that they retaliate with aggression toward you, you have a God-given right to use lethal force to stop that aggression and you don't need to even try to use other diffusing measures - your gun is judge and executioner.

ETA: It does not matter if that person you provoked is unarmed or a minor, or if they had just been minding their own business, trying to get home out of the rain when you provoked them. According to some here - behaving provocatively toward another human being is not illegal and therefore, according to their logic, irrelevant to the outcome.

We don't know who attacked who for sure and how violent the fight got to be. I agree, just because you are out somewhere and get in an argument with someone and they push you doesn't give you the right to kill them, but that's me and I'm a pretty rational guy. If I lost a fight I'd take my lumps and move on. But if someone was wailing away relentlessly after they had the upper hand or bashing someones head against a hard surface like the hockey incident I referred to early, then I clearly see the use of force to stop it. It's a fine line and everyone will have a different point where they react. We all know or knew someone who would punch someone just for looking at them the wrong way and others who would tolerate abuse and never speak up. There is no hard definition for what constitutes fear of bodily harm. I've seen guys sucker punched and knocked out cold with one punch. If they weren't knocked out with the first punch, I'd bet they were fearful of bodily harm by the time the second one landed.

It doesn't sound like GZ entered this fight with gun in hand. Is there any evidence of that? Maybe TM did get the best of him immediately?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

We don't know who attacked who for sure and how violent the fight got to be. I agree, just because you are out somewhere and get in an argument with someone and they push you doesn't give you the right to kill them, but that's me and I'm a pretty rational guy. If I lost a fight I'd take my lumps and move on. But if someone was wailing away relentlessly after they had the upper hand or bashing someones head against a hard surface like the hockey incident I referred to early, then I clearly see the use of force to stop it. It's a fine line and everyone will have a different point where they react. We all know or knew someone who would punch someone just for looking at them the wrong way and others who would tolerate abuse and never speak up. There is no hard definition for what constitutes fear of bodily harm. I've seen guys sucker punched and knocked out cold with one punch. If they weren't knocked out with the first punch, I'd bet they were fearful of bodily harm by the time the second one landed.

It doesn't sound like GZ entered this fight with gun in hand. Is there any evidence of that? Maybe TM did get the best of him immediately?

If you are asking the question - could there have ever been a scenario that night where TM was trying to kill GZ with his bare knuckles? Sure as a stand alone incident. But context is everything and the jury will be asking themselves what would have been TM's motive? Contextually, it is reasonable to understand that TM was afraid that night and fear often can turn to anger when someone feels they are cornered (for the literalists out there, 'cornered' isn't necessarily a logistical reality, but a feeling - if you're not sure what that means, see how long before an animal stops retreating when being pursued - they will retaliate when it appears to them that you won't leave them alone). So, what was TM's motive to engage GZ that night? The evidence demonstrates clearly he was trying to get back to the condo where he was staying. What was GZ's motive for getting out of his truck? He can give all the implausible reasons he likes, but his actions speak louder than his words. That not only points to him being the instigator of the confrontation, but demonstrates that he was not in fear of his life, and that IMO, is one of the most damning pieces of evidence that will lead to a conviction.

Edited June 30, 2013 by Lincolns mullet

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I wonder how may morons are driving into this neighborhood to take photos of where this happened so they can post them to Facebook? Sorry to go OT.

Google is one of then. Too bad streetview won't get you past the gates.

https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&oe=UTF8&msa=0&msid=217828638806042443821.0004bc2f8dc88681cedc1

Edited June 30, 2013 by The Patriot

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Well I haven't seen any interrogations, just physical evidence and testimony of impartial witnesses.

The physical evidence and testimony of impartial witnesses indicate an attack and a self-defense action that falls within the stand your ground law (did you bother to actually READ that law?)

Stand your ground does not apply.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Unless you are in Illinois. Then you are at the mercy of random hoods. The statistics indicate that this isn't really working out but each to their own

The mullet is otherwise incorrect in that someone has to be trying to kill you for you to have the right to defend yourself with deadly force in Florida. They can just be trying to seriously injure you.

Nice, deliberate mischaracterization of what I posted earlier. Go back and read what I said. Secondly, GZ's lawyers decided NOT to go with a Stand Your Ground defense and guess why? Because they would have been laughed out of court given the actions, words, and behavior of GZ. You see, there are mitigating circumstances to qualify as standing your ground. Instead, his defense decided to go with a simple self defense claim, and while it a simple self defense might seem less vulnerable to legal scrutiny, it is no less relevant what GZ said and did leading up to the altercation. Why so many wish to dismiss his actions and behavior that night as removed from establishing who instigated the confrontation defies logic. Thankfully, the jurors are not so blinded by their insistence of being right that they cannot recognize the truth staring right at them.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

If you are asking the question - could there have ever been a scenario that night where TM was trying to kill GZ with his bare knuckles? Sure as a stand alone incident. But context is everything and the jury will be asking themselves what would have been TM's motive? Contextually, it is reasonable to understand that TM was afraid that night and fear often can turn to anger when someone feels they are cornered (for the literalists out there, 'cornered' isn't necessarily a logistical reality, but a feeling - if you're not sure what that means, see how long before an animal stops retreating when being pursued - they will retaliate when it appears to them that you won't leave them alone). So, what was TM's motive to engage GZ that night? The evidence demonstrates clearly he was trying to get back to the condo where he was staying. What was GZ's motive for getting out of his truck? He can give all the implausible reasons he likes, but his actions speak louder than his words. That not only points to him being the instigator of the confrontation, but demonstrates that he was not in fear of his life, and that IMO, is one of the most damning pieces of evidence that will lead to a conviction.

The question is, was George afraid that TM was going to cause him bodily harm or great bodily harm. If someone slammed my head against a concrete floor or wall a few times to get me shaken up or wear I saw stars, I know I would be afraid and even more so if it continued. Of course I have no idea how it went down with GZ and TM. As far as TM attacking GZ, all I can say is think back to your youth and some of the people you knew and some of the stupid things they did. I know people killed for driving 90mph on a street that was barely safe for 40. But they were being daring or stupid or whatever you want to call it. How many kids have been killed or injured during Spring Break by balcony jumping or diving from 6 stories up and missing the pool? I think we could make an endless list of dumb things people do and not come up with any explanation.

Maybe GZ said something that pissed TM off and he took a swing. I've seen people get sucker- punched. I've seen people go down with one punch and I've seen an idiot insult a group of guys and get his ### pounded. I don't see it as clear cut as either side does here. One group has GZ completely blameless minding his own business and the other side has him as Atilla the Hun gutting TM and eating his liver.

And every sentence written here about this case for the past several months is all speculation. No one here knows every detail. And I'll say it again, there is a very divided opinion here at VJ, what makes anyone think that the jury is going to all agree?

[RGinWA 816]

Do we need an evidence thread?

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Do we need an evidence thread?

Sure, why not? I'll read it. I seem to be the only one here who hasn't devoted their entire existence to this case. I

[RGinWA 816]

The question is, was George afraid that TM was going to cause him bodily harm or great bodily harm. If someone slammed my head against a concrete floor or wall a few times to get me shaken up or wear I saw stars, I know I would be afraid and even more so if it continued. Of course I have no idea how it went down with GZ and TM. As far as TM attacking GZ, all I can say is think back to your youth and some of the people you knew and some of the stupid things they did. I know people killed for driving 90mph on a street that was barely safe for 40. But they were being daring or stupid or whatever you want to call it. How many kids have been killed or injured during Spring Break by balcony jumping or diving from 6 stories up and missing the pool? I think we could make an endless list of dumb things people do and not come up with any explanation.

Maybe GZ said something that pissed TM off and he took a swing. I've seen people get sucker- punched. I've seen people go down with one punch and I've seen an idiot insult a group of guys and get his #### pounded. I don't see it as clear cut as either side does here. One group has GZ completely blameless minding his own business and the other side has him as Atilla the Hun gutting TM and eating his liver.

And every sentence written here about this case for the past several months is all speculation. No one here knows every detail. And I'll say it again, there is a very divided opinion here at VJ, what makes anyone think that the jury is going to all agree?

It is very divided.

I'm thinking the jury of six women are NOT watching talking heads, NOT reading about the case on the internet and are NOT debating the facts yet.

I was on an over 4 week trial and it was nothing like the whirlwind coverage of this case. But in the end, all 12 saw it the way the facts were presented.

A person died and GZ holds some responsibility for them coming together. That's manslaughter at the very least. That fact will be hard to overcome because the person killed was still a minor in the eyes of the law and had not committed a crime.