GZ/TM Case Turning Into a Kangaroo Court Prosecution

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

If she runs and only gets 50 ft in 4 minutes, it's time to get a new wife anyway.

Your wife doesn't wear heels does she? They can't run too good, but it makes their @ss look HOT. Just shoot him and keep the heels.

[Dan and Judy 614]

Your wife doesn't wear heels does she? They can't run too good, but it makes their @ss look HOT. Just shoot him and keep the heels.

I don't let her wear shoes at all. They get all uppity if you let em wear shoes.

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

I will tell her that is she is scared do not circle his car, do not run in the opposite direction of home, and if she gets away from him do not track him back down and attack him

Of course you wouldn't tell her any of that, because you have no idea the situation she would be in beyond the fact that a strange man is following her in his vehicle, and she did initially try to run from him, he jumped out of his vehicle and pursued her. You being the pro 'Stand Your Ground' person that you are, providing her with a handgun for protection, what do you tell her to do? Keep retreating? Or stand her ground?

You see, this is why when you say that TM should have gone home, like a good boy, you're being selective about individual rights. If you believe that GZ had a right to get out of his vehicle and follow TM, then TM had every right to be outside, go any direction he felt like going, including confronting GZ. And while he wouldn't have a right to punch GZ, anyone looking at the evidence would acknowledge that GZ provoked him. But that's at the point where no one besides GZ really knows how it went down and here again is where you are selective - you take GZ's version as the gospel truth, even if the evidence contradicts his story.

Law enforcement knows that even witnesses whose intent is to be truthful, tend to get facts mixed up, tend to exaggerate, tend to fill in the blanks when they can't remember all the details. That's because under stress, we don't always see things the way they actually happen, which is why police interview as many witnesses as they can to hopefully get a more precise picture of what happened, and with this case, there are conflicting eye witness accounts of how the two fought, who was on top, who was yelling. Which leaves the case to the facts of what happened before the confrontation and immediately after. So holding onto what GZ says went down as the gospel truth as well as believing everything he did leading up to that point was within his legal rights, but not applying the same to TM, demonstrates a lack of applying equal protection under the law.

Edited July 9, 2013 by Lincolns mullet

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Of course you wouldn't tell her any of that, because you have no idea the situation she would be in beyond the fact that a strange man is following her in his vehicle, and she did initially try to run from him, he jumped out of his vehicle and pursued her. You being the pro 'Stand Your Ground' person that you are, providing her with a handgun for protection, what do you tell her to do? Keep retreating? Or stand her ground?

You see, this is why when you say that TM should have gone home, like a good boy, you're being selective about individual rights. If you believe that GZ had a right to get out of his vehicle and follow TM, then TM had every right to be outside, go any direction he felt like going, including confronting GZ. And while he wouldn't have a right to punch GZ, anyone looking at the evidence would acknowledge that GZ provoked him. But that's at the point where no one besides GZ really knows how it went down and here again is where you are selective - you take GZ's version as the gospel truth, even if the evidence contradicts his story.

Law enforcement knows that even witnesses whose intent is to be truthful, tend to get facts mixed up, tend to exaggerate, tend to fill in the blanks when they can't remember all the details. That's because under stress, we don't always see things the way they actually happen, which is why police interview as many witnesses as they can to hopefully get a more precise picture of what happened, and with this case, there are conflicting eye witness accounts of how the two fought, who was on top, who was yelling. Which leaves the case to the facts of what happened before the confrontation and immediately after. So holding onto what GZ says went down as the gospel truth as well as believing everything he did leading up to that point was within his legal rights, but not applying the same to TM, demonstrates a lack of applying equal protection under the law.

And taking all of that into account leaves me in doubt. I don't think the prosecution proved a case of murder. I don't take everything GZ said as gospel truth, but I also don't think he made it all up. There is ample evidence of TM's participation in the fight, a fight that he seems to have been winning. Did George fear for bodily harm? I think he could have and that doesn't mean TM was a murderous thug. Where would you draw that line at what is an acceptable beating?

[SMOKE 1,426]

Of course you wouldn't tell her any of that, because you have no idea the situation she would be in beyond the fact that a strange man is following her in his vehicle, and she did initially try to run from him, he jumped out of his vehicle and pursued her. You being the pro 'Stand Your Ground' person that you are, providing her with a handgun for protection, what do you tell her to do? Keep retreating? Or stand her ground?

my wife has been told to run to a crowded place while screaming at the top of her lungs. if she is caught by her pursuer. she has been told & trained to empty the magazine into him. then continue to run to a crowded place screaming at the top of her lungs.

[Dan and Judy 614]

You see, this is why when you say that TM should have gone home, like a good boy, you're being selective about individual rights. If you believe that GZ had a right to get out of his vehicle and follow TM, then TM had every right to be outside, go any direction he felt like going, including confronting GZ. And while he wouldn't have a right to punch GZ, anyone looking at the evidence would acknowledge that GZ provoked him. But that's at the point where no one besides GZ really knows how it went down and here again is where you are selective - you take GZ's version as the gospel truth, even if the evidence contradicts his story.

They both had a right to be there.

You say he wouldn't have a right to punch GZ.

You say GZ provoked him.

I agree that he didn't have a right to punch GZ.

I agree that GZ provoked him..

However I don't think that following 4 minutes behind someone is sufficient provocation for getting beat up.

I guess you agree with that because you said he wouldn't have the right to punch GZ

Since we agree that he was provoked it is logical that he threw the first and possibly all of the punches.

It's also logical that Trayvon was on top and GZ on the bottom and GZ was the one screaming.

It's also logical that the person who was screaming was scared. and judging by the screams scared for his life.

[Dan and Judy 614]

my wife has been told to run to a crowded place while screaming at the top of her lungs. if she is caught by her pursuer. she has been told & trained to empty the magazine into him. then continue to run to a crowded place screaming at the top of her lungs.

Good advice, If George would have continued screaming after shooting Trayvon he wouldn't be in the mess he's in today.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Good advice, If George would have continued screaming after shooting Trayvon he wouldn't be in the mess he's in today.

Yes. Funny how the screams stopped when someone was shot in the chest.

[OnMyWayID 1,489]

Your wife doesn't wear heels does she? They can't run too good, but it makes their @ss look HOT. Just shoot him and keep the heels.

My wife like the heelless platforms. I have no idea how she walks in them, some gravity centered balance thing but oof! they do wonders for her curves. Most of them also have spikes so she has a one kick solution for looky-loos.

wait.. what was the topic?

Edited July 9, 2013 by OnMyWayID

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

You would think if the shooter was the one doing the shooting and if as he testified, he didn't think he hit him, he would have continued yelping.

Funny how if someone was in such a panic, fearing for his life, he would suddenly no longer be hysterical. Not a very common experience.

[SMOKE 1,426]

Yes. Funny how the screams stopped when someone was shot in the chest.

thats most likely because the assault had stopped at that point. noone attacking him, he stopped screaming for help..go figure

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

thats most likely because the assault had stopped at that point. noone attacking him, he stopped screaming for help..go figure

Maybe he wasn't as scared as he made out to be.

[SMOKE 1,426]

Maybe he wasn't as scared as he made out to be.

you and others have stated multiple times he was a puss. his mma coach agreed. so, was he a puss or a badass? Edited July 9, 2013 by SMOKE

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

you and others have stated multiple times he was a puss. his mma coach agreed. so, was he a puss or a badass?

The gun makes the puss into a badass, but never a man.

[SMOKE 1,426]

The gun makes the puss into a badass, but never a man.

so would a puss with a gun scream for help?...yes