Trayvon Martin's murderer George Zimmerman is still a free man

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Go ahead and read my other posts

You really think "well, maybe he was blocking the way back to his Mom's house' would stand up in court?? C'mon man. And I'm not picking on Yolland (Yolland is awesome), it was just the most recent

I have no clue what you are going on about. Who is arguing this?


All I was talking about is how the system allows you to string evidence together in order to make your case.


You're going to piece together the 911 calls, you're going to piece together an audio forensic testimony, you're going to piece together his phone call and Zimmerman's account of him running away, you're going to piece together all these facts and put together a timeline. Both sides are, this is how it's done, but you keep pretending that this is all somehow being made up out of thin air.
 
I have no clue what you are going on about. Who is arguing this?

The post that I was responding to that you quoted me on. Do you not even read the post I was responding to before quoting me?
 
So what would the screaming have been about?
Well at least one 911 call mentioned that there were men wrestling, so that part has been in the narrative since the begining, so I have no clue as to why you're asking this.

I'm sure your elective makes you just as qualified for this as mine does at being an astrophysicist

Oh for fuck sake, that's why I said "a little" and didn't call myself an expert by any means. You're acting like you're arguing with diamond.

But there have been several experts that say this argument is possible and that if you can prove it's too far off from Zimmerman's voice patterns and you can give enough testimony that these characteristics were made by a younger voice then it gives doubt to it being Zimmerman.
 
But there have been several experts that say this argument is possible and that if you can prove it's too far off from Zimmerman's voice patterns and you can give enough testimony that these characteristics were made by a younger voice then it gives doubt to it being Zimmerman.

Fair. But if if if. As far as I can tell, no one has done it yet, but you seem to have already decided for yourself
 
Oh for fuck sake, that's why I said "a little" and didn't call myself an expert by any means. You're acting like you're arguing with diamond.

Just a little healthy ribbing. Don't take it so personally ;)
 
Jive Turkey said:
Fair. But if if if. As far as I can tell, no one has done it yet, but you seem to have already decided for yourself

I haven't spoken in any absolutes, just stating opinions like everyone else.
 
You really think "well, maybe he was blocking the way back to his Mom's house' would stand up in court??
But to make assumptions like 'well, he ran at first, so he wouldn't have changed his mind and decided to confront Zimmerman' or 'Maybe Zimmerman was blocking his way back to his Mom's house and looked like he was lying in wait' have no basis in anything. Just because the guy initially ran doesn't mean that he couldn't have turned back around.
You guys are making all kinds of assumptions about this kid's actions based on what is allegedly a 5 year old photo of him. For all we know, he was an asshole. (just as Zimmerman could very well be an asshole)
Whoa, you're really misreading where I was coming from. I said I thought Zimmerman's story really strains credulity, not that I assume it's outside the realm of all possibility. Of course it's possible. I didn't say anything about what I thought would "hold up in court" (if this case ever makes it there, which is the whole point of the protests); anyway, Martin wouldn't be the one being asked to justify his actions in court. And like everyone else following the story, I've seen probably a dozen photos of Trayvon Martin by this point; I'm well aware they're from different times. I'm not the type to make assumptions about someone's character, let alone behavior in a given situation, just because mom has a cute old snapshot to produce.
 
Whoa, you're really misreading where I was coming from. I said I thought Zimmerman's story really strains credulity, not that I assume it's outside the realm of all possibility. Of course it's possible. I didn't say anything about what I thought would "hold up in court" (if this case ever makes it there, which is the whole point of the protests); anyway, Martin wouldn't be the one being asked to justify his actions in court. And like everyone else following the story, I've seen probably a dozen photos of Trayvon Martin by this point; I'm well aware they're from different times. I'm not the type to make assumptions about someone's character, let alone behavior in a given situation, just because mom has a cute old snapshot to produce.

Fair enough. And I probably just jumped on yours because it was the most recent, but it seems so many people have painted Martin as the harmless, skittle eating teenager and Zimmerman as the angry, gun toting racists and have let their ideas of the events be coloured as such. I'm not on either side (I don't even care all that much about it, to be honest), but it's difficult not to be exposed to these things these days.
The 'hold up in court' part was in response to BVS. I know that's not what you were getting at. Didn't mean to have to dragged into that part of the convo.
But anyway, to me, it seems like nearly everyone has made up their minds over what happened and even when new evidence or a new side of the story comes up, they try to fit it in with what they already believe or dismiss it all together. Even the borderline libelous thread title rubs me the wrong way
 
What I really want to know is, why isn't anyone talking about this chilling detail?

from the Orlando Sentinel article

"With a single punch, Trayvon Martin decked the Neighborhood Watch volunteer who eventually shot and killed the unarmed 17-year-old, then Trayvon climbed on top of George Zimmerman and slammed his head into the sidewalk"

:panic:
 
Well I don't have any idea exactly what happened because I wasn't there. But I do think it's highly likely that George Zimmerman has incentive to describe a certain version of events. I do know that Trayvon is dead so he can't give his. And I think the media is reporting only one eyewitness so far whose account can back up Zimmerman's in any way. I think it's a 13 year old? Not sure about that. That doesn't matter if the witness is credible. From media reports so far it seems as if the police might have botched elements of the investigation, so that's not going to help.

Just saw this on yahoo.com

The lead homicide investigator in the shooting of unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin recommended that neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter the night of the shooting, multiple sources told ABC News.

But Sanford, Fla., Investigator Chris Serino was instructed to not press charges against Zimmerman because the state attorney's office headed by Norman Wolfinger determined there wasn't enough evidence to lead to a conviction, the sources told ABC News.

Police brought Zimmerman into the station for questioning for a few hours on the night of the shooting, said Zimmerman's attorney, despite his request for medical attention first. Ultimately they had to accept Zimmerman's claim of self defense. He was never charged with a crime.

Serino filed an affidavit on Feb. 26, the night that Martin was shot and killed by Zimmerman, that stated he was unconvinced Zimmerman's version of events.

Zimmerman, 28, claimed he shot Martin, 17, in self defense.

One complicating factor in the investigation was that the first detective to interview Zimmerman about the shooting was a narcotics officer rather than a homicide detective.

The State Attorney's office said only "no comment" when asked about the affidavit today.
 
I agree. Some person following you in a non police vehicle, in the dark (I'm assuming it was completely dark). That neighbor of Zimmerman's who keeps defending him on tv, he said that all that Trayvon had to do was give him his name and justify his presence there, I guess, by saying what he was doing there. Like lawyers have said on tv, you don't even have to give that info to a police officer per the US Constitution. I've had an experience being harassed by a cop while just walking down a street and I regretfully gave him my name, only because I know how some of them tend to react when you refuse to follow their "orders". Small town cops with nothing else to do.

Agreed.

Besides that, as stated, he was there to see his dad. He had a very logical reason to be there, 'cause he knew someone there. It's not like he was walking around peeping in people's windows at random or something. Why should he have needed to justify his being there to anyone else?

Anyway, the whole pot thing..and apparently his Facebook page had some photos that some people are calling "menacing" that have been taken down. I know nothing about the accuracy of that. One thing I read said he had gold teeth? Apparently that makes you a thug and a criminal.

I guess, apparently :rolleyes:. Boy, going by that logic, tons of young people in my town are likely criminals, then.

And posing all tough and cool on Facebook? Have the people who are freaking about that LOOKED at Facebook? It's kind of a common activity.

What could have avoided the whole thing was Zimmerman backing off and not following Trayvon, like he was instructed to do.

Yes. One of the calls does have a 911 operator warning him not to follow the guy. He should have done that, and this all could've been sorted out peacefully (relatively so, at least) in a few minutes' time as a horrible misunderstanding.

That is the account Zimmerman gave police, and much of it has been corroborated by witnesses, authorities say. There have been no reports that a witness saw the initial punch Zimmerman told police about.

This is another problem. Nobody saw the initial punch, and people supposedly saw the last of the fight before the gunshot. We're going by what witnesses heard, mostly, and chances are some of them are probably picking their sides already, so we're never going to get accurate accounts from them. Further proof why witness testimony is difficult to use in court cases.

On Feb. 26, when Zimmerman first spotted Trayvon, he called police and reported a suspicious person, describing Trayvon as black, acting strangely and perhaps on drugs.

This is telling enough right here. What was he doing that was considered "acting strangely", and how did he theorize the kid was "perhaps on drugs"?

Zimmerman got out of his SUV to follow Trayvon on foot. When a dispatch employee asked Zimmerman if he was following the 17-year-old, Zimmerman said yes. The dispatcher told Zimmerman he did not need to do that.

Exactly. Why didn't he just stay on the phone with the 911 operator then and relay any more information about the kid to them and let the police deal with it. What exactly was he hoping to achieve by following Trayvon, if he'd caught up with him, what was he planning to do after that? Confront the kid? Try and make a "citizen's arrest"? Search him for the alleged drugs? What? That's what I'd be curious to know.

Again, even if his account is more along the lines of what happened, he still started it by following the kid and making assumptions instead of just holding back and letting more experienced people handle the situation. He has a history of harassing his neighbors and 911 with calls about activity in his neighborhood. If Trayvon did attack him, that was wrong, he shouldn't have done that, he should have just gone home and ignored Zimmerman, maybe told his dad that the guy had been following and harassing him, and then they could've dealt with it from there.

But there was no need for Zimmerman to pull out a gun and shoot the kid, and none of this would've happened if he'd listened to the 911 operator in the first place. He's still in the wrong.
 
For me the only real game changers would be if:

a) It comes to light that Trayvon really was up to criminal activity at the time
b) It comes to light that Travyon was actually armed as well.

All these other "revelations" about Trayvon and his suspension, and Trayvon attacking Zimmerman don't mean a hell of a lot to me.
 
For me the only real game changers would be if:

a) It comes to light that Trayvon really was up to criminal activity at the time
b) It comes to light that Travyon was actually armed as well.

All these other "revelations" about Trayvon and his suspension, and Trayvon attacking Zimmerman don't mean a hell of a lot to me.


I take it you mean both a and b

I have been the victim of having my personal property stolen several times
I don't believe I would have ever been justified in killing someone to protect property
 
For me the only real game changers would be if:

a) It comes to light that Trayvon really was up to criminal activity at the time
b) It comes to light that Travyon was actually armed as well.

All these other "revelations" about Trayvon and his suspension, and Trayvon attacking Zimmerman don't mean a hell of a lot to me.

Bingo :up:.
 
The accusation was that he was 'on drugs' or something. Have you never seen anyone that's smoked weed before? Are you telling me you'd be able to tell from a distance in the dark? When people say someone must be 'on drugs', they aren't talking about weed
 
This convergence of race-hustlers, media whores, political opportunists, quick-to-judge pundits and assorted agitators is reminding me of the Jena 6 controversy as well as the Duke lacrosse case. :sad:
 
The school records of a minor are protected by state and federal law. Parents would have to sign a consent form allowing release. So if the police leaked it, whatever their motives might be, or someone at the school was paid off-it was illegal. Even if a minor is deceased, there is plenty of precedent that allows for those records to remain legally private. He was never arrested and never charged with anything criminally.
 
This convergence of race-hustlers, media whores, political opportunists, quick-to-judge pundits and assorted agitators is reminding me of the Jena 6 controversy as well as the Duke lacrosse case. :sad:

You mean Michael Savage, Michelle Mauckin, Laura Inghram and Rush?

Yeah, I agree.
 
the problem is we don't know the majority of facts, we only know assumptions made by the press, who slant the story to fit whatever will get the most ratings... so they call an apartment complex a "gated community" and call a hispanic person "white hispanic" as to make the story more outrageous than it needs to be... then those on the right get annoyed at that side and start to assassinate the character of a 17 year old kid, who we know nothing more about than that he got in trouble in high school... how many of us didn't get in trouble in high school?

the likely story is that a douchebag racist hispanic neighborhood watch wanna-be cop decided to take matters in his own hands, picked a kid who wasn't scared and would run away, got into a tussle, and shot him. that's tragic enough in it's own right... it doesn't need to be inflamed by the media anymore than that.

there's only one fact that we really know... this kid shouldn't be dead.
 
i think this is even more of an issue about guns.


Well he was carrying that legally. His background of "run ins" with the law wasn't enough to prevent that. Why a neighborhood watch guy was "patrolling" with a gun, well I think that might be the real problem. That doesn't sound like it would be standard practice.

With any crime or situation like this that escalates, if that's what happened here, people could bring up the general issue of abundance and availability of guns.
 
i think this is even more of an issue about guns.

:up:


we've got too many people who treat the constitution the same way that religious wackos treat the bible or the quran... as it's the word, unchangeable, couldn't possibly be wrong, must live by it 100%.

the founding fathers designed it to be a living, breathing document. not the word of god.
 
Well he was carrying that legally. His background of "run ins" with the law wasn't enough to prevent that. Why a neighborhood watch guy was "patrolling" with a gun, well I think that might be the real problem. That doesn't sound like it would be standard practice.

While in Florida, I saw just a bit of a front page article on a local paper that mentioned it was not part of the neighborhood watch procedure/rules to patrol with a gun.

(Full disclosure: I didn't read the full article, but from the bit I saw, I think I have that right.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom