Trayvon Martin Case

[GG]

Where? How? When?

 

I was the one saying TIME AND TIME AGAIN that threre was a lot of information left to surface and that the process should unfold.

 

Not that I expect you to retract the statement - you'll just find a way around it but, here goes anyway:

 

Keep in mind that the thread was created on March 20

 

On March 20th, I said:

 

"1. Who started the struggle - the only one who knows that is Zimmerman (assuming that if there were eye-witnesses with substantive details it would have led to Zimmerman's arrest). The court, though, is obliged to draw inferences based on circumstantial data."

 

Post#112 On March 23rd, I said:

 

"The fact is, there are still some outstanding issues that need to be brought to light.

 

I tend to think that, at least presumptively, Zimmerman is culpable for an illegal act because:

 

-He appears to have ignored the admonitions of police during the 911 phone call

-He had a weapon and appeared to have adjudicated the matter in his mind (based on his comments to 911 dispatcher)

-He couldn't point to anything that Martin was doing wrong during the call. Martin wasn't encroaching on someone else's property, nor was he randomly looking into vehicles. In fact, there was nothing said that indicated that he was doing anything that would even justify a simple Terry stop.

 

So based on these CIRCUMSTANTIAL things, and without the benefit of any additional info, Zimmerman is gonna be on the hook for some kind of criminal offense."

 

 

On March 25th, I said:

 

Juror#8 - Post 240

 

"The man definitely deserves a fair trial. If there is a trial, there needs to be a venue change. The local jury pool is probably tainted. I hope the judge closes off the proceedings and sequesters the jury and puts a gag order on everyone.

 

It will be a sad if Sharpton begins broadcasting his show from the courthouse doors.

 

This matter needs to be properly and fairly adjudicated."

 

On March 26th, I said in Post# 267:

 

"White folks seem to have either said that Zimmerman's innocent, or they've said let the judicial process take it's course and arrive at a fair determination.

 

Black folks seem to be almost entirely of the opinion that Zimmerman has already been adjudicated and was found "guilty." No real trial. No due process.

 

The irony is that for hundreds of years black folks fought for due process under the law - especially in states that traditionally usurped that kind of fair and institutionalized jurisprudence. It really should be black folks who are at the proverbial head of the "give the man a fair trial" class."

 

Post #335 - March 27:

 

"At the end of the day, NOTHING has changed. As mentioned above, if it is true that Martin took a punch at him or that Zimmerman was getting his ass kicked, it doesn't really impact the above considerations ESPECIALLY if Zimmerman called Martin a "coon."

 

Those claiming that the scales are tipping toward Zimmerman and Martin advocates are being somehow exposed as "wrong" fundamentally misunderstand the law and the how these circumstances fit within the law's complex tapestry.

 

The best thing to do is to let the matter unfold fully. Zimmerman deserves a fair and impartial adjudication of these issues. Martin's family does too."

 

Post #343

 

"Secondly, IF Zimmerman hurled a racial slur at Martin, in concert with him following him, without an articulable crime having been committed, at night, against the admonition of police, replete with a weapon - it is going to create, at least, a rebuttable presumption of Zimmerman being the initial aggressor."

 

Post#369

 

"I, like everyone else, have their opinions based on the evidence that has been put forth to date. But I have been careful to distinguish MY OPINION from black letter law and analysis of that law.

 

In fact, my opinion hasn't even settled. I don't have any opinion about Zimmerman's criminal guilt or innocence. If certain things come to fruition, that may change. As of now, I believe the same thing that I believed a week ago when I wrote my first post on this matter:

 

-He should have been arrested pending the outcome of an investigation

-He went against the admonition of the police entity and followed a gentleman who didn't commit an articulable crime

-He is bigger than Martin (which is only relevant in a proportionality context)

-He had a weapon; Martin didn't"

 

 

What does it say about you that you'd make that kind of statement in the face of all this contrary evidence?

 

Maybe you're hung up on me calling him a "thug." I still think that. Zimmerman shot a kid who was going upside his head instead of fighting like a man.

 

Again, you said this:

 

 

 

Reading the posts that I've quoted, is that really how you feel? You still think that's a fair statement?

 

I wonder why you didn't bring up post #2 in this thread?

[B-Man]

I wonder why you didn't bring up post #2 in this thread?

 

Now GG,

 

Why did you want to go and point out that particular hypocrisy,

 

to the board's self-appointed hypocrisy judge ?

 

lol..............

 

 

 

 

.

Edited March 1, 2013 by B-Man

[TakeYouToTasker]

I have only opined when discussing WHY ZIMMERMAN DIDN'T HAVE TO SHOOT TRAYVON. In that context, I've mentioned that fights happened often. That THE ONLY THING WE KNOW FOR SURE is that the inciting incident was Zimmerman exiting his car in pursuit of a young man who was doing nothing criminally wrong. That Zimmerman could have fought the younger, lighter boy like a man. Otherwise, he should have taken his ass whoopin and both could have lived to fight another day. That the pictures of the back of Zimmerman's head didn't suggest AT ALL that his head was slammed into concrete. And most importantly, that the reasonable 190 lb. 35 year old man shouldn't have been afraid for life and limb from a fist fight with a 150 lb. 17 year old.

Thing is, your opinion as to whether Zimmerman should have endured his beating after he was assaulted has no bearing on anything. Following someone is not unlawful, especially in the scope of the way Zimmerman was doing it. The only criminal act commited was the assault comitted by Martin, and Zimmerman, nor anyone else, should be asked to endure a criminal assault just because you or anyone else feels that they should when the state in question allows them to defend themselves.

[meazza]

I wonder why you didn't bring up post #2 in this thread?

 

Just in case anyone didn't feel like going back in time:

 

Been following it. The story was shown on Good Morning America yesterday and some cable news outlets last night.

 

Al Sharpton (predictably) and his Nation Action Network will be there in FL on Thursday.

 

Apparently the alleged perpetrator had a fixation on crime and young black males. Sounds like a fake-ass Elvis Presley.

 

At the end of the day, the fact that Zimmerman was not arrested on the scene is an absolute farce. The dispositive legal issue is that he got out of his vehicle, with a weapon, under no pretense that he was in danger or that Martin had committed a felonious act, to pursue an individual who was unarmed, and moving away from him, and that Zimmerman is taller and 100 lbs heavier than Mr. Martin.

 

Those are incontrovertible facts that will be dispositive in both the criminal case against the Zimmerman, the civil suit against Zimmerman, and what (in this ESQ's estimation) should probably be a colorable negligent entrustment action against the housing community/community-watch group.

 

On the strength of those facts, Zimmerman should have been arrested. In most square places, Zimmerman is awaiting arraignment right now.

Edited February 28, 2013 by meazza

[Rob's House]

In fairness to Juror #8, he was much more measured in his assessment than the race-baiting reactionaries who had their pitchforks ready as soon as they heard about the Skittles.

Edited February 28, 2013 by Rob's House

[Alaska Darin]

The first rule of self defense is knowing what you're dealing with and exactly how far you're prepared to go the second you make a decision to confront. If someone is following you and you decide to initiate violence, you'd better be damn sure you're ready to kill that person because they may escalate to that level very quickly, especially in a concealed carry state.

 

Trayvon Martin made a choice. He likely saw Zimmerman as an easy mark and decided to bow up. He was dead wrong.

That the pictures of the back of Zimmerman's head didn't suggest AT ALL that his head was slammed into concrete.

Why? Because you watch CSI? Dude, STFU.

And most importantly, that the reasonable 190 lb. 35 year old man shouldn't have been afraid for life and limb from a fist fight with a 150 lb. 17 year old.

Actually, a 35 year old man is exactly who is going to be afraid of a fight. Because 99.9% of 35 year old men haven't been in a fight in decades and quite frankly have a well founded fear of today's teens. There are stories all over the news about teenagers walking up and just punching people in the face for no reason, knocking them unconscious. in St Louis, a teenager KILLED a man over the summer doing exactly that. Another guy hasn't been able to work or even go outside because of the concussion level he suffered at the hands of a THIRTEEN year old.

 

People have the right to defend themselves. Any person who decides to escalate a situation to violence had better be prepared for that situation to escalate further, especially when they're dealing with someone who has something to lose.

[boyst]

Why do we keep letting assault be called getting an ass whooping? Does that not strike anyone as odd? It just seems like a way to downplay the fact that there was an assault in the fist place before the gun killed someone.

[Bigfatbillsfan]

Die thread!! Just DIE!!

[dayman]

Die thread!! Just DIE!!

 

lmfao "die thread"...isn't the hearing tomorrow? Or has it already happened? And if ends there this thread and America will go nuts...and if it goes to a jury this thread and America will go nuts...

[boyst]

lmfao "die thread"...isn't the hearing tomorrow? Or has it already happened? And if ends there this thread and America will go nuts...and if it goes to a jury this thread and America will go nuts...

Imagine it not going to trial? How could a Judge justify that to the voting public? More importantly, how could a judge not want the attention and fanfare?

[DC Tom]

Die thread!! Just DIE!!

 

Racist. If I had a thread, it would look just like this one.

[dayman]

Imagine it not going to trial? How could a Judge justify that to the voting public? More importantly, how could a judge not want the attention and fanfare?

 

I can imagine it not going to trial. And I can imagine stand your ground in the Fla Supreme Court.

[DC Tom]

And I can imagine stand your ground in the Fla Supreme Court.

 

I can't imagine what that decision would come down is. But I can't imagine the basis for that decision being anything but retarded either way.

[B-Man]

Why do we keep letting assault be called getting an ass whooping? Does that not strike anyone as odd? It just seems like a way to downplay the fact that there was an assault in the first place before the gun killed someone.

 

 

You are correct.

 

My other favorite "description" from one page back;

 

1. Trayvon was blithely walking through the community.

 

LOL.

 

Its all in the presentation ladies and gentlemen, it makes it very easy to spot the bias.

 

.

[dayman]

There is little reasoning, IMO, going into any opinion that uses this trial as a way to wage war on media bias.

[3rdnlng]

One bit of information that I think hasn't been considered here (recently at least) is the location of the altercation. If I remember correctly Zimmerman claimed he was returning to his vehicle when he was attacked and the location of the altercation along with the location of the vehicle bears that out.

 

Another pic of Zimmerman that night:

[Oxrock]

One bit of information that I think hasn't been considered here (recently at least) is the location of the altercation. If I remember correctly Zimmerman claimed he was returning to his vehicle when he was attacked and the location of the altercation along with the location of the vehicle bears that out.

 

Another pic of Zimmerman that night:

exactly. When told that he needn't follow, he said ok and didn't. He was heading back to his vehicle. The evidence will show this soon enough. How? GPS.

 

[3rdnlng]

exactly. When told that he needn't follow, he said ok and didn't. He was heading back to his vehicle. The evidence will show this soon enough. How? GPS.

 

Uh, I think they know where the vehicle was parked and where the altercation took place by eyewitnesses and observation. GPS might be able to indicate that he followed Martin, but Zimmerman admits that, at least according to the uncut 911 tape.

[Juror#8]

I wonder why you didn't bring up post #2 in this thread?

 

 

Wai...wai...wai...wai...wait.....

 

You said this:

 

when you were among the first on this site to pick up the media narrative of a cold blooded murder of an innocent black teenager, before any of the facts started coming out ...

 

That, according to you, is justified because I said this:

 

 

Been following it. The story was shown on Good Morning America yesterday and some cable news outlets last night.

 

Al Sharpton (predictably) and his Nation Action Network will be there in FL on Thursday.

 

APPARENTLY the alleged perpetrator had a fixation on crime and young black males. Sounds like a fake-ass Elvis Presley.

 

At the end of the day, the fact that Zimmerman was not arrested on the scene is an absolute farce. The dispositive legal issue is that he got out of his vehicle, with a weapon, under no pretense that he was in danger or that Martin had committed a felonious act, to pursue an individual who was unarmed, and moving away from him, and that Zimmerman is taller and 100 lbs heavier than Mr. Martin.

 

Those are incontrovertible facts that will be dispositive in both the criminal case against the Zimmerman, the civil suit against Zimmerman, and what (in this ESQ's estimation) should probably be a colorable negligent entrustment action against the housing community/community-watch group.

 

On the strength of those facts, Zimmerman should have been arrested. In most square places, Zimmerman is awaiting arraignment right now.

 

Despite this:

 

The fact is, there are still some outstanding issues that need to be brought to light.

 

And this:

 

There is a lot that still needs to be clarified about their confrontation. But because Zimmerman went against police admononition, and the confrontation occurred thereafter, I view him (at present) as presumptively at fault.

 

 

And this:

 

 

The irony is that for hundreds of years black folks fought for due process under the law - especially in states that traditionally usurped that kind of fair and institutionalized jurisprudence. It really should be black folks who are at the proverbial head of the "give the man a fair trial" class.

 

 

And this:

 

At the end of the day, NOTHING has changed. As mentioned above, if it is true that Martin took a punch at him or that Zimmerman was getting his ass kicked, it doesn't really impact the above considerations ESPECIALLY if Zimmerman called Martin a "coon."

...

The best thing to do is to let the matter unfold fully. Zimmerman deserves a fair and impartial adjudication of these issues. Martin's family does too.

...

 

Long way to go folks. Media is off-course. To them, Dave is still getting good PR from that Goliath thing. But everyone here thinking that a fight circumscribes this issue has never seen the inside of a courtroom as an advocate. That fight means little to nothing.

 

 

 

And this:

 

 

I'm saying, and I've said, that the man deserves a fair trial and nothing should be assumed as true. The lawyers are working within the periphery to figure out the details.

 

et cetera, et cetera, et cetera...

 

That you cherry pick ONE statement, that I preface with "apparently," to prove your sweeping statement that I was in league with the 'supposed' media witch hunt of Zimmerman (even though I say clearly in one post that the media is "off base") is ridiculous.

 

Just in case you were unaware, apparently (second definition), in this context, means:

 

ap·par·ent

adjective

 

according to appearances, initial evidence, incomplete results, etc.; ostensible rather than actual: He was the apparent winner of the election.

 

So now what? Did you miss that the first time around? Still sticking to your statement?

 

Your statement grows increasingly more suspect when you read my countless posts saying clearly "GIVE THE GUY A FAIR SHAKE."

 

What of those? Oh, I get it, why ruin a perfectly good hypothesis by acknowledging the existence of myriad contrary data points. That's why, in response to my earlier mention of the counteless posts that run contrary to your statement, you ignore them and say [paraphrasing] "what about post #2."

 

Ok, I'll take your post #2, and raise you post #112, #240, #267, #335, #343, #369, and a few others.

 

It appears as if you and B-Man (who I'm convinced can only interpret information if it comports with his pre-determined view of the issue - which is why he won't touch any point that I just made above; he'll just wait for someone else to make a witty comment and then piggy back) just want to advance an agenda instead of making square points.

 

It's odd that you would have taken that approach given that your response to me initially was a very cogent point about the community maps that, per usual, I acknowledged as evidentiary, and possibly affecting the disposition of the case.

 

I don't expect anything substantive from B-Man. But I'm very surprised at your approach to this.

Edited March 1, 2013 by Juror#8

[Juror#8]

The first rule of self defense is knowing what you're dealing with and exactly how far you're prepared to go the second you make a decision to confront. If someone is following you and you decide to initiate violence, you'd better be damn sure you're ready to kill that person because they may escalate to that level very quickly, especially in a concealed carry state.

 

Trayvon Martin made a choice. He likely saw Zimmerman as an easy mark and decided to bow up. He was dead wrong.

 

How do you know this? Simple question. Just give me a simple answer.

 

Why? Because you watch CSI? Dude, STFU.

 

We'll try this one more time? I haven't disrespected you. Show the same courtesy. Otherwise, just don't respond to my posts. You wouldn't say it to my face. Why be disingenuous here?

 

Actually, a 35 year old man is exactly who is going to be afraid of a fight. Because 99.9% of 35 year old men haven't been in a fight in decades and quite frankly have a well founded fear of today's teens. There are stories all over the news about teenagers walking up and just punching people in the face for no reason, knocking them unconscious. in St Louis, a teenager KILLED a man over the summer doing exactly that. Another guy hasn't been able to work or even go outside because of the concussion level he suffered at the hands of a THIRTEEN year old.

 

People have the right to defend themselves. Any person who decides to escalate a situation to violence had better be prepared for that situation to escalate further, especially when they're dealing with someone who has something to lose.

 

How do you know this? Simple question.

 

Your entire post is based on a singular assumption that you don't know to be true but yet you refuse to let go of:

 

Assumption: Trayvon later attacked Zimmerman after Zimmerman de-escalated the confrontation and was returning to his vehicle.

 

How do you know that to be true and why do you assume it?

 

*If you make your response personal again, just do us both a favor and save the response. I'm trying to keep it respectful with you. Hopefully you can contain your emotions and just answer my simple question*

 

Thing is, your opinion as to whether Zimmerman should have endured his beating after he was assaulted has no bearing on anything. Following someone is not unlawful, especially in the scope of the way Zimmerman was doing it. The only criminal act commited was the assault comitted by Martin, and Zimmerman, nor anyone else, should be asked to endure a criminal assault just because you or anyone else feels that they should when the state in question allows them to defend themselves.

 

WHAT ASSAULT COMMITTED BY MARTIN?!?!?!

 

How do you know that Zimmerman didn't encounter Trayvon again, push or swing at him, and then get his ass kicked. An "assault" is a legal term that doesn't mean someone was punched in the face. It requires "intent." How can you ascribe "intent" to Martin if you don't know what transpired priorly?

 

And are you sure you don't mean "battery"? Anyway, same point applies.

 

The only people presuming anything here is you and everyone else who keeps saying that Martin assaulted anyone. PROVE IT!

 

It is unbelieveable that people can literally create a narrative, say it enough times, and then address it as fact.

 

I HAVE BEEN THE ONLY ONE SAYING THAT NO ONE KNOWS WHAT HAPPENED BETWEEN ZIMMERMAN FOLLOWING MARTIN AND THE SUBSEQUENT ALTERCATION.

 

10 other people here speak on that interim period as if they know factually what happened. And, to add insult to injury, they use their SUPPOSITION to substantiate why Zimmerman was justified in his actions.

 

It feels like the fu(king "Twilight Zone" in here.

Edited March 1, 2013 by Juror#8